When flying, do you travel at a higher altitude the further you go?

Question

When flying, do you travel at a higher altitude the further you go?

Answer 1

Height has no relationship to the distance you will go. Both are independent of each other.

Answer 2

In general, yes.  There are several factors that were previously mentioned.  The biggest reason, especially in recent times, is fuel savings.  You also get a better true airspeed at higher altitudes.

Answer 3

I would have thought so, but I guess not.

Height isn't related to distance? So if the flight is 200 miles, it's beneficial to climb to 30k and come back down to save fuel? Seems like it would cost more to attain that altitude.

Got it, I guess I learned something too.

Answer 4

Only if you don't stop pulling back on the 'stick'.

Answer 5

Aircraft typically have a "sweet spot" for altitude at which they are particularly economical with fuel and/or performant.  This spot varies slightly with flight conditions, weather, payload, fuel load, weight and balance, and so on, but for a given aircraft it usually doesn't vary enormously.  Flying the aircraft at the right altitude can use a minimal amount of fuel compared to flying at some other altitude, and/or it can also provide maximum performance (speed).  The longer the trip, the more important economy and performance is likely to be.

For many aircraft, flying higher means using less fuel, up to a certain limit that varies by aircraft.  A small prop-driven aircraft might be particularly efficient at, say, 6000 feet, and might use more fuel above or below that altitude.  A large airliner might have its "sweet spot" somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, depending on a lot of factors.  Flying at the right altitude is especially important for airlines because fuel is so expensive.

The altitude that gives the best fuel economy usually isn't the same as the altitude that gives the best performance, so often a compromise is used.

Part of the cost of a flight is the climb to cruising altitude.  For short flights, it's not economical to climb to high altitude, even if that might mean using less fuel during the cruise phase of the flight (because the cruise phase is very short for a short flight).  Take-off and the initial climb to altitude use a lot of fuel.  Thus, for long trips, climbing to a high altitude in order to save fuel during several hours of cruise might more than compensate for the cost of the fuel required to clime that high, whereas for short trips, the cost of the climb outweighs the small savings that might be gained during a brief cruise at optimum altitude.

Answer 6

The higher you go, the farther you can go due to the reduced density of the atmosphere.

Answer 7

No sir.  The pilots go higher after take-off to get to the altitude assigned to them(obviously). When at their assigned altitude...they set their plane facing 0 as opposed to -5 (which is lower) or 5(which is higher). 0 means the plane is going straight and NOT up or down.

at least that is how it is in my A320

Answer 8

i think thats true because planes must stay out of other airports airspaces while flying.

there are probably other reasons.

Answer 9

To a point. For a short trip, there's no point in climbing all the way up just to have to go back down. For a longer trip, it makes sense to climb to the altitude at which the airplane's efficiency is maximum.

Many other factors may influence your choice of altitude than just trip length, of course. These may include winds aloft, airspace design (altitude based speed limits, restricted airspaces), other weather factors (icing, turbulence, air temperature), traffic (ATC requests, avoiding congested areas or areas with poor radar coverage), terrain (mountains) and so on.

Answer 10

No.  Altitude depends on aircraft capabilities and weight.  Very short flights may stay at lower altitudes, but they still go as high as they can to save fuel.