Desmidus From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 156 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2569 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?
CYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2499 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.
YoungDon From United States of America, joined May 2001, 309 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
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.
Spaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2454 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.
Boeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2451 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.
Spaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2445 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.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2436 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.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2687 posts, RR: 59 Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2418 times:
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)
= 0.170 nm/g
= 0.186 nm/g
= 0.171 nm/g
= 0.150 nm/g
= 0.151 nm/g
= 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.
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2415 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!
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2402 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.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2687 posts, RR: 59 Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2385 times:
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. . .
Desmidus From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2381 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.