Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Flow Of Wide Bodies, Deep Analysis  
User currently offlineLuis777 From Mexico, joined Aug 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14129 times:

Hello Everybody

I want to share some of my research about fuel consumptions of big birds, this information is not official, I've made a research of airplanes performance by reading some technical books, watching photos of readouts, talking with pilots and other aviation enthusiasts. This is only average fuel flow on cruise, and it's important to notice that this data depends of many factors, including, weight of the airplane, center of gravity, wind, temperature, flight level, engine type, use of APU, ice accumulation, use of thermal anti-ice, and even how the crew uses the FMC and a lot of things more.

If you can correct me and share more detailed information I will appreciate it a lot, thanks.

Fuel Density 1 litter = 0.8029 kg

Boeing B747-400 9,200 kg/hr 11,458 lt/hr

Boeing B767-300ER 5,100 kg/hr 6,352 lt/hr

Boeing B777-200ER 6,900 kg/hr 8,529 lt/hr

Airbus A310-300 5,000 kg/hr 6,227 lt/hr

Airbus A330-200 5,000 kg/hr 6,227 lt/hr

Airbus A340-300 6,800 kg/hr 8,469 lt/hr

Airbus A340-600 8,800 kg/hr 10,960 lt/hr

MD-11 6,800 kg/hr 8,469 lt/hr


Regards

LG

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLoran From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 554 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 14021 times:

Thanks for sharing!

Quoting Luis777 (Thread starter):
Boeing B747-400 9,200 kg/hr 11,458 lt/hr

Strange, I always had the figure of approx. 12.000kg/h in my head. Your number would allow the 744 an endurance of 19.5h flight (assuming 180.000kg of kerosene are onboard), which appears to be a bit too much to me. Where exactly did you get that number from? I remember many discussions about the longest commercial flight of a 744 and 744ER, I think there was hardly a flight over 14h. Wasnt MEL-LAX one of the longest flights?

Quoting Luis777 (Thread starter):
Airbus A310-300 5,000 kg/hr 6,227 lt/hr

Airbus A330-200 5,000 kg/hr 6,227 lt/hr

Why are they exaclty the same? Coincidence? It could make sense though, due to the design improvements of the A332 compared to the A313.

Regards,
Loran



703 717 727 732-9 747 757 767 777 787 AB2/6 310 318-321 330 340 380 D8M D91/3/5 D1C M11 M81-90 L10 IL8/6/7/W/9/4 TU3/5/2
User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 846 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13966 times:

Loran,

You have to remember to take 10-12T off for the climb and to arrive with 10-14T for diversion and holding fuel that leaves 155+ and my longest flight was 15hrs 45mins LAX-HKG.

Fuel flow at the start can be 12T/hr or more but at the end 8T/hr, so 10T/hr is probably a good average.



C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13921 times:

My understanding was about 10,000kgs/hr for a B747-400... 2500kg's per hour per engine.


Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineLuis777 From Mexico, joined Aug 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13903 times:

Watch this:

Scenario

Route: LAX-MEL G/C Distance: 6902 NM

Alternate:CBR G/C Distance: 251 NM

FL350

Mach 0.85 = 490 TAS

Average W/C = M080

Ground Speed = 490kts - 80kts = 410 kts

Flight Time LAX-MEL = 6902NM/410kts = 16.83 hrs = 16:50

Flight Time MEL-CBR = 251NM/410kts = 0.51 hrs = 00:31

5 per cent en-route time = 0.84 hrs = 00:50

Holding over Alternate Airport (1500 ft AFE) = 00:30

Total Flight Time 16:50 + 00:31 + 00:50 + 00:30 = 18:41 = 18.6833

If my average fuel flow is 9,200 kg/hr, then my minimum fuel for this trip is:

9,200 kg/hr X 18.6833 = 171,886 kg

Fuel Capacity on Boeing 747-400 (No ER) is 164,073 kg and others 174,101 kg

747-400

MTOW = 362,880 kg - 396,900 kg

OEW = 182,000 kg (variable)

a 747-400 can takeoff with MTOW at LAX, so my payload is going to be:

Payload = 396,900 kg - 182,000 kg - 171,886 kg = 43,014 kg

If the average american-australian passenger is 80 kg plus 25 kg checked baggage then final weight is 105 kg.

43,014 kg / 105 kg = 410 pax

I can make this trip with a load full of pax and zero cargo, but if my average wind component is bigger than 80 kts head I'll have to unload some pax or make a fuel stop at Nadi or somewhere else. I think that LAX-MEL is one of the longest flights made by a 747-400, that's why Qantas requested the 747-400ER with fuel tanks of 183,278 kg - 193,130 kg and MTOW = 412,770 kg.

Please notice that I still use an average fuel flow of 9,200 kg, for real life the plane will utilize more fuel for holding at 1,500 ft above alternate and the trip to CBR as is very short I think that would fly at FL280 or lower where the fuel flow is larger.

Regards

LG


User currently offlineLoran From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 554 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 13846 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 2):
Loran,

You have to remember to take 10-12T off for the climb and to arrive with 10-14T for diversion and holding fuel that leaves 155+ and my longest flight was 15hrs 45mins LAX-HKG.

Fuel flow at the start can be 12T/hr or more but at the end 8T/hr, so 10T/hr is probably a good average.

Ok, that makes sense. I thought the fuel flow in a holding pattern is higher compared to cruise, is this correct? I assumed the wrong amount of fuel anyway.

Regards,
Loran



703 717 727 732-9 747 757 767 777 787 AB2/6 310 318-321 330 340 380 D8M D91/3/5 D1C M11 M81-90 L10 IL8/6/7/W/9/4 TU3/5/2
User currently offlineFly707 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 13689 times:

Nice topic,

As I know the:

Boeing 767-300ER Cons : 4000 kg per hour
Boeing 777-200ER Cons : 5500 KG per hour
Boeing 757-300 Cons : 3000 KG pe hour

Airbus 330-200 : 6000 kg PH
Airbus 310-300 & 300-600R : 5000 kg PH
Airbus 300B4-200 : 6000KG PH
Airbus 340-200 & 300 : 6000kg ph

Other types you mentioned are almost the same .


Regards.



Without mistakes we will never learn
User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13677 times:

Quoting Luis777 (Thread starter):
This is only average fuel flow on cruise, and it's important to notice that this data depends of many factors, including, weight of the airplane, center of gravity, wind, temperature, flight level, engine type, use of APU, ice accumulation, use of thermal anti-ice, and even how the crew uses the FMC and a lot of things more.

I'm interested how come you get any vague figures out ouf your sources when you say it's depending on THAT many factors.
Thank you anyway i have never seen figures like that before so it is really interesting to compare plane for plane.

Regards
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 2):
Fuel flow at the start can be 12T/hr or more but at the end 8T/hr

This shows why it doesn't make sense to fly ULH. During the first few hours of the flight at such high weights the fuel flow is ridiculous.

Does anyone have a comparison between the fuel flow of a 744 and an A330-300 in terms of fuel and in terms of $? I would be interested to know how much Delta will be saving per flight and per month/year by retiring their 744s early.


User currently offlinemmo From Qatar, joined Apr 2013, 226 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 8):
I would be interested to know how much Delta will be saving per flight and per month/year by retiring their 744s early.

Isn't that like comparing apples and oranges? With the reduction in seats, you would be better off looking at CASM. If you want to compare just fuel burn then a better comparison would be the 747-400 and the 777-300ER.



If we weren't all crazy we would all go insane
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17166 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Quoting Loran (Reply 5):
I thought the fuel flow in a holding pattern is higher compared to cruise, is this correct

It depends but I think the burn would be less. For fuel planning purposes the hold is assumed to be at 1500ft AGL over the destination airport. AFAIK three factors are at play.
- Lower altitude than cruise gives higher burn assuming the same IAS and weight.
- Ideally you'd hold at lowest drag speed, minimizing fuel burn over time. This gives lower burn than in cruise where you want to minimize burn over distance. (Actually in cruise you'd typically want to go faster than the min. burn over distance speed in order to decrease the length of the flight.)
- Most important factor IMHO: For long distance flights you'd be holding a much lower weight than the average during cruise, which would decrease burn significantly.

In reality, of course, it depends a lot on the altitude and speed of the holding pattern.

[Edited 2014-11-01 19:04:08]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRetiredWeasel From United States of America, joined Jul 2014, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Don't know how they do it now, but back in the 747 classic days, we used to do a reasonableness burn check. For the 200, we used an average of 25,000 lbs per hour. If the flight plan said it was 10 hours from T/O to touchdown, then the total burn should be somewhere around 250,000 lbs of fuel and we'd check that against the flight plan burn to ensure no gross errors by the computer or dispatcher.

Then you'd further make sure additional fuel was added that met your comfortable 'fuel on arrival' number which included reserve requirements and wx concerns.

And in case it hasn't been mentioned, every engine on the big birds burned at a slightly different rate. So the computers used this analytic historic data to figure the burn on a flight plan; not (I'm pretty sure) a generic Boeing burn chart.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17166 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2756 times:

Quoting RetiredWeasel (Reply 11):
And in case it hasn't been mentioned, every engine on the big birds burned at a slightly different rate. So the computers used this analytic historic data to figure the burn on a flight plan; not (I'm pretty sure) a generic Boeing burn chart.

Methinks the use of a generic burn chart would cause the beancounters to go apoplectic. 



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Quoting Luis777 (Thread starter):
If you can correct me and share more detailed information I will appreciate it a lot, thanks.

from Piano-X

For a 767-300ER with winglets , 238 passengers, 6070nm ; 4706kg / hr. at cruise

For an A340-600 308 passengers, 7682 nm; 7752 kg /hr. at cruise


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5825 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2316 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 13):
For a 767-300ER with winglets , 238 passengers, 6070nm ; 4706kg / hr. at cruise

And worth noting that 6070 nm is a longer mission than 767-300ERs have ever flown, with just one or two exceptions.

5000 kg/hr seems too high for that frame no matter what the assumptions are.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2042 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):
And worth noting that 6070 nm is a longer mission than 767-300ERs have ever flown, with just one or two exceptions.

5000 kg/hr seems too high for that frame no matter what the assumptions are.

767-300ER with winglets 12hr sector at MTOW burn at cruise 4769 kg/hr. Is that better?  


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (1 month 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

Quoting Luis777 (Thread starter):
Boeing B777-200ER 6,900 kg/hr 8,529 lt/hr

on RR Trents... LRC speeds
That would be... about FL390 at just above 220 tons... it's actually cheaper to go at FL350 and FL370 at that weight... which are about 6.8tons/hr.

Quoting Luis777 (Thread starter):
Boeing B767-300ER 5,100 kg/hr 6,352 lt/hr

that's about 155 tons at FL340/350... if on PW4060s...

Anyways...

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
Methinks the use of a generic burn chart would cause the beancounters to go apoplectic.

Yes... indeed!



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5825 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 15):
767-300ER with winglets 12hr sector at MTOW burn at cruise 4769 kg/hr. Is that better?

I suppose it depends on the definition of "better..."    Certainly a more realistic sector length.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Flow Of Wide Bodies, Deep Analysis
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Efficiency Of In-flight Refuelling Pax A/c posted Thu Jul 6 2006 08:08:11 by Art
CFM56-7B24 Fuel Flow Rate posted Wed Nov 17 2004 02:48:24 by USAirwaysCLT
Why No Upper Wings On Wide-bodies? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 14:17:51 by KLMCedric
Fuel Off Of Wingtips? posted Wed Jun 16 2004 23:07:23 by KLGAviation
Fuel Flow A300-600R/A310 posted Mon Oct 27 2003 15:05:16 by B-HOP
Major Fuel Flow Fluctuations With IO-470 posted Sat Oct 4 2003 10:08:13 by JBirdAV8r
Specific Fuel Consumption Of Jet Engines posted Sun Jun 16 2002 23:11:43 by YoungDon
Fuel - Speed Of B767-200 posted Sat Sep 15 2001 09:51:09 by Mb339
Economics Of Wide-bodies posted Sat Apr 14 2001 04:40:32 by Donder10
Fuel Performance Of Various Airliners posted Wed Mar 7 2001 05:36:59 by RichardJF
Why No Upper Wings On Wide-bodies? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 14:17:51 by KLMCedric
Fuel Off Of Wingtips? posted Wed Jun 16 2004 23:07:23 by KLGAviation
Fuel Flow A300-600R/A310 posted Mon Oct 27 2003 15:05:16 by B-HOP
Major Fuel Flow Fluctuations With IO-470 posted Sat Oct 4 2003 10:08:13 by JBirdAV8r
Specific Fuel Consumption Of Jet Engines posted Sun Jun 16 2002 23:11:43 by YoungDon
Fuel - Speed Of B767-200 posted Sat Sep 15 2001 09:51:09 by Mb339
Economics Of Wide-bodies posted Sat Apr 14 2001 04:40:32 by Donder10

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format