Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's The Most Fuel Efficient Commercial Plane?  
User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5136 posts, RR: 12
Posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8785 times:

Like the topic says, what is the most fuel efficient commercial plane at the moment? Please no guesses, or A vs B vs E.......... Facts please.

KL911

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8769 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.

Patrick

Edit: Grammar error

[Edited 2004-08-19 22:50:30]

User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8730 times:

'''the fuel consumption of this plane is 2.7 liters per 100 passenger kilometer.'''

Wouldn't it be easier to give the liter per passenger? That based on a full airplane. In that case you can compare a A318 to a A380. Do you mean 100 passengers or 100 km?

KL911


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8707 times:

...no subsonic commercial aircraft could match Concorde's efficiency during supercruise.

User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3084 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8706 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.

Greasespot



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?"
User currently offlineSabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8702 times:

Do you mean 100 passengers or 100 km?

I think it is 2.7 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers.

Patrick


User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2965 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8693 times:

Or for 100 passengers per km...
 Big grin



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offline320tech From Turks and Caicos Islands, joined May 2004, 491 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8688 times:

Do you mean 100 passengers or 100 km?

It's the amount of fuel required to transport 100 pax 1 km.

Wouldn't it be easier to give the liter per passenger?

That's much too small a number.  Smile



The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the manufacturer and impossible for the AME.
User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

'''Do you mean 100 passengers or 100 km?

It's the amount of fuel required to transport 100 pax 1 km.

Wouldn't it be easier to give the liter per passenger?

That's much too small a number. ''''



Pffff, My weekend started already, guess I have to slow down the beer...  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8652 times:

It may be a small number, but SAS specifies it  Big grin

A340-300: Fuel consumption 0.039 liters per seat per km.

The rest can be found at: http://www.sasflightops.com/ under "Fleet".



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8620 times:

I imagine that JAL does fairly well with their 600 seat 747SR's on a km basis.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8587 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.


User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8560 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....  Laugh out loud )

KL911


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8498 times:

Those l/seat/km figures are presumably for cruise too, and the JAL domestic 747s might not look so good if you counted the average comsumption.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTransPac From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8370 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.

User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8325 times:

'''Perhaps if you narrowed it down into categories it would be easier to determine'''

Look at post 12..... That would help.

 Laugh out loud
KL911


User currently offlineDENSFONUA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8160 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?)

(and it is my first post on airliners.net,  Smile )

-Chris


User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7106 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8140 times:

So, where abouts does the 744 fit in? I heard it was up there but that may heve been a while ago.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

I think this thread did start out in Civ Aviation-- hard to see why it got moved.

Chris, you said the 777LR is 20% less efficient with full cargo (plus pax?) than it is with "a standard load of pax"? You're saying it's less efficient with more payload?

If you've got numbers handy, let's see more of them. And you might as well spell out your assumed tonnes of payload.


User currently offlineUA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1730 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8115 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.

User currently offlineDENSFONUA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8092 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


Model    Pax       Mgkm    Mgkm    Mgkm    Mgkm(cargo)
             Weight  /kg        /kg        /kg        /kg
                         Max       Pax       Cargo
717       10.9      15.2      15.6      9.1        3.11
736       10.6      22.8      17.7      13.7      2.87
738       12.6      22.1      21.4      12.3      3.42
739       15.2      19.2      19.2      14.0      3.70
744       39.2      30.5      30.7      21.7      3.03
773       33.5      33.5      24.3      19.2      2.72
73G      11.0      23.0      20.9      12.7      3.28
744ER   39.2      33.0      30.4      25.1      2.89
764ER   19.0      28.7      29.1      17.5      2.71
772       33.5      31.5      26.0      18.6      3.43
772ER   33.5      35.2      30.9      25.3      3.49
772LR   40.3      35.8      37.4      29.8      4.33
773ER   39.1      33.5      34.0      25.0      3.78
A318     7.5        21.1      21.4      8.4        2.35
A319     10.5      24.1      21.6      14.6      3.00
A320     14.0      20.7      18.4      11.7      3.35
A321     17.5      22.2      22.1      13.6      4.14
A332     22.0      34.6      26.1      21.4      2.46
A333     28.0      30.4      28.2      22.5      3.64
A333     28.0      30.7      31.2      19.8      3.75
A342     21.0      32.4      32.7      25.3      2.50
A343     28.0      33.2      33.6      24.3      3.40
A345     30.0      36.4      36.1      24.5      2.91
A346     36.0      35.5      34.7      25.5      3.39
A388     45.0      0.0        33.7      27.0      2.71


I hope this helps some.

-Chris


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8071 times:

So far I haven't figured those out, and I'll bet the rest of us are equally baffled. Can you pick one aircraft and run through the example for us, showing us what each figure is and how you got it?

User currently offlineDENSFONUA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8057 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

Mgkm/kg Pax = MTOW * Range w/pax / (MTOW - OEW - Pax Weight)
= 347.8 * 17446 / (347.8 - 145.1 - 40.3) = 37.4 Mgkm/kg

Mgkm/kg @MZFW = MTOW * Range @ MZFW / (MTOW - MZFW)
= 347.8 * 13890 / (347.1 - 209.1) = 34.8 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.

-Chris


User currently offlineAeroflot777 From Russia, joined Mar 2004, 3007 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8049 times:

I would say the most fuel efficient: TU-154.  Laugh out loud

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8043 times:

Thanks for the example. So I guess the last column is tonne-kms-based-on-payload per tonne of fuel? And the other tonne-km/tonne figures include the weight of the plane itself.

I'm still mulling the table-- but surely the three 772s should have the same passenger payload? I'll see if that's why the 772LR came out most efficient.

And you've got 773 pax payload same as 772.

[Edited 2004-08-27 19:31:39]

25 DENSFONUA : Yes, the last column is for payload only, the first ones include the fuel and weight of the plane. The range charts Boeing provides show that the 772L
26 Timz : Waitaminnit-- ZFW minus OEW is total payload, not pax weight.
27 DENSFONUA : The chart lists the ZFW, and if you know the Range (the range is given by Boeing or Airbus), and the MTOW (all of these numbers are for MTOW), you can
28 Post contains links and images JHSfan : Thanks Sabena332 for the hint to Lufthansa's Balance Magazine Although you did not remember the info correctly, your hint is valuable. Balance 2004 ca
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's The Most Time You've Spent On Airliners.net posted Thu Sep 30 2004 06:18:54 by KDTWFlyer
What's The Most Unstable Airline Alliance? posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:33:51 by Trolley Dolley
What Is The Most Beautiful Airraft Ever Made? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 17:57:07 by Lockheed
What Caribbean Airport Has The Most Non-stops? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 20:00:16 by TK787
What Airline Has The Most Varied Fleet? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 23:41:34 by ChrisH
What State Has The Most Commercial Airports? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 02:50:06 by NWDC10
What Would You Say The Most Efficent Hub Is? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 08:16:50 by BlazingCessna
What Is The Most Powerful 747-SP/200/300 Take Off? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 03:30:45 by 747400sp
Which Plane Has Had The Most Operators? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 13:24:24 by Azza40
The Most Efficient Airport? posted Wed Jan 11 2006 02:57:27 by Lockheed