Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 And A340 Fuel Economy  
User currently offlineDesmidus From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 156 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

I implore you, I beseech you, do not turn this into anything but a number-backed discussion.

I am curious about the fuel economy numbers concerning the 777 and A340. Much is said about which plane is better, which plane is worse, but I've heard little in the way of which one is more economical of the two. As I understand it, the A340 is more effecient on long routes, while the 777 is more efficient on shorter routes? What, if any, are the range numbers where the A340 becomes more effecient?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

This is a shot in the dark, but If my understanding is correct, Boeing aircraft have always been more fuel thirsty than their Airbus counterparts(except the 767 series). So im guessing the 777 will be more expensive to operate than the 346, fuel wise anyway.

User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Desmidus,

I implore you, I beseech you, do not turn this into anything but a number-backed discussion.

That will do no good, it will anyway turn into A vs. B.

CYKA,

Boeing aircraft have always been more fuel thirsty than their Airbus counterparts

LOL

And where would you find this info?


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

I didn't, like I said it's pure speculation.

User currently offlineFanoftristars From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1608 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

Dismidus:

Type this link into your web browser and read the section on range and fuel economy:

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/777x-launch/254504_777x.pdf

Then report back your findings.



"FLY DELTA JETS"
User currently offlineYoungDon From United States of America, joined May 2001, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3301 times:

Fanoftristars,

Do you truly think that something from Boeing could be accurate to a degree that it could be considered credible. Please. They listed the cruising speed of the A340-600 as Mach .82, when it is really Mach .84 erasing that so called 20 minute advantage. Airbus would do the same thing to Boeing if it had the chance.


User currently offlineSpaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

On the Boeing report it also mentions that the 772ER can fly further than A340-600. I suspect it probably not true since the A340-600 carries more fuel than 772ER. It carries about 20,000 liters more fuel.

User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

On the Boeing report it also mentions that the 772ER can fly further than A340-600. I suspect it probably not true since the A340-600 carries more fuel than 772ER. It carries about 20,000 liters more fuel


The 772ER does have more range than the A346, and it carries 20,000 liters less fuel, so I guess it is more efficient than the A346.

772ER: 7,700 nm
A346: 7,500 nm

Sources:

Boeing and Airbus


User currently offlineSpaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3287 times:

A340-600 has alot more Maximum takeoff weights than 772ER too. It means if A346 flys with less weight than the max it will fly further than 7500nm! 772ER flys further beacuse it is lighter and cand not carry as much as A346.

User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

You're correct. But the A346 doesn't even compete with the 772. It is fighting the 773ER.

User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1863 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

There are so many models, which ones do you want to compare?

One question I can answer without guessing:

The B772ER burns more fuel per trip than the A343, but...

the B772ER has more seating capacity. On a per seat basis, it all depends on how airlines configure their planes. My guess is, with a comparable configuration, they are pretty close but the A343 might have a slight edge.

For the A346 and the B773ER, the situation is likely to be reversed.

The B773ER will likely burn less fuel per trip than the A346, but the A346, according to Airbus, will have more seating capacity. I would say on a comparable configuration, the B773ER should have the advantage.

Fuel consumption is only one constituent of the DOC. Burning for fuel, even on a per-seat basis, does not automactically make the aircraft less efficient. You really want to look at the DOC.


User currently onlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Desmidus,

Unfortunately, the numbers you seek are very hard for the general public to obtain, because they deal direct with the financial and technical operations of the airlines. What we can come up with is a very rough & crude nm/g ratio. However, as these are coming direct from the manufacturers (who are known to embellish) and do not take into consideration payloads, they are obviously not the whole story. (BTW - I've only bothered to list the airplanes that directly compete)

777-200ER
45,220 g
7,700 nm
= 0.170 nm/g

A340-300
39,280 g
7,300 nm
= 0.186 nm/g


777-200LR
51,590 g
8,820 nm
= 0.171 nm/g

A340-500
56,750g
8,500 nm
= 0.150 nm/g


777-300ER
47,890 g
7,250 nm
= 0.151 nm/g

A340-600
51,480 g
7,500 nm
= 0.146 nm/g

Like I said before, these numbers are very basic. However, what they appear to show is that the Airbus, as suspected, is more fuel efficient in the current generation. But as the newer generation comes out, we see that they become far less efficient, allowing the Boeing's, who do not lose as much (the -200LR actual goes up a point), to better the A340's efficiency numbers. But again, this does not take into account payloads, which I have yet to see some firm numbers on.

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Hamlet - those numbers are all well and good, but you need to factor in the operational payloads at those fuel burn rates for that to mean anything. I did a full breakdown of the 744, 772 and 773 last month and it took me a couple hours on each. Don't bust your head because the kids here don't understand it anyway!  Smile

User currently offlineYoungDon From United States of America, joined May 2001, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

I really don't appreciate your arrogance B747-437B. Some here may not understand it, but you don't have to act pompous about it. Have a good day.

User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

YoungDon - you may call it arrogance, but I find it a complete drag to spend 6 hrs calculating efficiency of widebodies and then be told by some pimply faced kid from Hong Kong that my numbers mean nothing because the 777 livery looks better. Call me once bitten, twice shy.

User currently onlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3227 times:

B747-437B,

I agree. Like I stated earlier, without the max. payloads, or the operational payloads tied into those stats, they don't really say much. However, that is the best solution I could find with the information and time I had. Its a basis, one which I hope we can expand on. . .

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineDesmidus From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3223 times:

I don't like where this is going. B747-437B, I asked for numbers. Hamlet gave me numbers. They were good numbers. I'm grateful that he took the time to do so, just as I am ungrateful for your 'addition' to the topic.

Perhaps less moderation would be needed, as your profile displays, if people did not venture off-topic and into the sticky realm of vague insultes as you are doing right now.


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...
777 And A340 Seating Densities posted Wed Mar 22 2006 01:21:56 by Tigerotor77W
ETOPS, The 777 And A340 posted Sat Mar 16 2002 13:48:44 by Flyinghighboy
United, The 777 And A340. posted Wed Jul 11 2001 23:15:23 by CX747
Air France 777 And A340 Relatioship posted Thu Mar 1 2001 01:12:12 by TranStar
747-8I Best Fit Above 777-300ER And A340-600 posted Mon Dec 4 2006 09:28:03 by Eureka
United 777's And Economy Plus posted Fri Oct 17 2003 03:08:57 by BigD
SAA And The 777 Vs. A340. posted Wed Nov 7 2001 21:25:49 by CX747
SQ, The 777 And The A340-500. posted Thu Jun 7 2001 22:00:01 by CX747
LH Orders 20 747-8 And 7 A340-600 Part II posted Wed Dec 6 2006 23:17:20 by Columba
Alitalia 777-200 - PTV's In Economy Class? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 18:06:13 by Ansett767