What Is The Fuel Burn Rate Of B777-200LR/300ER

philippelouis1 · Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:44 pm

What is the fuel burn rate of B777-200LR/300ER

philippelouis1 · Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:52 pm

Can anyone provide me please information about the fuel burn rate of Boeing 777-200LR and 300ER,

I know that they vary under many circumstances and conditions. But what are the data under standard and normal conditions

I couldn't find them in the Boeing website.

intsim · Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:36 pm

Hello,

You might try:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdf

Found in the Airplane Performance chart in Detailed Technical Characteristics of the 777 section.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/777.htm

You can make some general assumptions on fuel required for missions.

Jeff

trex8 · Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:15 pm

Per previous posting by Zeke these are the fuel burn rates used by CX pilots for calculations

772/A343 6900kg/hr
A333 6000kg/hr
A346 8900kg/hr
744 11100kg/hr
77W 8100kg/hr

Stitch · Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:57 pm

Daniel Tsang at http://www.aspireaviation.com claimed that EK sees a fuel burn of 2.8L per 100km for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.

trex8 · Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:39 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Daniel Tsang at http://www.aspireaviation.com claimed that EK sees a fuel burn of 2.8L per 100km for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.

per pax, per kg????

Stitch · Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:44 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 5):
per pax, per kg????

I would imagine that is 2.8 liters per 100 passenger kilometers.

Arniepie · Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Daniel Tsang at http://www.aspireaviation.com claimed that EK sees a fuel burn of 2.8L per 100km for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.

Maybe for their future high density 773ER at EK, with 442 seats that could be true, but saying that a 772LR which are all configured for 266 seats , is as fuel efficient as the high density 773ER seems to be illogical , to say the least.

Even among their large 773ER fleet there should be large differences knowing that they are going to have no less than 5 different setups ranging from 354 to, 358, 364 , 427 and 442 passengers.

[Edited 2011-04-27 03:44:17]

zeke · Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:19 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Daniel Tsang at http://www.aspireaviation.com claimed that EK sees a fuel burn of 2.8L per 100km for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.

That number is rubbish unless the assumptions associated with them is also listed.

Let me reverse engineer that number to a fuel burn per hour.

Looking at their 2 class 77W, 42J/385Y = 427 pax.

Per 100 km, 427x 2.8 = 1195.6 kg/100 km
Per km = 1195.6/100 = 11.956 / km

So their 2 class 77W would have an average cruise speed of around 880 km/hr

Per hour = 10,521 kg/hr

Looking at their 3 class 77W, 12F/42J/304Y = 358 pax.

Per 100 km, 358x 2.8 = 1002.4 kg/100 km
Per km = 1002.4/100 = 10.024 / km

So their 3 class 77W would have an average cruise speed of around 880 km/hr

Per hour = 8,821 kg/hr

Both of these numbers are clearly wrong. My take on the numbers is that it assumes a certain load factor for the aircraft type, and was derived from RPK and ASK numbers, it does not indicate the fuel burn performance of the aircraft itself.

sunrisevalley · Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:51 pm

From a flight plan ORD-AKL for a 77L with a TOW of about 318t the fuel burn at cruise was 100.171t for 15-hours.

ferpe · Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:26 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 3):
772/A343 6900kg/hr
A333 6000kg/hr
A346 8900kg/hr
744 11100kg/hr
77W 8100kg/hr

This is of course very usefull and practical information, where would the 787-8 fuel burn be? 5300kg/hr?

ferpe · Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:43 pm

I checked what Piano-X would say, it says 5200kg/hr M0,85 cruise burn at FL390 for a 788 where I have adjusted for present weights and loaded to MZFW, should this be OK?

[Edited 2011-04-27 14:12:32]

Stitch · Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:23 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 8):
That number is rubbish unless the assumptions associated with them is also listed.

Daniel strikes me as a rather pro-Boeing and anti-Airbus person, so I felt those numbers were suspect.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9):
From a flight plan ORD-AKL for a 77L with a TOW of about 318t the fuel burn at cruise was 100.171t for 15-hours.

Per a post on PPRune, for the 10 April 2009 GRU-DXB flight, an EK 777-200LR carried 102t of trip fuel (Flight Time: 13h45m).

Also from PPRune, Trip Fuel for an EK 777-200LR doing DXB-LAX would be around 121.5t with a ZFW of 209t and a TOW of 342t.

[Edited 2011-04-27 18:27:31]

coopdogyo · Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:52 am

According to a Boeing reference guide I have the 777-200LR burns 3.2 liters per 100 passenger km over and 6,000nm(11,110km) trip and the 777-300ER burns 2.9 liters per 100 passenger km over the same trip.

zeke · Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:01 am

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 13):
According to a Boeing reference guide I have the 777-200LR burns 3.2 liters per 100 passenger km over and 6,000nm(11,110km) trip and the 777-300ER burns 2.9 liters per 100 passenger km over the same trip.

For the 77L that works out to be 8,476 kg/hr assuming bog standard Boeing 301 pax

For the 77W that works out to be 9,314 kg/hr assuming bog standard Boeing 365 pax

Arniepie · Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:29 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 13):
According to a Boeing reference guide I have the 777-200LR burns 3.2 liters per 100 passenger km over and 6,000nm(11,110km) trip and the 777-300ER burns 2.9 liters per 100 passenger km over the same trip.

For the 77L that works out to be 8,476 kg/hr assuming bog standard Boeing 301 pax

For the 77W that works out to be 9,314 kg/hr assuming bog standard Boeing 365 pax

Zeke,

Far for me doubting your numbers but aren't you mixing up kilo's with liters?
eg, the 772LR

-11110 km @ 880 km/h => 12.625 hrs of flight
-3.2L per passenger per 100 km x 301 passengers = 963.2L / 100Km
-963.2 x 111.1 (100km segments) = 107011.52 LITERS of total use or 8,476 LITERS/ hour ,not kilos.(at 100% capacity)

BTW that seems rather optimistic on Boeing's side knowing that fuel is lighter than water at about 0.8KG/L (rough)

Which would translate to 6800kg/hr at full capacity in Boeing standard layout on a 880km/h 111110km 12.625 hr flight .
Sounds rather optimistic.

Now let's redo these numbers for the 266 seat EK 772LR, 11.7% less seats probably means at least 10% less fuel efficiency per passenger, no?

Arniepie · Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:48 am

I just did the 77W used by EK in its highest density config (427 pax)

8100kg per hour on a 11110km 12.625hr (880kmh) flight means 102262.5kg total use
102262.5kg @ 0.80kg/liter JETA (average specific fuel wheight) makes for 127828.1 Liters totally used.

127828.1Liters for 427 pax in 111.1 segments (100km) would mean 2.6945 Liters per 100km per passenger @ 100% LF.

rather impressive give or take a few percentages when we talk about average fuel consumption.

Offcourse this would not take into consideration that the flight , being so full for such a long distance, would be able to cruise high enough to get to these numbers so early in the flight.

So 2.8L per 100km for the highest density 77W seems feasable if most things work in its favor (TOW not too much cargo, wind direction and windspeed, low CI ,....) at 100% LF

the 772LR at 266pax has no chance of doing the same if my reasoning is anywhere near realistic.

Arniepie · Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:03 am

for the 77L the numbers go way up

at 100% LF , 266pax for EK

Lets take 7200kg / hour (very optimistic, I realize but lets assume low TOW, no cargo higher initial cruise altitude than on the 77W at low CI .

90900kg used on the 11110Km flight (880kmh) translating to about 113625Liters used.

113625Liters for 111.1 segments (100km) for 266 pax would mean 3.845Liters per 100km per passenger (remember this would be for a 100% LF), not anywhere near the 77W high density configuration.

conclusion for EK (all 100%LF) best possible fuel consumption per passenger per 100km.

772L- 266 seats - 3.845L/100km
77W- 360 seats - 3.196L/100km
77W- 427 seats - 2.695L/100km

sunrisevalley · Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Also from PPRune, Trip Fuel for an EK 777-200LR doing DXB-LAX would be around 121.5t with a ZFW of 209t and a TOW of 342t.

I don't know how you can get a 77L up to a 209t ZFW unless the cargo is considerably above average belly cargo density.
At average density it is volume limited. By my figuring the best that can be achieved is about 42.7t.
Referring to reply 9, the fuel load to meet all diversion, holding requirements etc. for that day was 120t . The burn for the 15hr 55m sector would have been 110.593t. Of this cruise was 100.171t. This was a hypothetical plan and was based on a TOW of about 328t. Now this was a Jespersen plan and was based on a "generic" 77L. I would assume that EK have burn values for each frame so there will be variations.

jetlife2 · Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:57 pm

I suggest you use this data

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_perf.pdf

At the end you will find Boeing's stated fuel burn per seat for 3,000 and 6,000 mile missions.

Certainly this is subject to many caveats and conditions, but at least it is original source data for you that you do not have to reverse calculate.

I will look for some more public domain original info. that I can quote here.

Regards

Gareth

zeke · Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:26 am

Quoting arniepie (Reply 15):
Far for me doubting your numbers but aren't you mixing up kilo's with liters?

Yep I did, my bad, good catch.

iwok · Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:59 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):
Yep I did, my bad, good catch.

Zeke - Any idea how these values change during the flight. I.e. there is a certain fuel usage during, takeoff, clim, initial cruise and cruise just before defending to land. I have got to think that as fuel is consumed that fuel burn drops because gross weight is dropping.

Does that make sense??

Thanks in advance

iwok

Stitch · Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:52 am

Quoting iwok (Reply 21):
Zeke - Any idea how these values change during the flight.

He noted that for a 777-300ER it varied from a low of 6,500kg per hour to a high of 10,500kg per hour across the flight. And for a 747-400, it varies from a low of 9,000kg to a high of 13,000kg per hour.

ferpe · Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:24 pm

Quoting iwok (Reply 21):
Any idea how these values change during the flight. I.e. there is a certain fuel usage during, takeoff, clim, initial cruise and cruise just before defending to land. I have got to think that as fuel is consumed that fuel burn drops because gross weight is dropping.

What do you want to know and for what frame variants? As I have a cruise drag model which is not to far off I could check a couple of numbers for you but not all these types and the different flight modes.

Zeke can then complement that with real numbers (which normally contain a higher trip fuel contingency then 5% as it also take frame and engine deterioration into account). My model gives you the fuel burns with regulatory reserves, it is within some +-2-3% when I have done things right

.

iwok · Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:44 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
What do you want to know and for what frame variants? As I have a cruise drag model which is not to far off I could check a couple of numbers for you but not all these types and the different flight modes.

All thanks very much for your help!

Actually I have to say that I am seeking this info because I am writing proposal for a fuel cell UAV which must operate for a 16-hours mission. In order to estimate how much the power would drop over time I figured I'd use a rough approximation from the 777-LR which also has long mission duration.

That is a very interesting model. Is there anyway I could get a hold of this? I'm actually looking at a small UAV with a catapult launch, hybrid battery for surge, GTOW 30lb and ZFW of 23lb. Cruise is 55mph. That's all I can say about it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
He noted that for a 777-300ER it varied from a low of 6,500kg per hour to a high of 10,500kg per hour across the flight. And for a 747-400, it varies from a low of 9,000kg to a high of 13,000kg per hour.

Both of these give me enough to wave my hands and say as the flight progresses fuel burn drops by 30-40%, depending on a "range of configurations and parameters" and that we will review this in detail once the proposal is awarded

cheers

iwok

Flighty · Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:51 pm

777-200ER typically does 2,300 gallons per hour; DC-10 was up near 3,000 gal per hour. 744, 3,600 gallons. On typical stage lengths. A330-300, about 1,900 gph.

So, I would expect 777-200LR to be around 2,200 gal per hour, and 77W up around 2,900, given the comparisons we know about.

Edit: Given the kg/hr listed above, my numbers may be a little high. They are from the US DOT, as reported by US airlines over many years.

[Edited 2013-01-11 10:58:17]

trex8 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Is it reasonable to assume a 777F burns fuel more like a 77W than 77L??

zeke · Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:51 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 26):
Is it reasonable to assume a 777F burns fuel more like a 77W than 77L??

Should burn the same as a 77L at the same weight.

trex8 · Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:23 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
Should burn the same as a 77L at the same weight.

Which would be slightly better than a 772ER??

Stitch · Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:15 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 28):
Which would be slightly better than a 772ER??

So the rumors say (for stage lengths beyond ~2000nm).

BravoOne · Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting philippelouis1 (Thread starter):
What is the fuel burn rate of B777-200LR/300ER

Here is a typical flight plan for the 777-300ER

MTOGW 699600
Payload: 133600
Flight time7+47
ISA +06
Fuel burned:1456300
Fuel required 176600

BravoOne · Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:43 pm

Fuel burned should read 146,300 Sorry about that.

trex8 · Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:58 pm

I guess my brain has trouble wrapping around the idea that a 77L which has 40 + tonnes more MTOW , even with a better wing and maybe engines, has the same or slightly better fuel burn than a 772ER!

Stitch · Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:49 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 32):
I guess my brain has trouble wrapping around the idea that a 77L which has 40 + tonnes more MTOW , even with a better wing and maybe engines, has the same or slightly better fuel burn than a 772ER!

Overall airframe tweaks appear to be the boost.

Some of them were offered as a retrofit PiP for the 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 and are said to improve fuel burn by around one percent.

BravoOne · Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:17 pm

The latest from Boeing:

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...-ge-define-777-performance-upgrade

Aircellist · Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:47 pm

Another zombie thread coming back up.

Sorry if it is out of topic, but what happened with Ferpe? He has not posted here for months…

dhr · Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:24 am

I'm doing some modelling of routes for a number of aircraft types and I would like to know if anyone can help out with the figures I need to build a database of aircraft in skyvector.com. The aircraft types I need are B772, B773, A388, A320, A321 and A332

The data I need is:

Cruise Speed, Cruise Altitude and Cruise Fuel Flow (Gal or lb per hour)
Climb speed, Vertical Speed and Climb Fuel Flow (Gal or lb per hour)
Descent Speed, Vertical Speed, and Descent Fuel Flow (Gal or lb per hour)

Any help is much appreciated.

Chaostheory · Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:09 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 32):

I guess my brain has trouble wrapping around the idea that a 77L which has 40 + tonnes more MTOW , even with a better wing and maybe engines, has the same or slightly better fuel burn than a 772ER!

Your brain has trouble for good reason because it is not true.

Both trip fuel burn and fuel burn per seat are higher for the 77L over all sector lengths.

Someone has been feeding you porkies. I wonder who?

Quoting dhr (Reply 36):
Cruise Speed, Cruise Altitude and Cruise Fuel Flow (Gal or lb per hour)
Climb speed, Vertical Speed and Climb Fuel Flow (Gal or lb per hour)
Descent Speed, Vertical Speed, and Descent Fuel Flow (Gal or lb per hour)

Impossible to answer as each operator will have different procedures and will have to adhere to relevant ATC constraints.

FriscoHeavy · Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:28 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 37):
our brain has trouble for good reason because it is not true.

Both trip fuel burn and fuel burn per seat are higher for the 77L over all sector lengths.

Someone has been feeding you porkies. I wonder who?

Trex8 is correct. The 77L is actually more efficient after "X" number of miles (4,000 miles?) -- Can't remember the exact number, but it's not porky, it's true.

Chaostheory · Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:09 pm

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 38):
The 77L is actually more efficient after "X" number of miles (4,000 miles?) -- Can't remember the exact number, but it's not porky, it's true.

I'm going to assume you have no 777 ops experience so I'll be nice.

I've run these through our performance apps for the 772ER and 772LR both with GE90 engines and zero wind. Remember they both have the same seating capacity. Sector length and trip fuel burn:

3000nm
772ER: 38920kg
772LR: 40220kg

4000nm
772ER: 52600kg
772LR: 54180kg

5000nm
772ER: 66725kg
772LR: 68690kg

6000nm:
772ER: 82790kg
772LR: 85280kg

If I have time, I will fire up my desktop later which contains the pdf to reply #19.

Stitch · Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:33 pm

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 38):
The 77L is actually more efficient after "X" number of miles (4,000 miles?) -- Can't remember the exact number, but it's not porky, it's true.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 39):
I've run these through our performance apps for the 772ER and 772LR both with GE90 engines and zero wind. Remember they both have the same seating capacity. Sector length and trip fuel burn:

Posted just for background purposes:

widebodyphotog was the member who noted the 777-200LR had 3% better fuel burn/unit payload than 777-200ER at ranges beyond 2,000nm (which I believe was when both were operating with the design payload and range of the 777-200ER). His comments were that the improvements in TSFC, propulsive efficiency, and airframe L/D more than negated the drag penalty of the extra structural weight of the 777-200LR. And this was before the engine and aerodynamic PiPs to the 777-200LR.

Chaostheory · Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
His comments were that the improvements in TSFC, propulsive efficiency, and airframe L/D more than negated the drag penalty of the extra structural weight of the 777-200LR. And this was before the engine and aerodynamic PiPs to the 777-200LR.

The performance tools I used for the calculations given include the performance upgrades.

Here is Boeing's take:

Working back from the seat fuel burn figures will give you trip fuel numbers close to mine.

Viscount724 · Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:20 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
Posted just for background purposes:

widebodyphotog was the member who noted the 777-200LR had 3% better fuel burn/unit payload than 777-200ER at ranges beyond 2,000nm (which I believe was when both were operating with the design payload and range of the 777-200ER). His comments were that the improvements in TSFC, propulsive efficiency, and airframe L/D more than negated the drag penalty of the extra structural weight of the 777-200LR. And this was before the engine and aerodynamic PiPs to the 777-200LR.

But did it negate the significantly higher capital cost of the 77L over the 77E, a little over $36 million based on current Boeing list prices? I realize nobody pays those prices but it's still an indication of the price difference between models. You can buy a lot of fuel for $36 million.

Also have to consider significantly higher landing fees and often ATC charges due to the 77L's much higher maximum gross weight.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net