Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train  
User currently offlineAirbusCanada From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6719 times:

Does anyone have any tips on where I can get data on comparative fuel burn of Airplanes/Cars/Trucks/Trains on a per passenger basis?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

I think the ranking goes like this,
1st train (most efficent way to travel fuel wise)
2nd car
3rd plane


User currently offlineJohnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6561 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.

rgds
daniel



If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6523 times:

I heard somewhere that the 767 burns an average of 60 gallons per pasenger going to from JFK to London.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineJmc757 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1298 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6516 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.

User currently offlineTavve From Sweden, joined Sep 2003, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

You could have a look at http://www.sasgroup.net/SASGroup/default.asp [Press SAS Group Facts -> Fleet] and check each of SASgroup's aircraft type's fuel consumption.

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.

[Edited 2005-03-08 15:21:42]


GOT, that's where I live
User currently offlinePolair From United States of America, joined May 2001, 893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6391 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.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4776 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6323 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.


User currently offlineAirbusCanada From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6283 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.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4776 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6271 times:

Well, considering TS really stuffs the pax in the A332, that makes the fuel consumption seem a lot lower  Wink In a standard 230 seat config, the burn would be close to the 3l/100km figure.

User currently offlineGoinv From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 264 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6214 times:

I have often wondered this.

Recently airlines have been pulling out of the London to Paris route with the Eurostar train service increasing market share. I wondered if the train was more "green" than the plane.

Apparently Eurostar uses about 10 Megawatts. It can carry about 500 people and takes 2.5 - 3 hours.

The long distance diesel trains in the UK use about 1 gallon of diesel per mile and can carry 400 passengers.

Hope this helps.



Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16992 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6212 times:

Recently airlines have been pulling out of the London to Paris route with the Eurostar train service increasing market share. I wondered if the train was more "green" than the plane.

If you're going city centre to city centre, as most business travelers tend to do, the train is far superior. Unfortunately, I think it has little to do with ecology.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1754 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6069 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the ranking goes like this,
1st train (most efficent way to travel fuel wise)
2nd car
3rd plane


Here's some train info, from the scenic railroad I do volunteer work for ...

The run is 12 miles, so round trip is 24 miles. Fuel burn is 14 gallons of diesel per trip.

That's hauling : two locomotives (225,000 lbs ea), 8 coaches (80,000 lbs ea), 2 coaches (120,000 lbs ea), and some 600 or so passengers.

And mind you, these are 1950s vintage GP10 or GP18 4-axle locomotives.

*anything* running more modern power is gonna be even more effecient.

- litz


User currently offlineCOAMiG29 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6030 times:

Ive heard that a early model 747 can burn up to 2000lb of fuel taxying to the runway but i have no idea about modern jets and how that equates to the number of pax.

--COAMiG29--



If Continental had a hub at DFW with nonstop flights I would always fly them, unfortunantely good things take time.
User currently onlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12214 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5993 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

In an article about the A380, I read that the average fuel burn per pax would be in the range of 70 mpg.


911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineKDTWFlyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 828 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

Here is one link I found...

http://www.nativeaccess.com/ancestral/navigation2.html



NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5846 times:

Also figured into that efficiency is the cost (wasted material) in production. Jet Fuels/Diesel are easier to refine and have less by-product waste in the process.

User currently offlineIad777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5793 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."

Cheers!



History shall be kind to me; for I intend to write it -WSC
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...
Fuel Burn Of Airbus And Boeing? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:39:13 by MaxQ2351
Jetblue Airbus Vs Song 757 Fuel Burn posted Thu Apr 21 2005 18:21:35 by Padcrasher
Future Of Engine 2 Vs 4 posted Sun Mar 26 2006 21:26:04 by AirA380
Differences In Early Designs Of Planes Vs. Final posted Thu Feb 10 2005 18:20:59 by 7E72004
Flight Times Of Twins Vs Quads posted Mon Dec 20 2004 22:41:56 by CM767
Nigeria Fuel Shortage Affects BA And VS posted Fri Nov 5 2004 23:41:20 by Planenutz
The Number Of Boeing(s) VS The Number Of Airbuses posted Wed Aug 25 2004 23:49:55 by United Airline
Ecconomics Of MD80 VS B737-300 posted Fri Aug 6 2004 21:56:58 by Sbe727
Security Of Israir Vs. ElAl posted Tue Jul 6 2004 18:50:01 by TACAA320
Names Of New VS A346s (Just For Info) posted Wed May 26 2004 16:55:31 by Intheknow