Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
An Airliner That Burn 3 Time Less Gas Than A 737  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3403 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

Right before the Concorde was retired, a travel reporter for the LA times said the Concorde burns 3 time more gas than a 747 burns. So I looking for a airliner that burns 3 time less gas than a 737, is there such a airliner?

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6673 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6174 times:

probably a small one like the emb 145


wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6171 times:

Why do you even suspect one exists?


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDH106 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6143 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
So I looking for a airliner that burns 3 time less gas than a 737, is there such a airliner?

I assume you're talk comparible capabilities - number of passengers etc.
Well, surely if it did exist then every airline would be buying it and not the 737?

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 2):
Why do you even suspect one exists?

Exactly!



...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6106 times:

By Gas Im sure you mean ATF.
I don't think so else The B737 would not be selling so well.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineSeanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Right before the Concorde was retired, a travel reporter for the LA times said the Concorde burns 3 time more gas than a 747 burns. So I looking for a airliner that burns 3 time less gas than a 737, is there such a airliner?

Your logic is a bit faulty, the concorde was a specialized a/c to go supersonic at the expense of economy, and the 747 was optimized for economy. That doesn't imply that there are other a/c that are like this. But to answer your question, probably a number of the smaller turboprops, like the DHC-8-400 probably burn less fuel than the 737, however these a/c do not have the size or cruise speed or altitude of the 737.


User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6089 times:

You need to compare TSFC (Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption) to get the true efficiency of an engine. I doubt you'd get an aircraft with a TSFC 1/3rd that of a B737.


Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6083 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
the Concorde burns 3 time more gas than a 747 burns

Was that over the same distance or in the same time?


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5669 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You can't burn 3 times less...

If plane A burns X fuel and plane B burns 3 times as much that is a 200% increase in consumption.

Reversing that - Plane A uses 66% less fuel than plane B.

It is impossible to burn 3 times less fuel, the theoretical maximum is 100% less.. unless of course you have some miraculous device that actually makes fuel.

That would sell well!!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5958 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):

I've been biting my tongue very hard on that! It's a commonly used expression but I agree on the pedantic level.  Smile
  • Plane A burns x fuel
  • 3 times as much is 3x
  • 3 times less than x is x-3x = -2x


Plane B would have to produce twice as much fuel as plane A burns!

Sorry, 747400sp, I know what you meant.  Smile


User currently offlineOryx From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5942 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 6):
You need to compare TSFC (Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption) to get the true efficiency of an engine. I doubt you'd get an aircraft with a TSFC 1/3rd that of a B737.

That's only part of the question as there may be a plane with a lower demand in thrust per passenger. I believe a good candidate would be a big and slow turboprob. Unfortunate (for this thread) it is more economic from a financial point of view to fly a Ma = 0.85 than to fly and optimize for Ma = 0.3.


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5831 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 9):
Plane B would have to produce twice as much fuel as plane A burns!

You just need a really big one of these with a refinery on top:




CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineMiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5587 times:

Q400.

Other than that, you're not going to find a jet that burns three times less gas than a 737.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5570 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):
You can't burn 3 times less...



Quoting David L (Reply 9):
I agree on the pedantic level.

I don't think it is really 'pedantic' at all. I consider myself a fairly bright boy and I've NEVER understood the 'three times less' statistic I hear from time to time.

Quoting David L (Reply 9):
Plane A burns x fuel
3 times as much is 3x
3 times less than x is x-3x = -2x

Plane B would have to produce twice as much fuel as plane A burns!

Now I DO understand it. This wonderful airplane motors along creating fuel.

I also understand why the 737 continues to sell better than this theoretical airplane. It's really pretty simple. The damn thing creates so much fuel during flight that you have to land all the time to offload it! Hell to keep schedule with a thing like this.

The only reason this theoretical airplane is still in production is that the USAF wants it as a tanker. It could take off empty and by the time it reaches the inflight refueling point it would have surplus fuel to deliver. The only reason they don't have it yet is because the Congresspeople in the appropriations committee think the US Budget works the same way and don't understand what is so wonderful about the principle.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5568 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
The only reason they don't have it yet is because the Congresspeople in the appropriations committee think the US Budget works the same way and don't understand what is so wonderful about the principle.

Now Now Slam, this is Tech Ops... NOT Off Topic  Wink



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5562 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 14):
this is Tech Ops... NOT Off Topic

I'm sorry. I lost my usual self-control for a moment.  Smile



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8840 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5549 times:

EMB-145 burns about 22% fuel per hour of a 737-300.
F100 burns about 32% fuel per hour of a 737-200.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4679 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
EMB-145 burns about 22% fuel per hour of a 737-300.

Really ? This means you could fly 4.5 E145s or one 733 with the same amount of fuel. In a high-density config you'd have 225 vs. 150 pax. But somehow I doubt this, the 733 fuel burn can't be that high.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5462 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 11):
You just need a really big one of these with a refinery on top:



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):

 biggrin 


User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
EMB-145 burns about 22% fuel per hour of a 737-300.
F100 burns about 32% fuel per hour of a 737-200.

This does not mean that they are more efficient aircraft, just smaller...



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8840 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 5410 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 19):
This does not mean that they are more efficient aircraft, just smaller...

The question was

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
So I looking for a airliner that burns 3 time less gas than a 737, is there such a airliner?

I provided an answer to that question.

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
Really ? This means you could fly 4.5 E145s or one 733 with the same amount of fuel. In a high-density config you'd have 225 vs. 150 pax. But somehow I doubt this, the 733 fuel burn can't be that high.

Info I had from 'Civil Jet Aircraft Design' (ISBN 034074152X) book was that the 733 burns 3890 kg/hr EMB-145 880 kg/hr. I have since looked at data from USA operators (American Eagle, ExpressJet, TransStates, Mesa, Comair, Skywest, Pinnacle, Atlantic Southeast, Atlantic Coast, Air Wisconsin) shows

EMB135 1062 kg/hr
EMB140 1089 kg/hr
EMB145 1053 kg/hr
CRJ200 1008 kg/hr

I cannot find similar data for the 733 off hand, its been grouped together with the 737-700. I also think 3890 kg/hr seems high, I would have expected about 1600-1700 kg/side.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4679 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5321 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
I cannot find similar data for the 733 off hand, its been grouped together with the 737-700. I also think 3890 kg/hr seems high, I would have expected about 1600-1700 kg/side.

In a book about airliners which I have it says 2900 liters/hour for the 734. Also, in a .pdf file published by BA about their fleet, the figure was in that ballpark. Unfortunately, I incidentally deleted it, so I'm not sure.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6374 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5274 times:

If we remove SlamClick's congressmen and the US budget from the figures and define 3 times less fuel as one third the fuel, then there are a few options:

We just ask the Boeing aerodynamic people to improve the 737 to have a lift to drag ratio of roughly 60:1 instead of 20:1. And hang a pair of Lear Jet engines under the wing.

Another option would be to improve the CFM56-7B engine to convert 45% of the energy in the fuel into thrust instead of only 15%. Wasting "only" 55% of the energy instead of 85% seems like a brilliant idea.

A good starting point would also be to reduce the 737 empty weight to one third and put the passengers on a 67% weight reduction diet prior to boarding.

 angel 



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6748 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
the 733 fuel burn can't be that high.

Stroud gives some figures for a 737-436 LHR-GLA-LHR trip in 1993. Northward the "average" cruise consumption was 2100 kg/hr at M0.72 FL310, southward the same consumption at M0.74 FL370. On the northward trip they burned 2200 kg from brake release to end of landing run -- airborne time was 51 minutes.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4679 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5147 times:

Quoting Timz (Reply 23):
Stroud gives some figures for a 737-436 LHR-GLA-LHR trip in 1993. Northward the "average" cruise consumption was 2100 kg/hr at M0.72 FL310, southward the same consumption at M0.74 FL370. On the northward trip they burned 2200 kg from brake release to end of landing run -- airborne time was 51 minutes.

Those numbers definitely sound more reasonable. Thank you.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
25 Zeke : Look at the speeds, 0.72 is fairly slow.
26 A342 : Sure it is, but with these fuel prices nowadays, airlines let their aircraft fly slower so that fuel burn is reduced. On short flights the slower spe
27 Post contains images Lehpron : 3 times less than x is x/3 or one-third of x. Less isn't always subtraction. You people are making dangerous assumptions to say that. Such aircraft e
28 Post contains images Mpsrent : A good starting point would also be to reduce the 737 empty weight to one third and put the passengers on a 67% weight reduction diet prior to boardin
29 Post contains images David L : No it's not. See the arguments above.
30 WildcatYXU : SlamClick, it was so funny. I can't help it, you have to join my RU list
31 EGTESkyGod : That's not accurate, I'm afraid. For example, between LHR and JFK..... Concorde burnt about the same amount of fuel going between London and New York
32 David L : Thank you. That's what I was fishing for here...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic An Airliner That Burn 3 Time Less Gas Than A 737
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...
Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777? posted Thu Jul 13 2006 18:02:52 by 747400sp
Using Mercury To Bring Down An Airliner? posted Sat Aug 12 2006 03:56:37 by ArmitageShanks
Did Wings Ever Fail On An Airliner? posted Fri Jan 20 2006 02:13:15 by TheSonntag
Can An Airliner Stop By Only Using Reverse Thrust? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 18:13:39 by Tarantine
How Do You Start An Airliner? posted Sun Jul 24 2005 19:49:18 by RobK
How Do You Change A Wheel On An Airliner? posted Sat May 7 2005 15:47:53 by Ajet
Front Window On An Airliner? posted Tue May 3 2005 21:51:39 by A346Dude
How To Fly An Airliner If Pressurization Fails? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:26:08 by A380900
Brakes On An Airliner. posted Sun Jan 30 2005 20:01:00 by Gg190
Shortest Stopping Distance On An Airliner posted Sat Jan 1 2005 14:54:17 by Soaringadi

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format