AirbusCanada
Topic Author
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:20 pm

Does anyone have any tips on where I can get data on comparative fuel burn of Airplanes/Cars/Trucks/Trains on a per passenger basis?
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:03 pm

I think the ranking goes like this,
1st train (most efficent way to travel fuel wise)
2nd car
3rd plane
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
johnnybgoode
Posts: 2144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:20 pm

you could probably check with some governmental environment agencies, but that's sometimes a bit biased.

i'm more or less familiar with the fuel consumption per passenger per 100km of the LH fleet and it ranges from something like 4,5l (i think that's the A340-600) to round about 9,5l (Avro) (that's liters of course, don't know how much that is in gallons).

so if you know much your car consumes, you can see when which transport mode is more efficient.

don't know about trains, sorry.

rgds
daniel
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:51 pm

I heard somewhere that the 767 burns an average of 60 gallons per pasenger going to from JFK to London.
One Nation Under God
 
jmc757
Posts: 1205
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 3:36 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:56 pm

Not sure about fuel burn. But when were talking efficiency, I know that for example an RB211 is about 42% efficient, a Diesel car engine is around 35% and a Petrol car engine is even lower than that. Not sure about train.
 
tavve
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:24 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:13 pm

You could have a look at http://www.sasgroup.net/SASGroup/default.asp [Press SAS Group Facts -> Fleet] and check each of SASgroup's aircraft type's fuel consumption.

Important to remember when you compare fuel burn on a per passenger basis is how many passengers there are in the vehicle. My opinion is that people often assume that there is just one person per car but all seats in an aircraft are sold out. In real life SAS' load factor is less than 60%.

I've always thought aircrafts use surprisingly little fuel.

[Edited 2005-03-08 15:21:42]
GOT, that's where I live
 
PolAir
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 2:20 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:47 am

The higher the altitude the lower the burn. Of course higher you want to fly, longer you need to climb.
An older 737 will burn around 6000lb/hr at FL370 at Mach 0.78-0.79 at MTOW. I think it is around 15000-17000lb/ hr for 773 at cruise, and 20000-25000lb/hr for 744. Of course lots depends on weather. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:27 am

I cannot say these numbers are completely reliable, as they were announced by the Capt on a flight YYZ-PVR, which is just under 4000km. He said that fuel burn would work out to aprox. 70 litres / passenger. This was on an A330-200 aircraft with aprox. 360 pax.

This equates to about 25410 litres of fuel burn. Average of 6.35 litres burned per kilometer, which seems like a lot. But when you divide it by the number of passengers, the fuel consumption goes all the way down to about 1.75l/100km per pax. Thats about 20%better than my car gets on the highway if you multiply by four people.
 
AirbusCanada
Topic Author
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:10 am

IATA reported that in 1998, its member airlines used average of 4.8 liters of fuel to fly each passenger 100 km.
That's an average of the entire fleet of iata members. But a new generation fuel efficient jet would consume about 3 liters per passenger to fly 100 km.
On the otherhand Toyota prius uses 4.8 per 100 km on highway and 3.6 liters on city drivingestimated by U.S. based ETA. So they are very neck and neck.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:15 am

Well, considering TS really stuffs the pax in the A332, that makes the fuel consumption seem a lot lower  Wink In a standard 230 seat config, the burn would be close to the 3l/100km figure.
 
goinv
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:16 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:49 am

I have often wondered this.

Recently airlines have been pulling out of the London to Paris route with the Eurostar train service increasing market share. I wondered if the train was more "green" than the plane.

Apparently Eurostar uses about 10 Megawatts. It can carry about 500 people and takes 2.5 - 3 hours.

The long distance diesel trains in the UK use about 1 gallon of diesel per mile and can carry 400 passengers.

Hope this helps.
Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:51 am

Recently airlines have been pulling out of the London to Paris route with the Eurostar train service increasing market share. I wondered if the train was more "green" than the plane.

If you're going city centre to city centre, as most business travelers tend to do, the train is far superior. Unfortunately, I think it has little to do with ecology.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:08 am

I think the ranking goes like this,
1st train (most efficent way to travel fuel wise)
2nd car
3rd plane


Here's some train info, from the scenic railroad I do volunteer work for ...

The run is 12 miles, so round trip is 24 miles. Fuel burn is 14 gallons of diesel per trip.

That's hauling : two locomotives (225,000 lbs ea), 8 coaches (80,000 lbs ea), 2 coaches (120,000 lbs ea), and some 600 or so passengers.

And mind you, these are 1950s vintage GP10 or GP18 4-axle locomotives.

*anything* running more modern power is gonna be even more effecient.

- litz
 
COAMiG29
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:30 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:44 am

Ive heard that a early model 747 can burn up to 2000lb of fuel taxying to the runway but i have no idea about modern jets and how that equates to the number of pax.

--COAMiG29--
If Continental had a hub at DFW with nonstop flights I would always fly them, unfortunantely good things take time.
 
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:00 pm

In an article about the A380, I read that the average fuel burn per pax would be in the range of 70 mpg.
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
KDTWflyer
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:51 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:43 pm

NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:38 am

Also figured into that efficiency is the cost (wasted material) in production. Jet Fuels/Diesel are easier to refine and have less by-product waste in the process.
 
IAD777
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 7:15 am

RE: Fuel Burn Of Airplanes VS Auto VS Train

Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:30 am

From "Ask the Pilot" by Patrick Smith:

"Travelling bewteen New York and San Francisco, a medium-sized transport like a Boeing 767 will consume roughly 7,000 gallons of jet fuel. That's equivalent to a little less than a half mile per gallon. With 200 passengers that's thrity-two gallons per peson, or nearly eighty milse per gallon per person. That's 0.014 gallons for each seat-mile."


"To get a sense of industry wide-economy, you'd have to cipher averages of per-flight occupancy (flights in the U.S. have been operating at about 71% capacity), per-hour fuel burn, and flight distance....overall efficiency is far and away better than a sixteen-mile-per gallon SUV."

Cheers!
History shall be kind to me; for I intend to write it -WSC