Sabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7293 times:
Coincidentally I read in Lufthansa's Balance Magazine today that the A 340-600 is the most fuel efficient plane in their fleet, the fuel consumption of this plane is 2.7 liters per 100 passenger kilometer.
I don't know if that is the most fuel efficient plane though.
Greasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3066 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7235 times:
This is like asking which apple tastes better. The is no 1 aircraft at the top. It all depends on factors such as weather...Operating procedures.........0perating areas ..Operating countries.....Pilot differences....And engine age...Etc.
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6644 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7116 times:
Are you limiting this to jet airliners?
LH says 0.027 liters per passenger-kilometer for A340-600
SAS says 0.039 liters per seat-km for A340-300, so more than 0.039 per pax-km
Apparently they're comparing different circumstances.
"It all depends on factors such as weather...Operating procedures.........0perating areas ..Operating countries.....Pilot differences....And engine age...Etc."
But theoretically we should be able to set all those equal for two aircraft being compared. The question is a perfectly sensible one, but don't plan on getting any definitive answers.
An additional complication: the "most fuel-efficient aircraft" of a given payload, other things being equal, will be the one with the shortest range-- i.e. the one with the lowest MTOW for that payload.
Kl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5066 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7089 times:
I think we should be able to measure this by looking at the max loaded max range. Having that we can have 3 categories: 1/3 , 2/3 and full range fuel consumption. That case we can also look at planes that are build for short range, or for only long range.
( I just wonder if airlines are gonna give me the data.... )
TransPac From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6899 times:
I agree with Greasespot. Some aircraft could be more fuel efficient for some uses and less for others. Perhaps if you narrowed it down into categories it would be easier to determine. Even then it wouldn't be all that exact but you could probably get ballpark figures.
DENSFONUA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6689 times:
I went hunting and found data from Boeing and Airbus about range, payload, fuel etc. I then calculated the payload-range per fuel that the plane has in megagram kilometers per kilogram of fuel (I am using only weight because the same model of aircraft can vary immensely in the number of seats it has: SQ only puts ±180 seats on their A345's, but Airbus advertises that airplane to carry >300 pax in standard configuration). I calculated three values: the efficiency of the plane with no cargo, pax, pilot or dust (the OEW + Max Fuel), the efficiency with standard pax (as defined by the manufacturer), and the efficiency with full cargo. All of these calculations are for maximum range at the cargo weights. This analysis yielded that:
1) The A345 is the most efficient without any cargo, passengers, crew or dust with (36.4 MgKm/Kg)
2) The 772LR (preliminary data) is the most efficient with a standard load of pax (37.4 MgKm/Kg)
3) The 772LR (preliminary data) is the most efficient with max cargo (29.8 MgKm/Kg)
Looking only at a load of passengers, this is the order of aircraft currently in production, or far enough along in design / build phase that preliminary data has been released by Boeing and Airbus:
772LR, A345, A346, 773ER, A388, A343, A342, A333, 772ER, 744, 744ER, 764ER, A332, 772A, A321, A319, A318, 738, 73G, 739, A320, 736, 717
If you have any further questions, feel free to e-mail me , and I will send you my full 38 page document. It is also important to note that fuel efficiency does not directly translate into operational efficiency, for more details, I can send you the full document that examines these issues in more depth.
(I was wondering, should this be moved into CivAv or Tech/Ops? This is not an opinion question, it has some definite answer, so maybe it should be in a different forum?)
UA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1694 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6644 times:
I think it would be the 777-200 and 757-200 as most major airlines (in the US) (especially the ones that are struggling) have upped the service on these aircrafts. Notice how AA, UA, Delta ( DL or DA ?), NW, CO, US have used these aircraft more frequently.
DENSFONUA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6621 times:
Here is the more complete table, sorry it is so difficult to read (and has so little data), it is part of what is in the excel file. Again, if you want all of it, I can e-mail it to you. This is the list for only the highest gross weight models of each type of aircraft [i.e. only the highest gross weight 772A is listed]. The larger the number the better (that means more cargo [in Megagrams] can be carried farther [kilometers] for the same fuel [kilograms]). Also note that the Mgkm/kg max is not really achievable: this is possible operating at OEW, so there would be no pilot, no dog to bite the pilot for touching the controls, and the aircraft would have been recently vacuumed so there is no dust—I would in general disregard this number, as it is meaningless for real operations. Mgkm/kg pax and Mgkm/kg Cargo are more useful numbers, for that is closer to how airlines operate planes in revenue service. Also remember, just since an airliner has good Mgkm/kg rating, it is not necessarily the most efficient aircraft overall in its category: only good for particular types of operations. For instance, this analysis suggests that the A345 works wonderfully on ULH routes with very little cargo / pax, where the 772LR works better on slightly shorter ULH routes with more cargo / pax. So, an airline will purchase an aircraft that is optimized for the operating environment that the particular airline will use the aircraft for most frequently. I am sorry I cannot get the table to have more normal formatting
DENSFONUA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6586 times:
Ok, I will do my best. Here is the process for the 772LR:
First, the numbers:
MOTW: 347.8 Mg
Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW): 209.1 Mg
Operational Empty Weight (OEW): 145.1 Mg
Maximum Structural Payload (MSP): 64.0 Mg
Max Fuel Weight (MFW): 162.4 Mg
Pax Weight: 40.3Mg
Max Range: 18890 km
Max Range w/pax: 17446 km
Max Range @MSFW: 13890 km
Then I can calculate the efficiency in Mgkm/kg.
Mgkm/kg Max = (OEW + MFW) * Max Range / MFW
= (145.1 + 162.4) + 18890 / 162.4 = 35.8 = Mgkm/kg
I hope this makes sense. The last two numbers are the efficiencies of the aircraft at the two extremes at MTOW: with pax only, and with full cargo. Again, these numbers do not completely tell us exactly how efficient the plane is for every utilization, but gives a good idea about its efficiency.