Ember transport and subsequent spot-fire development is an important mechanism of fire propagation, particularly in extreme conditions, and particularly in the eucalypt forests of Australia. Early modelling of ember transport used a combination of analytical and experimental work with appropriate simplifying assumptions. One of these simplifying assumptions is the so-called terminal-velocity assumption, in which embers are assumed to fall at all times at their terminal velocities with respect to the wind field. With the advent of high-speed computers, more elaborate sets of equations of motion can be solved numerically to model ember transport, and the terminal-velocity assumption has become less important. However, this adds computational cost and the assumption is sometimes still used. Thurston et al. (2017) used the terminal-velocity assumption to study long-range ember transport in turbulent plumes using a large eddy simulation (LES) model. However, Koo et al. (2012) have modelled surface fire using a high-resolution coupled atmosphere-fire model and showed that simulations of short-range ember transport using the terminal velocity assumption underestimated ember travel distances substantially when compared with simulations in which the assumption was not made. In this preliminary study the validity of the terminal-velocity assumption was examined in the context of the long-range transport of embers in turbulent plumes. The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (Skamarock et al., 2008) was used in LES mode to simulate a plume in a turbulent boundary layer. Using the resulting wind field, the transport of embers was modelled under various assumptions, and the results were compared. The effects of combustion were not considered. It was found that if a constant terminal velocity was assumed, then the use of the terminal-velocity assumption overestimated ember travel distances compared with simulations in which the assumption was not made. This effect was attributed partly to variations in atmospheric density, and partly to the fact that embers have momentum, and do not respond instantly to changes in the incident wind field.