Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Most Fuel Efficient Aircraft  
User currently offlineB1C17L1011 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 96 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 5 days ago) and read 5593 times:

What is the most fuel efficient aircraft in terms of widebody's. From what know the tri-jet's like the DC-10, MD-11, & L-1011 are the leaset fuel efficient. Large twin jets like the 777 and A330 are more fuel efficient the the tri's. But some of the quad jets like the A340 are the most fuel efficient because of the fact that they require less thrust to comply with the engine out on take-off regulations. This then raises several important questions.
1. Does the higher initial cost of purchase and higher cost of maintenance of a quad jet over a twin jet offset the fuel savings.
2. Then why are airlines retring some of their quote "fuel inefficient 747-400's"?
3. On a slightly different note. Why is the 767 considered economical for passenger travel? It has the lowest ratio of seat's to internal volume of any widebody. 2-3-2, that is 7 seat's to two isles, opposed to a higher ratio on evey other widebody.
4. Then, what is the most fuel efficient engine number?
5. What is the absolute most fuel efficient aircraft?

I know the airlines will be looking for then during this hard time.


B1C17L1011

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6836 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5526 times:

Absolute most fuel-efficient aircraft! Now there's a can of worms. Presumably you mean measured by seat-miles (in the cruise) per pound of fuel. As I recall the Quickie (and whatever happened to it?) claimed to get 10 nm per pound, which is quite comparable to the seat-miles-per-pound of a 747. So there's lots of possibilities.

User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5515 times:

Your questions are roughly akin to deciding which type of car is best for you.

What is economical for one airline may not be for another; just as people with better credit can qualify for lower interest rates on their vehicle purchases. A brand new car (a/c) will have lower DOCs, but higher aquisition costs. The opposite is true for older equipment whether it's a car or an a/c.

For most of the 747's life, it has been purchased about half of the time for its range capability and not for its capacity, which has lead to the popularity of the 777.

WRT to the 767, seat configuration is one of thousands of options selected by the airlines, not Boeing. It's all a function of how an airline feels it can best utilize the available payload. And, like a lot of equipment, airliners are roughly priced according to take off weight, so an airline tries to buy what they need, and no more. On a 767 sized a/c, there is roughly a 50,000 lb variation throughout the product line, and up to about 25,000 lbs on a unique model like the 400er. The same with landing weights. I have seen many 727s recertified to land at higher weights simply by doing paperwork and sending a check to Boeing. Airlines buy the lightest a/c that will fit their needs. Are those needs near term? Or do you try to forecast demand in 10 years? One of the reasons NWA bought the A330 over the 777 was simply that the 777 was too much a/c in terms of a DC10 replacement. The 747-200s and 400s were both forecast to be around for a while at the time of that announcement.

As I've said before, the word "efficient" is the most overused term on this forum. It must be defined...How does the airline intend to use the a/c? At a min, one must state the mix of pax and payload over a specified stage length. Is ETOPs a factor for the route structure? If so, ETOPs cert costs big bucks on a twin, while it's not on issue on a 3-4 engine a/c. How about bely cargo and pallets? That's big. If it were simple, then the industry would only have 1 0r 2 airliner types with no sub variations...

BTW - "tris" and "seats" is plural, not possessive.

Cheers-



User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5487 times:

PS-
You may check topic "Cost of Operation" 7May01 this forum...


User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5474 times:

Timz, forgive me but what exactly is the "Quickie"?

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6836 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5471 times:

A Rutan design from 1980 or so. It started out as an 18 hp (?) single-seater of somewhat bizarre appearance, with a forward wing (?) beneath the fuselage with the landing gear at its tips, and a rear wing above the fuselage behind the cockpit. Dunno if it was the most fuel-efficient single-seater ever built, but I assume efficiency was one of its aims.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6836 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

It actually appeared in 1978, it seems. Jane's says length 17 ft 4 in, span 16-8, OEW 240 lb, MTOW 480 lb, 18 hp originally, 8 US gallons fuel, max cruise 121 statute mph, economical cruise not given but claims 100 statute miles per gallon.

User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6877 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

a glider pulled to the top by a hot air balloon would be the most fuel efficient !  Smile

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineB1C17L1011 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

OK let me rephrase. Assuming that you always fill an aircraft up to capacity, which type will be the most fuel efficient. The large twin such as the 777 or A330 or the quad jet such as the 747 and A340. Taking into account both the higher initial cost of the quad + the fuel savings from it.

PS. Sorry for the previous grammer errors"!:!


User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5403 times:

Timz: Thanx

Also let me add that number of engines and type of engines don't completely change seat/mile costs. There are a HUGE load of factors that could change it, even with the same engines. Also, certain planes are optimized for certain routes. The A330 is a medium to semi-long range aircraft and the A340 is specifically designed with the long range market in mind. The 777 which lacks winglets is capable of long range flights but can also be optimized for shorter US domestic routes (just not LA-LV Big grin )


User currently offlineLewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5387 times:

I think the 340 is very fuel efficient.

User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5381 times:

On a per seat mile, the 747-400 in all charter layout. I think the 777 and A330 is more fuel effiecient per seat mile then the A340.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6836 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5367 times:

A long-range aircraft like the 747-400 or A340 is always at a disadvantage when you're comparing seat-miles per kg/pound of fuel; on a long trip it's carrying all that extra fuel, and on a short trip it's still carrying the extra metal that it needs to be able to carry the fuel for a long trip. I suspect an A330-300 (and maybe an A300-600) will get more seat-miles per pound than any four-engine aircraft-- but I'm no expert.

User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

"Tris and seats are (not is) plural, not possessive."

Whoops...good thing this isn't the Eng grammar forum...


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

The 717 definitely could be termed a very fuel efficient aircraft. Original fuel savings estimates compared to the DC-9-32, were of between 5-9% more fuel efficent than the DC-9-32, after being put into service, it has turned out to be more between 17-23%, now that's fuel efficient.

User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 days ago) and read 5324 times:

FOLK
Just answer the question!
Tell me how much liteers booste engine per second!
Don't discuss about horse races here

thanks


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The Most Fuel Efficient Aircraft
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...
The 757, The Most Flexible Performing Aircraft? posted Sat Nov 23 2002 22:52:23 by John
Most Suitable/efficient Low Fare Aircraft posted Mon Feb 6 2006 17:14:17 by Curious
What Is The Most Robust Aircraft? posted Tue Sep 7 2004 16:39:55 by Tobi3334
Which Aircraft Type Has Carried The Most Pax? posted Fri Oct 5 2001 00:06:06 by DC10Tony
Crew What Is The Most Senior Route At Your Airline posted Wed Aug 23 2006 02:16:36 by Usair320
More Prop Blades = A More Fuel Efficient Q400? posted Wed Jul 5 2006 14:29:34 by NWDC10
Which Engines Are The Most Effiecien7? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 14:38:26 by Pavlin
The Most Ergonomic Cockpits posted Tue Jan 17 2006 21:08:20 by TripleDelta
Wing;The Most Brand New A-321 Pilot posted Thu Mar 10 2005 15:43:30 by Wing
Which Is More Fuel Efficient? posted Thu Sep 9 2004 05:11:58 by PacificWestern

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format