OO-VEG From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 1147 posts, RR: 1 Posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17837 times:
I am wondering how much fuel the B737 (lets say the B737-700) and A320 use for each kilometer they are in a normal flight full loaded and also the fuel usage when the aircrafts are half loaded.
Are the aircraft engines also getting more efficient (less fuel usage) over the years or does that not concern the engine makers anymore??
KonaB777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17732 times:
I think if Boeing put more time into designing planes than taking over competitors, they could have designed a better plane.
The A320 is better in every way. Boeing is behind in technology. I mean, the Airbus's first FBW (A320) came out in the mid 80s, & Boeing's first (777) came out in the mid 90s. We're talking a ten year lag here.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17729 times:
I'm not sure which one is more effiecient. They're both probably about the same. Also, the 737NG's are slightly newer than the A320 family (excluding the 318). And last, the 737-700 should be compared to the A319, and the 738 to the A320.
Fly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17715 times:
The 737 is a much lighter plane then the A320. It also has smaller engines. Thus it has better fule burn. IndianDude I dont know where you got those numbers but they are pure BS. The A320 family did have beter range then the older 737 family but the 737NG does beat the A320 family in all performance aspects. Look it up for your selves. Dont say "well since it is wider it is no doubt a better plane" or "the A320 is better in every way". What is this nonsense??? The 737 has been arround for over 30 years and it is a design that works. I am sure Airbus will keep the A320fam for a long time. The 737NG has 1500 orders in just a fiew years of existance. How is Boeing behind in technology??? So what if they dont use Fly-By-Wire. Boeing planes still have sophisticated computers on board. How can a few lines of code make a plane more technologically advanced. I dont undereststand where you people get such bias.
Tarantine From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 17703 times:
Lets make this an easy topic & end it. Most Boeing fans will support the 737 & airbus fans will support the A320. I remarked earlier about a "wider cabin", I know that does not make an airliner more efficent, I guess that it was sarcasim, because I sway towards Boeing products. I would assume that the 737's being they have a very similar CFM engine & roughly equal weights (A320 vs 737-800) should be very similar in efficency. They are both fantasic airliners though.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6642 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 17706 times:
I'm not commenting on the A/B war, and not even trying to give an answer to the question. But I will just try to explain how difficult it is to answer such questions.
1. The 320 comes with four different MTOWs and three different engine subtypes. the B737-800 is much the same. All combinations have advantages and disadvantages.
2. Talking about the 320/737 families, then there are well over a dozen MTOWs and a few additional engine subtypes to choose from, cluttering the picture even more.
3. The 320 is slightly faster which has to be taken into account when comparing fuel burn per hour. Fuel burn per seat/mile is a better way to compare.
4. the 737-800 comes with or without winglets. If fitted, then they are an advantage, but only at certain speed/altitude/load combinations.
5. The 737 has a lighter airframe structure, making the fuel demanding climb - everything else equal - faster.
6. The 737 has a small drag disadvantage from the "missing" landing gear doors (but that gives a maintenance advantage).
7. The 320 has a small drag disadvantage from the 7" wider fuselage (but that gives a pax comfort advantage).
Both planes have the very newest wing design, and the same engines. The fuel burn differences are very small, and any one of them may come out on first place depending on subtype, engine subtype and other options chosen by the customer.
Someone wrote that one plane is much more expensive to lease. I doubt that. But well, there are just as many lease prices as there are different products multiplied by the number of leasing companies. All leasing companies take as high prices as the market is willing to pay. No airline company is stupid enough to pay a high leasing price, if they can get an equal quality product elsewhere at a lower price. If one of them gave less value for money, then you would find that product only parked in the deserts with white tails.
I write this mostly to make it obvious how silly it looks for those of us, who have read a book or two about it or studies a few reliable web sites, when we start an A vs. B "war of words" based on so simple, inaccurate and incomplete figures as mentions earlier on this thread. And then I don't even dare to think what the professionals may think when they see such things. Hopefully they can filter it out - that's also what I try to do.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Again, Boeing seems to have the edge in fuel efficiency.
I'm a fan of BOTH Boeing and Airbus.
IndianGuy: You can't just take the fuel consumption rates by itself as a comparison because the planes are of a different size. Bigger planes use up more fuel. The Boeing and Airbus planes are also of a slightly different size.
IndianGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17666 times:
It could only be You! I see u are a kiddo, so i'll let this pass.
the figures can be crosschecked from the web-sites of Boeing and Airbus. Then there is another site which lists the detailed performance figures of all the aircraft. U could check out that site. Search for the topic "Fuel Burn rate" and u'll find it.
One piece of advice: dont get into these fierce arguments, unless you are sure about what u r saying. You may feel passionately about a particular aircraft, but that doesnt make it a better aircraft.
Airline economics are based on a number of factors, and for some airlines the A32X family makes better sense and for others the 737NG family makes more sense. United goes for A32X's and WN goes for 737's why? Both airlines are making money, so obviosuly both the planes concrened are doing their job.
This question was regarding fuel-burn, and i think i answered that question without any bias whatsoever. All BS is in your mind.
IndianGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 17654 times:
Well, the standard A320 can actually carry 168 pax if configured in the same seat-pitch as the competing Boeing.
737-800 series aircraft are listed as 162 seaters with 36 inches in J-class, while the A320 is listed as a 150 seater with 38 inches in J-Class. There is a similar difference in Y-Class figures as well. Therefore when similarly configured, the A320 can actually carry more.
These figures are from the Boeing and Airbus sites respectively.
Fly-by-Pilot:GROW UP. read the whole post. Nobody is saying that Airbus is better than the Boeing narrowbodies in every respect. The question was about fuel burn, so it was answered.