747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:02 am

Not to long ago I ask, what airliner burn three time less fuel than a 737. I should have ask what airliner burns three time less than a 777, since it is Boeing second biggest airliner. So now I am asking what airliner burns three times less fuel than a 777.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:55 am

In it's wieght and size category no such animal exists. If it did Boeing would not be able to give 777's away.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
timz
Posts: 6083
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:06 am

Three times less, meaning a third as much?
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6580
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:07 am

Why would I, John Q. Airline Owner, buy an aircraft, B777, if an aircraft of the same capabilities, was more fuel efficient by a factor of 3? I wouldn't. So, I'm going to take a stretch here and say: since multiple operators bought (and continue to buy) and operate the B777, there is no aircraft, in its class, that is 3 times more efficient. I know, it's a leap of faith, but I'm comfortable making it.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
timz
Posts: 6083
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:04 am

We don't know whether he meant a third as much per seat. Maybe he just meant a third as much, period.
 
User avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2696
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:13 am

Quoting Timz (Reply 4):
We don't know whether he meant a third as much per seat. Maybe he just meant a third as much, period.

Either way, I highly doubt there is any such airplane....or at least one with comprable abilities of the 777.


Chris
Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:47 pm

In any class of airliners.
 
n8076u
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:52 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:31 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Not to long ago I ask, what airliner burn three time less fuel than a 737

Perhaps a 737 burns 1/3 the fuel of a 777, give or take.  Wink
Don't blame me, I don't work here...
 
darrenthe747
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:40 pm

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:39 pm

i'll bet a beech 1900 burns even less than 3 times that of a 777. what kind of question is that? be more specific. when comparing fuel burns you have to state the class of airplanes we are talking about here. are you talking about seat/mile, overall burn, what??
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:23 pm

I have got to ask this: What is your original or native language 747400sp?
Because I strongly suspect it is not english.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Not to long ago I ask, what airliner burn three time less fuel than a 737. I should have ask what airliner burns three time less than a 777, since it is Boeing second biggest airliner. So now I am asking what airliner burns three times less fuel than a 777.

Don't get me wrong, I am not not mocking you or anything but your wording tends to be awkward and I think that is making it difficult to answer your question(s) properly.

I look at your profile and your flag which indicate that english is your native tongue but the way you phrase things in this and other posts sometimes makes it tough to discern what you are saying. If you are a "native" english speaker then you need to work on your posting language a bit to clarify your thoughts.

Again, I say this with all due respect, I am just curious.

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:49 pm

Quoting Timz (Reply 2):
Three times less, meaning a third as much?



Quoting Tugger (Reply 9):

I would tend to agree.

747400sp: It would be wrong to expect everyone to speak perfect English but lots of us have been giving you friendly tips which you haven't even acknowledged.

""Thrust" and "a third as much" (not "three times less").  Smile
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:05 am

As I was percolating on this question a related one came to me and I think it may be relevant what 747400sp is seeking.

How are thrust and fuel consumption related? Does an engine with three times as much trust consume three times as much fuel?

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:37 am

More important, what would a competing aircrafts SFC be?

I've been trying to find out what RR's Trent XWB be for the A350-1000 but there is no information about it.......we know what GE's GE90-115B are...


The A350-1000XWB is according to paper, be a whopping 61 tons lower at MTOW...also...its going to seat only 15 people less in a 3-class configuration versus the 777-300ER...

If Airbus numbers will come out as what they claim, and the Trent XWB for the -1000 have lower SFC than the GE90-115B, then it will essentially kill sales of the -300ER..however,right now, I'm a bit skeptical about Airbus numbers.....
"Up the Irons!"
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:45 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
If Airbus numbers will come out as what they claim, and the Trent XWB for the -1000 have lower SFC than the GE90-115B, then it will essentially kill sales of the -300ER..however,right now, I'm a bit skeptical about Airbus numbers.....

Skeptical or not, Airbus would have to miss their targets by an astronomical unit to NOT kill off the 773ER, as an almost 15 year newer plane. Even if it works out to be 20t heavier than projected, and the SFC was the same...both of which would be a collosal failure, it would still be enough to virtually kill the 773ER as it stands. (Assuming no or small improvements.)

That said, the 773ER probably has almost 10 years of real market life left before the kill-off is complete. It's 2006, and EIS for the 350-1000XWB is far enough out that current 777 operators aren't going to wait that long when they can have it Now or Almost Now. It's the same reason the A330 isn't entirely dead yet even though there are two airplanes that are on the drawing boards that are dramatically superior in all ways. Airbus is happy to keep selling A330's to current customers and customers who can't wait for such late deliveries. (2010 or 2011 now for any kind of new 787 order, right?)
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:56 pm

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 13):
Skeptical or not, Airbus would have to miss their targets by an astronomical unit to NOT kill off the 773ER, as an almost 15 year newer plane. Even if it works out to be 20t heavier than projected, and the SFC was the same...both of which would be a collosal failure, it would still be enough to virtually kill the 773ER as it stands. (Assuming no or small improvements.)



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
If Airbus numbers will come out as what they claim, and the Trent XWB for the -1000 have lower SFC than the GE90-115B, then it will essentially kill sales of the -300ER..however,right now, I'm a bit skeptical about Airbus numbers.....

I already stated those comments.. Wink


I'm just skeptical on Airbus hitting those numbers they have claimed...and Boeing have already stated they won't be taking this sitting down..Boeing will probably wait until re-offical launch of the A350-1000 to get a better handle of things

Anyway, as my original question is..what would the SFC of the Trent XWB's be for the A350-1000WXB....

cheers.
"Up the Irons!"
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:01 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
I've been trying to find out what RR's Trent XWB be for the A350-1000 but there is no information about it.

I'm sure BOE773 will have a reliable figure.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:00 am

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 15):

I'm sure BOE773 will have a reliable figure.

Sure, its not the reliability I'm curious about..but the comparison between the two.... Smile

Cheers.
"Up the Irons!"
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:39 am

747400sp's original question is curious. I don't believe that - as stated - it is possible to answer. His second post just made things worse, as some of you have noted. *Any* class of airliner? What - even a King Air?

There needs to be some clarity about what is being compared.

The aircraft's size? I reckon you could make a lightweight 777-sized hull
which, when completely empty, used around a 3rd of a 777's fuel. Wouldn't be good for much except hauling air around though.

The aircraft's mission? To haul x number of people or y pounds of cargo around and use a third of the fuel? Not with current technology. Might not even be possible, given the laws of thermodynamics.

Seems like manufacturers of hulls and motors are beating each other over the head with minor fuel savings because that's where the operators know they can save money, (apparently, deleting an olive from the 1st class salad isn't enough). But to save 2/3 on fuel on a given type is unlikely.
Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DocLightning and 14 guests