Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12710 posts, RR: 78
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 40804 times:
Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter): I've heard 'rumors' as to the fuel burn on a few aircraft verbally over the years... is this at all accurate?
It seems in the right ballpark, but don't forget that fuel burn is a very strong function of engine, altitude, weight, speed, and drag, all of which vary from flight to flight and aircraft to aircraft.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4578 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 40484 times:
Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter): Also, if props are much more efficient on short flights, what reasons make Aloha use 737-200's on 50-mile interisland flights and Laker Airways use a 727-200 for FLL-FPO?
Fuel is, even now with the high prices, only one of the reasons to use one aircraft or the other.
- Jets are more popular with passengers, Aloha might loose pax to Hawaiian and others if they switch to props.
- Jets can take more pax and cargo, even with double flights on say an ATR-72 they can't carry the same amount of cargo.
- They have the jets in the fleet anyway, so in short term it would be more expensive to pick up a prop plane and park the jet, in that case the total opportunity costs (write off, lease, fuel, staff) of the prop is higher.
- the old 727 and 737-200 you mention are economically almost written off, so acquisition or lease costs shouldn't be too hhigh and would offset the fuel bills. See NW with their DC-9 while rejecting some A-319s and A-320s.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 10114 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 40000 times:
Those stats look like reasonably good approximate values per scheduled hour. So on a 16 hour 777 flight, they count the gallons burned, and divide by 16. Note, the aircraft usually only spend 14 hours in the sky. And, the first hour is by far the most fuel consumptive.
The best way to model fuel burn is xxx gallons in 1st flight hour + xxx for each additional hour. Even this isn't perfect, but it avoids some problems. You can't expect a 757 to make a 1 hour flight on 900 gallons of fuel, for example (I am thinking closer to 1900). Dispatch mavens will know way more than me on this.
Edit: I would say those DC-10 and 747 burn rates look a little high. The 747 has 14 hours of duration on 50,000 gal, so that gives us around 3,000 gph, with the D10 probably more like 2400. Again, that's only guessing.