1
$\begingroup$

I hear it stated quite often that aircraft like to fly high because there's less drag at higher altitudes.

$$ \text{Range} = \frac{V}{g} \frac{1}{\text{SFC}} \frac{L}{D} \ln \left( \frac{W_\text{initial}}{W_\text{final}} \right) \; . $$

Aside from SFC, it seems that none of the components of the range equation are altitude dependent. Lift/Drag should remain constant assuming the lift and drag coefficients remain constant. Therefore, is it incorrect to say that there is a benefit to range flying at a higher altitude due to decreased drag?

Another question is, does the lift/drag ratio of an aircraft increase somehow at higher altitudes?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

There's less drag at the same speed (and other things being equal, aside from altitude).

This is due to lower air density at higher altitude, which linearly affects drag. But just the same, it affects lift! You get less drag, but less lift too. If you want to fly level, you can't afford that: lift must be equal weight.

So what do you do to restore lift? You either fly faster, or increase angle of attack (AoA), or both. Either way, drag will roughly be the same.

Flying faster with the same drag is the benefit. However, sooner or later you'll hit the speed limit. (Most commonly for jets, this will be the Mach limit). From then on, you can only increase AoA.

Changing the AoA affects the L/D ratio. It may increase or decrease, depending on how the wing was designed. There is a certain AoA which will be the 'best'. If the jet was optimised for cruise, it will fly close to that angle.

Does it make any sense to fly even higher, where you have to increase AoA past the best L/D angle? It might, but not much. Primarily because you might squeeze a little better fuel consumption in colder air (that SFC component), so the optimum may be slightly higher. But flying at a higher-than-optimal AoA may be unstable by speed. (Which is manageable, but is another difficulty you don't want).

At some point, you will exhaust either the AoA, getting dangerously close to stall (while, remember, being at the speed limit at the same time - the so called 'coffin corner'), or thrust: it will keep reducing in thinner air, until it becomes lower than drag. That's your ceiling.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first sentence could be clarified by stating less drag at the same indicated airspeed. (Because TAS is higher...) $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '20 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes, this all makes sense. To clarify, will an altitude be reached where the optimal cruise Mach for an aircraft will no longer provide enough lift at maximum L/D? Can this altitude be above the troposphere, and can flight planning put the plane above the troposphere to extend range? Thanks, this question has been on my mind. $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '20 at 1:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelHall don't you mean less drag at the same TAS? The drag at the same indicated a/s should be the same, the dynamic pressure being the same. $\endgroup$
    – John K
    Nov 18 '20 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ @RoryMcDonald most airliners already cruise above the troposphere except in the tropical lats where the trop is closer to 40000 ft. At mid latitudes it's in the low-mid 30s, and in the north in the 20s, and as low as the teens in the arctic in winter. $\endgroup$
    – John K
    Nov 18 '20 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ @John K, no... I meant what I said, but probably not clear. Trying to point out that for a constant drag at cruise IAS there is a benefit to higher TAS for the same IAS at altitude. $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '20 at 21:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.