Johnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6084 times:
you could probably check with some governmental environment agencies, but that's sometimes a bit biased.
i'm more or less familiar with the fuel consumption per passenger per 100km of the LH fleet and it ranges from something like 4,5l (i think that's the A340-600) to round about 9,5l (Avro) (that's liters of course, don't know how much that is in gallons).
so if you know much your car consumes, you can see when which transport mode is more efficient.
don't know about trains, sorry.
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
Jmc757 From United Kingdom, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 1296 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6039 times:
Not sure about fuel burn. But when were talking efficiency, I know that for example an RB211 is about 42% efficient, a Diesel car engine is around 35% and a Petrol car engine is even lower than that. Not sure about train.
Important to remember when you compare fuel burn on a per passenger basis is how many passengers there are in the vehicle. My opinion is that people often assume that there is just one person per car but all seats in an aircraft are sold out. In real life SAS' load factor is less than 60%.
I've always thought aircrafts use surprisingly little fuel.
Polair From United States of America, joined May 2001, 893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5914 times:
The higher the altitude the lower the burn. Of course higher you want to fly, longer you need to climb.
An older 737 will burn around 6000lb/hr at FL370 at Mach 0.78-0.79 at MTOW. I think it is around 15000-17000lb/ hr for 773 at cruise, and 20000-25000lb/hr for 744. Of course lots depends on weather. Correct me if I am wrong.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4766 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5846 times:
I cannot say these numbers are completely reliable, as they were announced by the Capt on a flight YYZ-PVR, which is just under 4000km. He said that fuel burn would work out to aprox. 70 litres / passenger. This was on an A330-200 aircraft with aprox. 360 pax.
This equates to about 25410 litres of fuel burn. Average of 6.35 litres burned per kilometer, which seems like a lot. But when you divide it by the number of passengers, the fuel consumption goes all the way down to about 1.75l/100km per pax. Thats about 20%better than my car gets on the highway if you multiply by four people.
AirbusCanada From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5806 times:
IATA reported that in 1998, its member airlines used average of 4.8 liters of fuel to fly each passenger 100 km.
That's an average of the entire fleet of iata members. But a new generation fuel efficient jet would consume about 3 liters per passenger to fly 100 km.
On the otherhand Toyota prius uses 4.8 per 100 km on highway and 3.6 liters on city drivingestimated by U.S. based ETA. So they are very neck and neck.
Iad777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 hours ago) and read 5316 times:
From "Ask the Pilot" by Patrick Smith:
"Travelling bewteen New York and San Francisco, a medium-sized transport like a Boeing 767 will consume roughly 7,000 gallons of jet fuel. That's equivalent to a little less than a half mile per gallon. With 200 passengers that's thrity-two gallons per peson, or nearly eighty milse per gallon per person. That's 0.014 gallons for each seat-mile."
"To get a sense of industry wide-economy, you'd have to cipher averages of per-flight occupancy (flights in the U.S. have been operating at about 71% capacity), per-hour fuel burn, and flight distance....overall efficiency is far and away better than a sixteen-mile-per gallon SUV."
History shall be kind to me; for I intend to write it -WSC