Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Burn Difference Between The A346 And 742/3/4?  
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6772 times:

I was wondering about the fuel burn difference between the A346 and the 742 and 743 since the A346 was intended to replace the classic 747s and even some 744s for some operators. I know a lot of dirt gets thrown around here on the how much less efficient the A346 is than the 77W, but we already know for just about every mission the 77W is the better choice. This has to do with how well the A346 fulfills its role as a 742/743 replacement. IMHO, I think it has/had fulfilled that role.


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6748 times:

IIRC, the A346 was bought in to compete with T7 and 747 not the classics.
Airlines who use A346 fly in hot and high conditions which is more preferable.

And even if its true the A346 was made to replace the classics, what is the point?
Why to compete with a far previous generation aircraft when the company who made it made a new model to overtake it?



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6676 times:



Quoting Jayeshrulz (Reply 1):
IIRC, the A346 was bought in to compete with T7 and 747 not the classics.
Airlines who use A346 fly in hot and high conditions which is more preferable.

No the A346 was made to replace 742/743 aircraft. When the A346 was developed, the 77W wasn't even on the drawing board yet.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6581 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 2):
Quoting Jayeshrulz (Reply 1):
IIRC, the A346 was bought in to compete with T7 and 747 not the classics.
Airlines who use A346 fly in hot and high conditions which is more preferable.

No the A346 was made to replace 742/743 aircraft. When the A346 was developed, the 77W wasn't even on the drawing board yet.

Boeing actually advertised the non-ER 777-300 as a successor to "older 747 Classics" (Boeing PR talk for 747-100/-200), however, it was never used on any transoceanic routes. The A340-600 took off and beat 777-300 due to its superior capabilities, which in turn forced Boeing to design the 777-300ER.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6501 times:



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 3):
Boeing actually advertised the non-ER 777-300 as a successor to "older 747 Classics" (Boeing PR talk for 747-100/-200)

Right, I never disagreed. And for the operators who use the 773 (non-ER) they work very well as a 741/2/3 replacement.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 3):
however, it was never used on any transoceanic routes.

KE used their 773s to LAX.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 3):
The A340-600 took off and beat 777-300 due to its superior capabilities, which in turn forced Boeing to design the 777-300ER.

Only superior at longer ranges. A standard A340-600 weighs almost 150,000lbs more at MTOW than a non-ER 773. I started this thread so that I could better understand how the numbers work regarding fuel burn for an A346 vs. 742/3/4.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8773 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

I am away from my files but it's basically that the B744 enjoys a 10 to 12pct advantage in fuel burn over the 747 Classics. Then, the A346 might be 10 pct better than 744. As a result, the A346 did accomplish the mission of fully replacing the 747 in capability, while burning less fuel.

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4880 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (4 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 5935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

off the top of my head I remember Zeke saying once the 77W burned about 8000lbs/hr fuel (or maybe it was gallons or kgs but whatever the relative differences are the same), the A346 about 8700 and the 744 something over 11000.

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5788 times:

If you want to compare the fuel consumption of the A346 with the 747 classic, you first have to decide : Against what type of classic I want to calculate the difference in fuelconsumption ?

First generation classics
747-100/200 powered by P&W JT9D-7 engines up to and incl. JT9D-7J.

Second generation classics :
747-100/200/300 powered by P&W JT9D-70 and 7Q series, GE CF6-50 series and RR RB211-524C/D series.

Third generation classics :
747-200/300 powered by P&W JT9D-7R4G/H engines and GE CF6-80C2B1 engines.

The difference of the best (GE CF6-80C2B1) and the worst (P&W JT-9D-7J) is more than 15% fuel consumption.

The CF6-80C2B1 powered 747 classic are only 4 % less fuel efficient than the 747-400's.(FADEC 1%,wing + winglet 3%)



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5763 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 4):

Only superior at longer ranges. A standard A340-600 weighs almost 150,000lbs more at MTOW than a non-ER 773. I started this thread so that I could better understand how the numbers work regarding fuel burn for an A346 vs. 742/3/4.

Yes, but outside of Asia, such large aricraft are not used on short routes. At the time the 741/2 were introduced, they were among the longest-range aircraft of their time. By the time the 773 came around, the 767 and A330 were available for tranatlantic service and the trend was for smaller aircraft on such routes. The 742's were still being used, of course, because the airlines had them, but there wasn't much interest in a direct replacement. The 744 replaced the 742, and that is hardly a direct replacement. While some airlines did use 744's on these routes, the 744 had such a broad range of possible applications that adding a separate flee type just for those routes made no sense, even if the economics were superior to the 744. This basically reduced the 773 to a niche aircraft that works great in heavily regulated/slot-restricted markets, but nowhere else.

The 77W has the range, capacity, and far superior fuel burn to the 346. With the exception of some niche applications (hot and high, trans-Antarctic) the 77W is unquestionably the superior aircraft.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 7):

The CF6-80C2B1 powered 747 classic are only 4 % less fuel efficient than the 747-400's.(FADEC 1%,wing + winglet 3%)

But doesn't the 744 have more thrust for the same fuel consumption?


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5743 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
But doesn't the 744 have more thrust for the same fuel consumption?

The CF6-80C2B1F as installed on the 744 has slightly more T/O thrust (higher rating), because of the higher MTOW of the 744,compared to the 742/3. The T/O thrust-weight ratio of the 747-2/3 is however better, the climb out ( MCT) performance at MTOW of the 742/3 is far better, because of the approx. same CLB thrust levels of both engines, despite the wing extension and winglets on the 744.
The basic engine is exactly the same for both, except for the FADEC on the 744 and the mechanical engine fuel control, with digital supervisory (PMC = power management control) on the 742/3.
The SFC (cruise) difference is approx. 1% between the -B1 and B1F variant.

CF6-80C2B1 , T/O thrust 55.980 lbs, Max. Continuous Thrust 49.550 lbs

CF6-80C2B1F, T/O thrust 57.160 lbs, Max. Continuous Thrust 49.810 lbs

For further info : Type certificate E13NE (GE CF6-80C2 engine)

744 MTOW = 875.000 lbs.
742/3 MTOW = 833.000 lbs.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5735 times:



Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):

The CF6-80C2B1F as installed on the 744 has slightly more T/O thrust (higher rating), because of the higher MTOW of the 744,compared to the 742/3. The T/O thrust-weight ratio of the 747-2/3 is however better, the climb out ( MCT) performance at MTOW of the 742/3 is far better, because of the approx. same CLB thrust levels of both engines, despite the wing extension and winglets on the 744.

Is that higher MTOW the reason that the 744 had such a vastly longer range than the 742?


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5701 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Yes, but outside of Asia, such large aricraft are not used on short routes.

.............

This basically reduced the 773 to a niche aircraft that works great in heavily regulated/slot-restricted markets, but nowhere else.

I think only Asian carriers got the 773(non-ER)?
It was a nice 741/2/3 replacement for anything up to a 10hr flight. The reason why it worked for Asia is because of the heavily regulated past, making the market adapting to large aircraft for relatively few frequency... but then, when you compare population bases between the points served... it does skew the basic perception a bit.

I can't say much for the non-SE Asia based markets... but... take Jakarta-Singapore for example. SQ operated 773s and 744s on the routes, they could have operated the 772s for more frequencies but decided not to. Then we had SIN-SYD, operated with 3x daily 773/744 mix... Turning it into a 5x daily 767/332 ops might not work.

However, as SE Asia is now slowly liberalizing, with unlimited 3rd/4th freedom rights within capital cities, the days of "widebodies for short routes" may be numbered, unless one can justify the 5 - 8x daily widebody service... even then, it's still ripe for being attacked with 5 - 8x daily with a narrowbody (something Air Asia is doing at the moment on the CGK-SIN route).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Is that higher MTOW the reason that the 744 had such a vastly longer range than the 742?

Well, to put it simply... yes... for an X% of OEW increase with a Y% in MZFW increase and Z% in MTOW increase... with physically almost the same engines (just different control methods)... as long as Z is bigger than either X or Y, the answer to your question is... YES.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5584 times:

The area that the A346 (as well as the 77W) blitzes all of these aircraft - including the 744, is the cargo hold.

It's a decent plane really but it comes up against an exceptional one (the 77W, which is the comfortably the best 777 variant).


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Burn Difference Between The A346 And 742/3/4?
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 Difference Between FAR 121 And 135 Ops posted Sat Aug 5 2000 09:22:03 by DesertJets
Communication Between The Tower And Aircraft? posted Mon Aug 17 2009 23:43:31 by Woodentom
Difference Between A DC-9-31 And A DC-9-32? posted Wed Oct 1 2008 06:32:24 by SIBILLE
Difference Between A DC-8-71 And A -73 posted Tue Jul 25 2006 02:23:39 by Jeffry747
What Is The Differents Between The JT-3 And JT-8 posted Mon Dec 26 2005 20:26:09 by 747400sp
Difference Between Part 61 And Part 141. posted Tue May 3 2005 05:28:21 by Swimpilot
Difference Between A345/A346 posted Thu Aug 12 2004 14:18:58 by AeroFan
Difference Between CFM 56 And IAE V2500? posted Thu Feb 26 2004 20:10:59 by MEA321
Difference Between A 747-200C And A 747-200M posted Mon Jun 16 2003 22:01:21 by AFC_ajax00
Differences Between The PW4168 And PW4168A posted Thu Jun 6 2002 20:46:31 by 762er

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format