Jump to content

Fuel economy in aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coastwise (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 13 March 2017 (Consolidated some sections, added fleet info, other edits for conciseness/clarity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fuel burning in the engines produces water vapor which condenses in contrails behind a Douglas DC-8

Fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel an aircraft or a fleet of aircraft of mixed types needs to operate in relation to a service provided (i.e. number of passengers or ton of freight) and the distance between points of travel. It can be expressed in several ways, for example by the liters of fuel consumed per passenger per kilometer. Aerodynamic drag, which is a force on the aircraft opposite to the direction of travel, is a principal determinant of fuel consumption, and is function of the aircraft design, the speed of travel, and the total weight of the aircraft including its fuel load and payload.

Basic considerations

Refuelling an A320 airliner with biofuel

Each model of aircraft has a maximum range speed for a given total load (fuel plus payload), which is the speed at which it is most fuel efficient.[1] Flying slower or faster than this optimum speed increases fuel consumption per mile flown. There is an optimum speed for efficiency because the component of drag resulting from airframe skin friction against the air is a function of the air speed squared, but the drag caused by lift generation decreases with air speed. (These are technically called parasitic drag and induced drag, respectively.)[1] The desirability of a low maximum range speed to reduce the environmental and climate impacts of fuel consumption is at odds in aircraft design with the benefit to airlines of a high cruise speed that will result in more passenger miles flown per day, yielding greater profit.[2]

The deadweight of the airframe and fuel is non-payload that must be lifted to altitude and kept aloft, contributing to fuel consumption. A reduction in airframe weight enables the use of smaller, lighter engines, and the weight savings in both allow a smaller, lighter fuel load for a given range and payload. A rule-of-thumb is that a reduction in fuel consumption of about 0.75% results from each 1% reduction in weight.[3]

Flight altitude affects engine efficiency. Jet-engine efficiency increases with altitude up to the tropopause, the lower boundary of the stratosphere, which is where temperature is at a minimum. Jet engines have higher efficiency at lower temperatures.[1] Jet engine efficiency is also increased at high speeds. However, above about Mach 0.85 the aerodynamic drag on the airframe overwhelms this effect because shockwaves begin to form, greatly increasing drag. For supersonic flight (Mach 1.0 or higher), fuel consumption is increased tremendously.

Changes in commercial aircraft fuel economy since the 1950s

There are two ways to view changes in the fuel economy of airliners; on the basis of individual aircraft or of the global fleet.[2] Fuel economy has changed over time, due to changes in technology and operations as well factors in airlines strategies related to costs (increased speed, longer range, etc.). [2]: 27 

The individual aircraft perspective

The Boeing 707, the earliest successful jet airliner

Early commercial jet models, introduction into service circa 1960, had substantially lower fuel economy than the late-model piston-powered aircraft they began to replace. [2]: Figs. 5, 6  Over time the fuel economy of the newer models of jet airliners increased, steeply at first but at a steadily declining rate that follows the power law. [2]: 25 [4]: Fig.13.1 > By the 1990s the fuel efficiency of the latest jets was equivalent to the final piston-powered airliners, and now the Boeing 787 is roughly 20% better.[4] : 294  Comparing the B707 of 1960 to the most efficient jet of 2000, fuel economy improved 55%.[2]: 18 [5]

These comparisons of fuel efficiency for individual aircraft are based on flight at the design specification maximum range, with a full payload, and operating at optimal cruise conditions for the longest period of time. The four conditions are rarely met in everyday operations. [2]: 26 

The aircraft fleet perspective

Concerning air travel's overall consumption of fossil fuel and its carbon dioxide emissions, it is the average fuel economy of the global airliner fleet that is important, rather than the improved economy of the latest models. Because the fleet is a mix of aircraft of varying age (0-35 years) and specifications, the latest efficiency technology in the newest individual aircraft models is not representative of the fleet's fuel efficiency. [2]: 25 

A comparison of fleet efficiency in two overlapping time periods illustrates this. Between 1960 (when very few piston airliners remained in the fleet) and 2000, the fleet's overall efficiency gain was 43%. But when five earlier years are added to include years when the fleet was predominantly piston powered, the efficiency gain from 1955 to 2000 was only 23%.[2]: 22  This illustration is of a step-change, when one fundamental technology replaced another, and it was very rapidly adopted. The rapid adoption was because of jet airliners' markedly higher speed, altitude and range performance, all of which were advantageous to airlines despite a much higher fuel consumption. Generally, it takes 5 to 15 years for the fleet's average technology to catch up with a newly introduced technology. [2]

Despite the gain in fuel economy, from the 1960s to the present the fleet's total fuel consumption and its directly related carbon dioxide emissions have increased linearly, greatly outpacing the efficiency gain as a result of continual growth in the air travel market.[6][7] : 4–5 

In the decades since jets achieved dominance in the air travel industry, fuel economy improvements have been incremental, for example between 1971 and 1998 a fleet-average improvement of 2.4% per seat kilometer. [2]: 10  However, care must be used in interpreting such statistics because the improvement in jet efficiency has been demonstrated to follow a power-law curve with diminishing annual improvement year-on-year. [4]: Fig. 13.1  For example, the above 2.4% annual improvement can be misconstrued, through extrapolation to a longer time span, to represent a 61% efficiency improvement in the fleet between 1960 and 2000, a quantity over 40% greater than the actual 43% improvement for that period. [2]: 22 

The last piston-powered airliner models "were as fuel-efficient" as the average jet in the in the circa 2005 modern fleet, and later model jets such as the B777-200 or B737-800 were "slightly more efficient" than the average jet at that time.[2]: 30  Subsequently, the B787 has entered service in the long-range component of the fleet and brings further efficiency gains, and is more efficient than the average jet in the present fleet.[4]: 294  The piston aircraft fleet reached a peak fuel economy of 2.1 mega-joules per available seat kilometer (MJ/ASK) in 1960, and at technical maturity in about 2040 the jet fleet might attain an economy of 1.2 MJ/ASK. [2]: 22  This would be a 42% increase in fleet fuel economy over a period of about 80 years.

The effect of operations on fleet fuel economy

Tankering

The practice of "tankering" reduces fuel efficiency. This is the carrying of sufficient additional fuel for the next leg (or a return leg) after a flight. It is done as a cost saving measure when there is a sufficient difference in fuel prices at two points, or when fuel is unavailable at one point. Transporting this additional weight increases fuel consumption on the first leg. Developments in software technology open greater opportunity for tankering than in the past, because calculating whether there is a benefit in a particular instance is complicated.[2]: 27 [8]

Operational factors

Methods used by Peeters et al. (2005) to determine the above fleet economy statistics omit several factors that in real world operation contribute to lower fuel economy than estimated. Great circle distances were assumed, but actual flight distances are longer due to navigation practices (which are improving and reducing this factor). Additional fuel burn can occur due to airspace and airport congestion, need for unplanned enroute altitude changes, and detouring to an alternate airports.[2]: 27  ICCT reports that flight routing, procedural separation rules, and weather can result in an actual flight distance significantly more that the great circle distance, and that for German medium- and long-haul flight of over 700 km the deviance averages 10%.[9]: 31 

Technologies for improving fuel economy

Weight reduction

The 84t maximum payload of a modern Airbus A380 represents 14.6% of its 575t maximum take-off weight. There remains considerable room for future improvements in fuel efficiency. The weight of an aircraft can be reduced by using light-weight materials such as titanium, carbon fiber and other composite plastics. Expensive materials may be used, if the reduction of mass justifies the price of materials through improved fuel efficiency. The improvements achieved in fuel efficiency by mass reduction, reduce the amount of fuel an aircraft must carry. This further reduces the mass of the aircraft, and therefore provides further gains in fuel efficiency. For example, the Airbus A380 design includes multiple light-weight materials. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner was the first major commercial airplane to have a composite fuselage, composite wings, and use composites in most other airframe components.[10]

Very long non-stop flights suffer from the weight penalty of the large quantity of fuel required, limiting the number of available seats to compensate. For such flights, the critical fiscal factor is the quantity of fuel burnt per seat-nautical mile.[11] For these reasons the world's longest commercial flights were cancelled circa 2013. An example is Singapore Air's former New York to Singapore flight, which could carry only 100 passengers (all business class) on the 10,300 mile flight. According to an industry analyst, "It [was] pretty much a fuel tanker in the air."[12]

Other technology potentials

NASA / Aurora Flight Sciences D8 airliner concept
Main article: Lift-to-drag ratio

Airbus has showcased wingtip devices (sharklets or winglets) that can achieve 3.5 percent reduction in fuel consumption.[13][14] There are wingtip devices on the Airbus A380. Further developed Minix winglets have been said to offer 6 percent reduction in fuel consumption.[15] Winglets at the tip of an aircraft wing, can be retrofitted to any airplane, and smooths out the wing-tip vortex, reducing the aircraft's wing drag.[15]

NASA and Boeing are conducting tests on a 500 lb (230 kg) "blended wing" aircraft. This design provides greater fuel efficiency, since the whole craft produces lift, not just the wings.[16] The blended wing body (BWB) concept offers advantages in structural, aerodynamic and operating efficiencies over today's more conventional fuselage-and-wing designs. These features translate into greater range, fuel economy, reliability and life cycle savings, as well as lower manufacturing costs.[17][18] NASA has created a cruise efficient STOL (CESTOL) concept.

Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Applied Materials Research (IFAM) have researched a shark skin imitating paint that would reduce drag through a riblet effect.[19] Aircraft is a major potential application for new technologies such as aluminium metal foam and nanotechnology such as the shark skin imitating paint.

Multiple concepts are projected to reduce fuel consumption:[20]

  • NASA's single-aisle turbo-electric aircraft with an aft boundary layer propulsor (STARC-ABL) is a conventional tube and wing 737-sized airliner with an aft-mounted electric fan ingesting the fuselage boundary layer hybrid-electric propulsion;
  • The Boeing blended wing body (BWB) with a wide fuselage mated to a high-aspect-ratio wings is more aerodynamically efficient because the entire aircraft contributes to the lift and because it has less surface area, producing less drag and offering weight savings due to lower wing loading, and noise is shielded by locating the engines on the aft upper surface;
  • Developed with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and refined with NASA, the Lockheed Martin Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) combines a blended forward fuselage and wing with a conventional aft fuselage and T-tail for compatibility with existing infrastructure and airdrop; the engines in overwing nacelles on struts over the trailing edge enable higher-bypass-ratio engines with 5% less drag, provide acoustic shielding and increases lift without a thrust or drag penalty at low speed;
  • Airbus-backed, German Bauhaus-Luftfahrt designed the Propulsive Fuselage concept reducing drag with a fan in the tail ingesting air flowing over the fuselage via an annular inlet and re-energizes the wake, driven with a gearbox or as a turbo-electric configuration;
  • Conceived by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for NASA, Aurora Flight Sciences develop the double-bubble D8, a 180-seat aircraft with a wide lifting fuselage, twin-aisle cabin to replace A320 and B737 narrowbodies, and boundary-layer ingestion with engines in the tail driving distortion-tolerant fans for a 49% fuel-burn reduction over the B737NG;
  • The Boeing Truss-Braced wing (TBW) concept was developed for the NASA-funded Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research program with an aspect ratio of 19.5 compared to 11 for the Boeing 787: the strut relieves some bending moment and a braced wing can be lighter than a cantilevered wing or longer for the same weight, having better lift-to-drag ratio by lowering the induced drag and thinner, facilitating natural laminar flow and reducing wave drag at transonic speeds;
  • Dzyne Technologies reduces the thickness of the blended wing body for a 110-130-seat super-regional, a configuration usually too thick for a narrowbody replacement and better suited for large aircraft, by placing the landing gear outward and storing baggage in the wing roots, enabling 20% fuel savings;
  • the French research agency ONERA designed two concepts for a 180-seat airliner Versitalie Aircraft (NOVA) including turbofans with higher bypass ratios and fan diameter: a gull wing with increased dihedral inboard to accommodate larger geared turbofans under without lengthening the gear and the other with engines embedded in the tail ingesting the low-energy fuselage boundary layer flow and reenergize the wake to reduce drag;
  • with Cranfield University, Rolls-Royce developed the Distributed Open Rotor (DORA) with high-aspect-ratio wing and V-tail to minimize drag, and turbogenerators on the wing driving electric propellers along the inboard leading edge with open rotor high propulsive efficiency and increasing the effective bypass ratio.

Advanced turboprops

Propulsive efficiency comparison for various gas turbine engine configurations

Propfans are a more fuel efficient technology than jets or turboprops, but turboprops have an optimum speed below about 450 mph (700 km/h).[21] This speed is less than used with jets by major airlines today. However, the decrease in speed reduces drag. With the current [needs update] high price for jet fuel and the emphasis on engine/airframe efficiency to reduce emissions, there is renewed interest in the propfan concept for jetliners that might come into service beyond the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350XWB. For instance, Airbus has patented aircraft designs with twin rear-mounted counter-rotating propfans.[22] NASA has conducted an Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), where they researched a variable pitch propfan that produced less noise and achieved high speeds.

For private aircraft in general aviation, the current record is 37 km/kg fuel or 3.7 L/100 km in a Monnett Sonerai.[23]

Related to fuel efficiency is the impact of aviation emissions on climate.

Operational potentials

An Airbus A330 from Thai Airways at Tokyo Narita

To save fuel, Simon Weselby presented the following measures while flying, in his example of an A330 flying 2,500 nautical miles (4,600 km) like Bangkok-Tokyo:[24]

  • direct routing: 40 km (25 mi) less distance saves 190 kg (420 lb) fuel
  • vertical flight profile optimization: fly 600 m (2,000 ft) below optimum altitude, 600 kg (1,300 lb) more fuel consumed
  • cruising speed: 0.01 mach above optimum, 800 kg (1,800 lb) more fuel consumed
  • aircraft weight: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) more fuel on board, 150 kg (330 lb) more fuel consumed. 100 litres (22 imp gal; 26 US gal) of unused potable water, 15 kg (33 lb) more fuel consumed.

Also operational procedures can save fuel:[24]

  • 10 minutes less APU use, 35 kg (77 lb) fuel saved
  • reduced flap approach, 15 kg (33 lb) fuel saved
  • reduced thrust reversal, 30 kg (66 lb) fuel saved

Maintenance saves fuel as well:[24]

  • no engine wash schedule: 100 kg (220 lb) more fuel consumed
  • slat rigging, 5 mm (0.20 in) gap, 50 kg (110 lb) more fuel consumed
  • spoiler rigging, 10 mm (0.39 in) gap, 40 kg (88 lb) more fuel consumed
  • damaged door seal, 15 kg (33 lb) more fuel consumed

Range

For very long haul flights, the airplane is heavier to transport additional fuel, leading to a higher fuel consumption. Above a certain distance, it becomes more fuel efficient to make a halfway stop to refuel even if it leads to an additional less efficient descent and climb. For example, for a Boeing 777-300 the tipping point is at 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km) : it is more fuel efficient to make a non-stop flight below this distance and to make a stop above.[25]

Boeing 777-224 fuel burn per distance against range

Airline fuel efficiency

A Boeing 787 from Norwegian Air Shuttle

Fuel economy in air transport comes from aircraft fuel efficiency combined with airlines efficiency : seating configuration, passenger load factor and air cargo. For instance, over the transatlantic route, the most active intercontinental market, in 2014 the average fuel consumption was 32 pax-km per L - 3.13 litres per 100 kilometres (75 mpg‑US) per passenger. The most fuel efficient airline was Norwegian Air Shuttle with 40 pax-km/L - 2.5 litres per 100 kilometres (94 mpg‑US) per passenger, thanks to its fuel efficient Boeing 787-8, a high 86% passenger load factor and a high density of 1.18 seat/m² due to a low 11% premium seating. On the other side, the least efficient was British Airways at 27 pax-km/L - 3.7 litres per 100 kilometres (64 mpg‑US) per passenger, using fuel inefficient Boeing 747-400s with a low density of 0.79 seat/m² due to a high 24% premium seating, in spite of a high 83% load factor.[26]

Research projects such as Boeing's ecoDemonstrator program have sought to identify ways of improving the fuel economy of commercial aircraft operations. The U.S. government has encouraged such research through grant programs, including the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, and NASA's Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project.[citation needed]


Example values

300 nautical miles (560 km)

model first flight seats Fuel burn Fuel per seat
ATR 42-500 1995 48 1.26 kg/km (4.5 lb/mi) 3.07 L/100 km (77 mpg‑US)[27]
ATR 72-500 1997 70 1.42 kg/km (5.0 lb/mi) 2.47 L/100 km (95 mpg‑US)[27]
Beechcraft 1900D (226nm) 1982 19 1.00 kg/km (3.56 lb/mi) 6.48 L/100 km (36.3 mpg‑US)[28]
Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 1998 78 2.16 kg/km (7.7 lb/mi) 3.38 L/100 km (70 mpg‑US)[29]
Dornier 228 1981 19 0.94 kg/km (3.3 lb/mi) 6.06 L/100 km (38.8 mpg‑US)[30]
Dornier 328 1991 30 1.10 kg/km (3.91 lb/mi) 4.51 L/100 km (52.2 mpg‑US)[31]
Embraer Brasilia 1983 30 0.92 kg/km (3.3 lb/mi) 3.82 L/100 km (61.6 mpg‑US)[32]
Pilatus PC-12 (500 nm) 1991 9 0.41 kg/km (1.5 lb/mi) 5.66 L/100 km (41.6 mpg‑US)[33]
Saab 340 1983 32 1.1 kg/km (3.9 lb/mi) 4.29 L/100 km (54.8 mpg‑US)[34]
Saab 2000 1992 50 1.75 kg/km (6.2 lb/mi) 4.39 L/100 km (53.6 mpg‑US)[35]

500–660 nautical miles (930–1,220 km)

model first flight seats sector Fuel burn Fuel efficiency per seat
Airbus A319neo 2015 144 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.93 kg/km (10.4 lb/mi) 2.04 L/100 km (115 mpg‑US)[36]
Airbus A319neo 2015 124 660 nmi (1,220 km) 2.85 kg/km (10.1 lb/mi) 2.82 L/100 km (83.5 mpg‑US)[37]
Airbus A320neo 2015 154 660 nmi (1,220 km) 2.82 kg/km (10 lb/mi) 2.25 L/100 km (104.7 mpg‑US)[37]
Airbus A321neo 2015 192 660 nmi (1,220 km) 3.35 kg/km (11.9 lb/mi) 2.19 L/100 km (107.4 mpg‑US)[37]
Boeing 737-300 1984 126 507 nmi (939 km) 3.55 kg/km (12.6 lb/mi) 3.46 L/100 km (68 mpg‑US)[38]
Boeing 737-600 1998 110 500 nmi (930 km) 3.16 kg/km (11.2 lb/mi) 3.5 L/100 km (67 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737-700 1997 126 500 nmi (930 km) 3.21 kg/km (11.4 lb/mi) 3.11 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737 MAX 7 2017 128 660 nmi (1,220 km) 2.90 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 2.77 L/100 km (84.8 mpg‑US)[37]
Boeing 737 MAX 7 2017 144 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.94 kg/km (10.4 lb/mi) 2.04 L/100 km (115 mpg‑US)[36]
Boeing 737-800 1997 162 500 nmi (930 km) 3.59 kg/km (12.7 lb/mi) 2.7 L/100 km (87 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737 MAX 8 2017 166 660 nmi (1,220 km) 3.07 kg/km (10.9 lb/mi) 2.28 L/100 km (103.2 mpg‑US)[37]
Boeing 737-900ER 2006 180 500 nmi (930 km) 3.83 kg/km (13.6 lb/mi) 2.59 L/100 km (91 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737 MAX 9 2017 180 660 nmi (1,220 km) 3.35 kg/km (11.9 lb/mi) 2.3 L/100 km (103 mpg‑US)[37]
Boeing 757-200 1982 200 500 nmi (930 km) 4.68 kg/km (16.61 lb/mi) 2.91 L/100 km (80.7 mpg‑US)[40]
Boeing 757-300 1998 243 500 nmi (930 km) 5.19 kg/km (18.41 lb/mi) 2.66 L/100 km (88.4 mpg‑US)[40]
Bombardier CRJ1000 2009 100 500 nmi (930 km) 2.73 kg/km (9.7 lb/mi) 3.33 L/100 km (71 mpg‑US) [41]
Bombardier CSeries 100 2013 115 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.46 kg/km (8.7 lb/mi) 2.14 L/100 km (110 mpg‑US)[36]
Bombardier CSeries 300 2015 140 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.68 kg/km (9.5 lb/mi) 1.92 L/100 km (123 mpg‑US)[36]
Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 1998 82 600 nmi (1,100 km) 1.83 kg/km (6.5 lb/mi) 2.72 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[42]
Embraer E-Jet E2-175 2020 88 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.11 kg/km (7.5 lb/mi) 2.4 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[36]
Embraer E-Jet E2-190 2018 106 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.45 kg/km (8.7 lb/mi) 2.32 L/100 km (101 mpg‑US)[36]
Embraer E-Jet E2-195 2019 132 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.67 kg/km (9.5 lb/mi) 2.03 L/100 km (116 mpg‑US)[36]
Embraer E-Jet-190 2002 98 500 nmi (930 km) 2.98 kg/km (10.6 lb/mi) 3.81 L/100 km (61.7 mpg‑US)[43]
Saab 340 1983 31 500 nmi (930 km) 0.95 kg/km (3.4 lb/mi) 3.83 L/100 km (61.4 mpg‑US)[34]
Saab 2000 1992 50 500 nmi (930 km) 1.54 kg/km (5.5 lb/mi) 3.85 L/100 km (61.1 mpg‑US)[35]
Sukhoi SSJ100 2008 98 500 nmi (930 km) 2.81 kg/km (10.0 lb/mi) 3.59 L/100 km (65.5 mpg‑US)[43]

1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km)

model first flight seats Fuel Burn Fuel efficiency per seat
Airbus A319 1995 124 2.99 kg/km (10.6 lb/mi) 2.95 L/100 km (80 mpg‑US)[44]
Airbus A319Neo 2015 136 2.46 kg/km (8.73 lb/mi) 1.93 L/100 km (122 mpg‑US)[45]
Airbus A320 1987 150 3.18 kg/km (11.3 lb/mi) 2.61 L/100 km (90 mpg‑US)[44]
Airbus A321-200 1996 180 3.66 kg/km (13 lb/mi) 2.5 L/100 km (94 mpg‑US)[44]
Airbus A330-200 1997 293 5.66 kg/km (20.09 lb/mi) 2.37 L/100 km (99 mpg‑US)[44]
Boeing 737-600 1998 110 2.78 kg/km (9.9 lb/mi) 3.08 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737-700 1997 126 2.82 kg/km (10.0 lb/mi) 2.73 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737-700 1997 128 2.83 kg/km (10.05 lb/mi) 2.71 L/100 km (87 mpg‑US)[44]
Boeing 737 MAX-7 2017 140 2.55 kg/km (9.04 lb/mi) 1.94 L/100 km (121 mpg‑US)[45]
Boeing 737-800 1997 162 3.17 kg/km (11.2 lb/mi) 2.38 L/100 km (99 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737-800 1997 160 3.50 kg/km (12.41 lb/mi) 2.68 L/100 km (88 mpg‑US)[44]
Boeing 737-800W 1997 162 3.18 kg/km (11.3 lb/mi) 2.39 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[46]
Boeing 737 MAX-8 2017 162 2.71 kg/km (9.6 lb/mi) 2.04 L/100 km (115 mpg‑US)[46]
Boeing 737-900ER 2006 180 3.42 kg/km (12.1 lb/mi) 2.32 L/100 km (101 mpg‑US)[39]
Boeing 737-900ERW 2006 180 3.42 kg/km (12.1 lb/mi) 2.31 L/100 km (102 mpg‑US)[46]
Boeing 737 MAX-9 2017 180 2.91 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 1.97 L/100 km (119 mpg‑US)[46]
Boeing 757-200 1982 190 4.67 kg/km (16.57 lb/mi) 3.02 L/100 km (78 mpg‑US)[44]
Boeing 757-200 1982 200 4.16 kg/km (14.76 lb/mi) 2.59 L/100 km (90.8 mpg‑US)[40]
Boeing 757-300 1998 243 4.68 kg/km (16.62 lb/mi) 2.4 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[40]
Bombardier CS300 2015 135 2.34 kg/km (8.3 lb/mi) 1.85 L/100 km (127 mpg‑US)[45]
Quest Kodiak 2004 9 0.71 kg/km (2.52 lb/mi) 6.28 L/100 km (37.5 mpg‑US)[47]

2,160–3,000 nautical miles (4,000–5,560 km)

3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km) is typically transatlantic, e.g. New York JFK - London-Heathrow [48]

model first flight seats sector Fuel burn Fuel per seat
Airbus A320 1987 150 2,151 nmi (3,984 km) 2.91 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 2.43 L/100 km (97 mpg‑US)[49]
Airbus A321NeoLR 2016 154 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 2.99 kg/km (10.6 lb/mi) 2.41 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[50]
Airbus A330-200 1997 241 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.03 kg/km (21.4 lb/mi) 3.11 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[51]
Airbus A330-300 1992 262 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.28 kg/km (22.3 lb/mi) 2.98 L/100 km (79 mpg‑US)[51]
Airbus A330neo-900 2016 310 3,350 nmi (6,200 km) 6.03 kg/km (21.4 lb/mi) 2.42 L/100 km (97 mpg‑US)[52]
Airbus A340-300 1992 262 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.85 kg/km (24.3 lb/mi) 3.25 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[51]
Boeing 737 MAX-8 2017 168 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 2.86 kg/km (10.1 lb/mi) 2.13 L/100 km (110 mpg‑US)[53]
Boeing 737 MAX-9 2017 144 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 2.91 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 2.51 L/100 km (94 mpg‑US)[50]
Boeing 747-400 1988 416 2,151 nmi (3,984 km) 10.77 kg/km (38.2 lb/mi) 3.24 L/100 km (73 mpg‑US)[49]
Boeing 747-8 2011 467 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 9.9 kg/km (35 lb/mi) 2.59 L/100 km (91 mpg‑US)[54]
Boeing 757-200W 1981 158 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 3.79 kg/km (13.4 lb/mi) 2.99 L/100 km (79 mpg‑US)[50]
Boeing 767-200ER 1984 181 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 4.83 kg/km (17.1 lb/mi) 3.32 L/100 km (71 mpg‑US)[55]
Boeing 767-200ER 1984 193 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 5.01 kg/km (17.8 lb/mi) 3.23 L/100 km (73 mpg‑US)[50]
Boeing 767-200ER 1984 224 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 4.93 kg/km (17.5 lb/mi) 2.74 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[55]
Boeing 767-300ER 1988 218 2,151 nmi (3,984 km) 5.38 kg/km (19.1 lb/mi) 3.09 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[49]
Boeing 767-300ER 1988 218 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.39 kg/km (19.1 lb/mi) 3.07 L/100 km (77 mpg‑US)[55]
Boeing 767-300ER 1988 269 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.51 kg/km (19.5 lb/mi) 2.55 L/100 km (92 mpg‑US)[55]
Boeing 767-400ER 1999 245 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.78 kg/km (20.5 lb/mi) 2.93 L/100 km (80 mpg‑US)[55]
Boeing 767-400ER 1999 304 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.93 kg/km (21.0 lb/mi) 2.42 L/100 km (97 mpg‑US)[55]
Boeing 767-400ER 1999 304 3,265 nmi (6,047 km) 6.00 kg/km (21.3 lb/mi) 2.43 L/100 km (96.9 mpg‑US)[38]
Boeing 777-200 1994 305 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.83 kg/km (24.2 lb/mi) 2.73 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[56]
Boeing 777-200ER 1996 301 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.99 kg/km (24.8 lb/mi) 2.89 L/100 km (81 mpg‑US)[51]
Boeing 777-300 1997 368 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 7.88 kg/km (28.0 lb/mi) 2.61 L/100 km (90 mpg‑US)[56]
Boeing 787-8 2009 291 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 5.26 kg/km (18.7 lb/mi) 2.26 L/100 km (104 mpg‑US)[53]
Boeing 787-8 2009 238 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 5.11 kg/km (18.1 lb/mi) 2.67 L/100 km (88 mpg‑US)[50]
Boeing 787-9 2013 304 3,350 nmi (6,200 km) 5.8 kg/km (21 lb/mi) 2.37 L/100 km (99 mpg‑US)[52]

5,000–7,600 nautical miles (9,300–14,100 km)

6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) is typically transpacific, e.g. Hong kong international - San Francisco Intl[57]

model first flight seats sector Fuel burn Fuel per seat
Airbus A330-200 1997 241 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 6.48 kg/km (23.0 lb/mi) 3.32 L/100 km (71 mpg‑US)[51]
Airbus A330neo-800 2017 248 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 5.52 kg/km (19.6 lb/mi) 2.75 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[58]
Airbus A330neo-900 2017 300 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 6.02 kg/km (21.4 lb/mi) 2.48 L/100 km (95 mpg‑US)[58]
Airbus A340-300 1992 262 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 7.41 kg/km (26.3 lb/mi) 3.49 L/100 km (67.4 mpg‑US)[51]
Airbus A350-900 2013 315 4,972 nmi (9,208 km) 6.11 kg/km (21.7 lb/mi) 2.39 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[52]
Airbus A350-900 2013 315 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) 7.07 kg/km (25.1 lb/mi) 2.86 L/100 km (82 mpg‑US)[59]
Airbus A380 2005 525 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 13.78 kg/km (48.9 lb/mi) 3.27 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[60]
Airbus A380 2005 544 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 13.78 kg/km (48.9 lb/mi) 3.16 L/100 km (74 mpg‑US)[61]
Boeing 747-400 1988 416 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 11.11 kg/km (39.4 lb/mi) 3.26 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[62]
Boeing 747-8 2011 467 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 10.54 kg/km (37.4 lb/mi) 2.75 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[54]
Boeing 747-8 2011 405 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 10.9 kg/km (39 lb/mi) 3.35 L/100 km (70 mpg‑US)[60]
Boeing 777-200ER 1996 301 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 7.51 kg/km (26.6 lb/mi) 3.08 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[51]
Boeing 777-200ER 1996 301 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 7.44 kg/km (26.4 lb/mi) 3.01 L/100 km (78 mpg‑US)[56]
Boeing 777-200LR 2005 291 4,972 nmi (9,208 km) 7.66 kg/km (27.2 lb/mi) 3.25 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[52]
Boeing 777-300ER 2003 365 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 8.49 kg/km (30.1 lb/mi) 2.84 L/100 km (83 mpg‑US)[56]
Boeing 777-300ER 2003 344 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 8.58 kg/km (30.4 lb/mi) 3.11 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[60]
Boeing 777-9X 2020 395 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 9.04 kg/km (32.1 lb/mi) 2.85 L/100 km (83 mpg‑US)[60]
Boeing 787-8 2011 243 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 5.45 kg/km (19.3 lb/mi) 2.77 L/100 km (85 mpg‑US)[58]
Boeing 787-9 2013 294 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 5.93 kg/km (21.0 lb/mi) 2.49 L/100 km (94 mpg‑US)[58]
Boeing 787-9 2013 304 4,972 nmi (9,208 km) 5.7 kg/km (20 lb/mi) 2.31 L/100 km (102 mpg‑US)[52]
Boeing 787-9 2013 291 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) 7.18 kg/km (25.5 lb/mi) 3.14 L/100 km (75 mpg‑US)[59]

For comparison, a Volvo Buses 9700 averages 0.41 litres per 100 kilometres (570 mpg‑US) per seat for 63 seats.[63] In highway travel an average auto has the potential for 1.61 litres per 100 kilometres (146 mpg‑US)[64] per seat (assuming 4 seats) and for a 5-seat 2014 Toyota Prius, 0.98 litres per 100 kilometres (240 mpg‑US).[65] While this shows the capabilities of the vehicles, the load factors (percentage of seats occupied) may differ between personal use (commonly just the driver in the car) and societal averages for long-distance auto use, and among those of particular airlines.

See also

  • Energy efficiency in transportation
  • James Albright (February 27, 2016). "Getting the Most Miles from Your Jet-A". Business & Commercial Aviation. Aviation Week.

References

  1. ^ a b "Drag". Skybrary. Retrieved June 8, 2014.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Peeters, P. M.; Middel, J.; Hoolhorst, A. (2005). "Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends" (PDF). National Aerospace Laboratory. Retrieved July 6, 2014.
  3. ^ Barney L. Capehart (2007). Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and Technology. Vol. 1. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8493-3653-9.
  4. ^ a b c d Peeters P., V. W., de Haan A. (2009). Technical and Management Reduction Potentials. In: Climate change and aviation: Issues, challenges and solutions. pp.293-307.
  5. ^ If instead the earlier DeHavilland Comet, which saw only limited service and was less efficient than the B707, is used as the baseline, the resulting estimate is more optimistic. Peeters et al. (2005) used the B707 as the baseline because it was the earliest jet in widespread use.
  6. ^ Fahey, D.W. (2015), NOAA. Aviation and Climate: An Update. Presentation to ICAO's E-GAP seminar. Montreal, Sept. 2015.
  7. ^ Peeters, Kutzner & Cohen (2016). Are technology myths stalling aviation climate policy?.
  8. ^ Aviation International News, Tankering Benefits Tangible and Achievable. Oct. 15, 2015.
  9. ^ Kwan, I. & Rutherford, D. (2015). Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2014. International Council on Clean Transportation.
  10. ^ Marsh, George (April 8, 2014). "Composites flying high (Part 1)". Materials Today. Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  11. ^ Park Y., O'Kelly M.E. (2014). Fuel burn rates of commercial passenger aircraft: variations by seat configuration and stage distance. Jrnl. Transp. Geog., 41:pp.137-147.
  12. ^ Why the Longest Nonstop Flights Are Ending, Bloomberg Bus., 31 Oct. 2013.
  13. ^ "'Shark fin' wings give airline chiefs something to smile about". NZ Herald News. November 17, 2009. Retrieved September 29, 2012.
  14. ^ "A320 plane shark fins small winglets successfully completed the first flight test". Ylcrafts.com. Retrieved September 29, 2012.
  15. ^ a b "Minix wing tip device promises 6% gain in fuel efficiency for airliners". Gizmag.com. Retrieved September 29, 2012.
  16. ^ Hank Green (October 8, 2007). "Fuel Efficient Plane Prototype Hits Skies". Ecogeek. Retrieved July 6, 2014.
  17. ^ Tom Koehler (October 27, 2006). "Boeing to Begin Ground Testing of X-48B Blended Wing Body Concept" (Press release). Boeing. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
  18. ^ Philip Lorenz III (July 3, 2007). "AEDC testing brings unique blended wing aircraft closer to flight". Arnold Air Force Base. Archived from the original on July 14, 2014. Retrieved April 10, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  19. ^ Mahony, Melissa (May 25, 2010). "A sharkskin coating for ships, planes and blades". SmartPlanet. Retrieved September 29, 2012.
  20. ^ Graham Warwick (January 27, 2017). "When Will These Civil Aircraft Concepts Fly?". Aviation Week & Space Technology.
  21. ^ Spakovszky, Zoltan (2009). "Unified Propulsion Lecture 1". Unified Engineering Lecture Notes. MIT. Retrieved April 3, 2009.
  22. ^ US application 2009020643, Airbus & Christophe Cros, "Aircraft having reduced environmental impact", published 2009-01-22 
  23. ^ "FAI Record ID #15066 - Aeroplane Efficiency, C-1b (Landplanes: take off weight 500 to 1000 kg) " Fédération Aéronautique Internationale Record date 8 June 2008. Accessed: 4 October 2015.
  24. ^ a b c "Fuel Burn vs. Maintenance Costs" (PDF). IATA maintenance cost conference. Airbus. October 2012.
  25. ^ Antonio Filippone (2012). Advanced Aircraft Flight Performance. Cambridge University Press. p. 454. ISBN 9781139789660.
  26. ^ Irene Kwan and Daniel Rutherford (November 2015). "Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2014" (PDF). International Council on Clean Transportation.
  27. ^ a b "Fuel saving" (PDF). ATR. January 2011.
  28. ^ "Beechcraft 1900D: Fuel, Emissions & Cost Savings Operational Analysis" (PDF). Specific Range Solutions Ltd. February 21, 2012.
  29. ^ Mark Brouwer, Siddharth Srinivasan. "Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72". The Flying Engineer.
  30. ^ "Dornier 228 Advanced Commuter Brochure". RUAG.
  31. ^ "Dornier 328 corporate shuttle" (PDF). Aviation Week Business & Commercial Aviation. March 1996.
  32. ^ "120 Brasilia Sales Brochure". Embraer. p. 8.
  33. ^ "PC-12 NG Just The Facts" (PDF). Pilatus. October 20, 2015.
  34. ^ a b "Saab 340A data sheet" (PDF). Saab Aircraft Leasing. 2009.
  35. ^ a b "Saab 2000 data sheet" (PDF). Saab Aircraft Leasing. 2009.
  36. ^ a b c d e f g "Embraer continues and refines its strategy at the low-end of 100-149 seat sector". Leeham News. January 13, 2014.
  37. ^ a b c d e f "ANALYSIS: A320neo vs. 737 MAX: Airbus is Leading (Slightly) – Part II". Airways News. February 5, 2016.
  38. ^ a b Scott McCartney (August 12, 2010). "A Prius With Wings vs. a Guzzler in the Clouds". Wall Street Journal.
  39. ^ a b c d e f g h "737 performance summary" (PDF). Boeing. 2007.
  40. ^ a b c d "757 performance summary" (PDF). Boeing. 2007.
  41. ^ "Bombardier CRJ1000 Fuel Consumption". Sun Airlines. August 20, 2013.
  42. ^ "Q400 Fuel efficiency manual" (PDF). Bombardier. 2014.
  43. ^ a b "Sukhoi SSJ100, Embraer ERJ190, Airbus A319 Operational and Economic Comparison". Sukhoi. March 2013.
  44. ^ a b c d e f g "Analysing the options for 757 replacement" (PDF). Aircraft Commerce. August 2005.
  45. ^ a b c "CS300 first flight Wednesday, direct challenge to 737-7 and A319neo". Leeham News. February 25, 2015.
  46. ^ a b c d "Boeing 737 MAX: performance with reported engine SFC shortfall". Leeham News. April 15, 2015.
  47. ^ "Kodiak Brochure" (PDF). Quest Aircraft. April 2014.
  48. ^ "Distance from JFK to LHR". great circle mapper.
  49. ^ a b c Template:Cite article
  50. ^ a b c d e Bjorn Fehrm (February 25, 2015). "Redefining the 757 replacement: Requirement for the 225/5000 Sector". Leeham News.
  51. ^ a b c d e f g "Boeing: 777 way much better than A330". Aspire aviation. December 8, 2010.
  52. ^ a b c d e Vinay Bhaskara (November 25, 2014). "UPDATED ANALYSIS: Delta Order for A350; A330neo Hinged on Pricing, Availability". Airways News.
  53. ^ a b "737 MAX 8 could be enabler for some LCC Long Haul". Leeham News. December 8, 2014.
  54. ^ a b "747-8 performance summary" (PDF). Boeing. 2010.
  55. ^ a b c d e f "767 performance summary" (PDF). Boeing. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  56. ^ a b c d "777 performance summary" (PDF). Boeing. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 4, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  57. ^ "Distance from HKG to SFO". great circle mapper.
  58. ^ a b c d "ANALYSIS: The Boeing 787-8 and Airbus A330-800neo are Far From Dead". Airways News. March 17, 2016.
  59. ^ a b "Airbus A350 : is the Xtra making the difference ?". Aspire Aviation. June 8, 2015.
  60. ^ a b c d "Updating the A380: the prospect of a neo version and what's involved". leeham news. February 3, 2014.
  61. ^ "What Might an Engine Improvement and Sharklets Provide?". Air Insight. July 4, 2016.
  62. ^ "747 performance summary" (PDF). Boeing. 2010.
  63. ^ Edward Jobson (September 12, 2013). "Coach fuel consumption". volvo buses.
  64. ^ DEFRA (2008). 2008 Guidelines to Defra’s GHG Conversion Factors: Methodology Paper for Transport Emission Factors
  65. ^ "2014 Toyota Prius fuel economy". United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuel_economy_in_aircraft&oldid=770034240"