ITSTours
Topic Author
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:15 pm

https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero/sta ... 41/photo/1

Danny Lee, an aviation journalist at SCMP, has provided the data point from the crews.

The crew wrote that the cruising fuel burn at FL390 was 6.3t/hour.
S/he also noted B747 would have burnt 10.0t/hour at the same payload.
The actual payload, or the TOW, is unfortunately not provided.

Still, looks great!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:47 pm

It seems to me that the crew have just given a generic statement about the expected level of fuel burn rather than what it was. Given that FL390 was stated and the available altitudes on the westbound leg would be the "even" Flight levels (340, 360, 380 etc) then it can have been from the specific flight.

Zeke has in the past been able to use the manuals from the aircraft he flies (A350) to guess the takeoff weights from the given V1, Vr and V2 speeds the the weather report from the day/location.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14181
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:07 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
It seems to me that the crew have just given a generic statement about the expected level of fuel burn rather than what it was. Given that FL390 was stated and the available altitudes on the westbound leg would be the "even" Flight levels (340, 360, 380 etc) then it can have been from the specific flight.

Zeke has in the past been able to use the manuals from the aircraft he flies (A350) to guess the takeoff weights from the given V1, Vr and V2 speeds the the weather report from the day/location.

Fred


Looking at the weather on a November 25 @ 12:33 GMT

METAR EGLL 252320Z AUTO 21005KT 9999 BKN013 OVC022 11/11 Q1001 NOSIG=

Based off that data, the runway 09R at LHR and the V speeds means they were taking off around 275 tonnes, which would have seen them land at near MLW.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4054
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:20 pm

ITSTours wrote:
https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero/status/1202066015892336641/photo/1

Danny Lee, an aviation journalist at SCMP, has provided the data point from the crews.

The crew wrote that the cruising fuel burn at FL390 was 6.3t/hour.
S/he also noted B747 would have burnt 10.0t/hour at the same payload.
The actual payload, or the TOW, is unfortunately not provided.

Still, looks great!

Since the 2 airplanes are not even similar? What difference would the statement make? Why not compare the fuel burn of the 777-300ER or the 787-10? That statement is irrelevant! Maybe compare the fuel burn of the A380. It proves Nothing!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11373
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:31 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero/status/1202066015892336641/photo/1

Danny Lee, an aviation journalist at SCMP, has provided the data point from the crews.

The crew wrote that the cruising fuel burn at FL390 was 6.3t/hour.
S/he also noted B747 would have burnt 10.0t/hour at the same payload.
The actual payload, or the TOW, is unfortunately not provided.

Still, looks great!

Since the 2 airplanes are not even similar? What difference would the statement make? Why not compare the fuel burn of the 777-300ER or the 787-10? That statement is irrelevant! Maybe compare the fuel burn of the A380. It proves Nothing!


With the A351 replacing the 744 at BA, and both carrying the same payload, BA saved 37% on its fuel bill for ~same revue. I am sure for BA it's pretty meaningful.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
gloom
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:46 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Given that FL390 was stated and the available altitudes on the westbound leg would be the "even" Flight levels (340, 360, 380 etc) then it can have been from the specific flight.


Fred, you forgot it's NAT. If they flew on track, they've had all available Fs (starting from F310, all the way up to F390). And yes, NAT is RVSM airspace.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:54 am

Anyone know what the estimated payload would have been for this flight?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:01 am

That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.
 
gloom
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:33 am

BA777FO wrote:
Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.


Sure not. But I guess you know you are comparing a planes of the same generation, but 25% difference in size?

Heck, it's like comparing 772 to 763. ;)

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4945
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:36 am

Those really only are ballpark figures designed to show a non aviation-savvy audience how much more efficient modern airplanes are compared to their predecessors.

It is not of much use for a more detailed analysis of the overall fuel burn.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:29 pm

gloom wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.


Sure not. But I guess you know you are comparing a planes of the same generation, but 25% difference in size?

Heck, it's like comparing 772 to 763. ;)

Cheers,
Adam


Of course, there is a big difference in size, I was just astounded how much less the 787-9 burned compared to the 772 on a route like LHR-IAH - it's virtually 20%-25% less. It'll be interesting to see what kind of fuel burn figures the 787-10 gives when it starts operating to Atlanta in February. They should be very similar sizes, albeit the 787 will be in a much more premium configuration for BA.
 
xwb565
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:55 pm

Since it was asked up thread... The fuel burn difference for the a35k and 77w is ~1.4t per hour on a long haul sector with the a35k carrying more payload. Note this is a snapshot from only one sector albeit over multiple flights.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:51 pm

gloom wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Given that FL390 was stated and the available altitudes on the westbound leg would be the "even" Flight levels (340, 360, 380 etc) then it can have been from the specific flight.


Fred, you forgot it's NAT. If they flew on track, they've had all available Fs (starting from F310, all the way up to F390). And yes, NAT is RVSM airspace.

Cheers,
Adam


Thanks Gloom! Every day's a school day after all!

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:35 am

The ramp fuel for the 35K SYD-DOH is between 111-115 tonnes with around 8 tonnes left over on arrival.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
xwb565
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:27 am

Another interesting fact is that the a35k basic weight is a substantial 20t less than the 77w.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos