Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Many thanks for the answers!
So, just to make sure I understood everything correctly: Essentially what I am taking from this, is that wind is always "bad" in terms of fuel consumption no matter in which direction it blows. Consequently, the aircraft is able to fly longer distances with the same amount of fuel when there is no wind compared to a situation with wind (be it tailwind or headwind). Is this correct?
I used to regularly fly the route taken by RAF bombers from what was RAF Middleton St George to Netherlands Schipol. There isn't a prevailing wind, it changes with the seasons and depends on the time of year and position of weather fronts. There isn't a fixed route especially from Schipol, sometimes you go direct across the N Sea other times up the English coast and other times up the centre of England flying up the Tees valley to land. The route chosen to avoid strong head winds or catch tail winds. On a one hour flight this could add or take off 10 minutes. It was a similar situation Schipol to Hanover sometimes a head wind some times a tail wind, usually nothing of any significance to a jet.Many thanks for the answers!
So, just to make sure I understood everything correctly: Essentially what I am taking from this, is that wind is always "bad" in terms of fuel consumption no matter in which direction it blows. Consequently, the aircraft is able to fly longer distances with the same amount of fuel when there is no wind compared to a situation with wind (be it tailwind or headwind). Is this correct?
Crosswind component always decreases groundspeed, on both outbound and return legs. It may be this that is causing the question from the O.P.Tailwinds decrease and headwinds increase fuel consumption. Crosswinds depends on direction and severity.
Cheers,
Biff
I know MI, I was just posting to show that their isn't really a prevailing wind, the wind at altitude can be different and that isn't just a "binary" difference either. The two charts show winds from East Anglia where most US bombers were based having crosswinds/tailwinds towards central Germany on one chart and tailwinds on the other.Well, the effect of winds can be adjusted to a considerable degree by changing altitude. USAAF bombers needed to be at 20,000 ft plus over the target to lessen the effects of AAA as well as make fighter interception more difficult. The FW-190 tended to run out of steam starting at about 20,000 ft and the Luftwaffe night fighter force would have had trouble getting up there, too.
On the way back from the target they could lose altitude if they avoided flak concentrations.
The winds at 20,000 will usually be quite a bit stronger than the surface winds.
Right now in the USA winds at 30,000 feet show several areas with wind speeds close 80-90 knots. At 40,000 even stronger in some areas.
That's certainly enough to impact time in flight.
And sometimes winds at higher altitudes show different directions than surface winds.
The winds at 20,000 will usually be quite a bit stronger than the surface winds.
Right now in the USA winds at 30,000 feet show several areas with wind speeds close 80-90 knots. At 40,000 even stronger in some areas.
That's certainly enough to impact time in flight.
And sometimes winds at higher altitudes show different directions than surface winds.