#1
TodayWith the rising oil prices lately, it got me thinking about the future of air travel. Who knows is there will be air travel in 20 years if we run out of oil.
Anyhow I was thinking is the A380 the most fuel efficient per passenger? Their website touts this as one of the big advantages. Or is is some other aircraft. I see more and more 737's these days and lot of flights on CRJ
I much prefer the widebodies but understand that we need to conserve fuel. I remember when you could fly to HNL on a 747, then a DC10, then a 757 and my last flight on AS on a 737... maybe next year it will be a CRJ.
Just curious as to what the most fuel efficient jet aircraft is?
Anyhow I was thinking is the A380 the most fuel efficient per passenger? Their website touts this as one of the big advantages. Or is is some other aircraft. I see more and more 737's these days and lot of flights on CRJ
I much prefer the widebodies but understand that we need to conserve fuel. I remember when you could fly to HNL on a 747, then a DC10, then a 757 and my last flight on AS on a 737... maybe next year it will be a CRJ.
Just curious as to what the most fuel efficient jet aircraft is?
#2
Q400 
It has a prop but it is a jet!
Also I might add, many metrics for it, per seat if full, and outright, the figures really all depend upon the oad factor.
That being said the RJ's in general are HORRIBLE on fuel economy.
It has a prop but it is a jet!
Also I might add, many metrics for it, per seat if full, and outright, the figures really all depend upon the oad factor.
That being said the RJ's in general are HORRIBLE on fuel economy.
#3
The 757/A320 size seems to be a sweat spot. As you move bigger, or smaller, the cost per seat-mile increases. Newer designs are better than older designs, obviously, so a newer design that's farther from the optimum size will likely do better than an older one that's closer.
I don't know how well the newer technology in the A380 does at overcoming it's very large size. It may do quite well. The 787 should be an efficiency leader when it enters the market as well.
I don't know how well the newer technology in the A380 does at overcoming it's very large size. It may do quite well. The 787 should be an efficiency leader when it enters the market as well.
#4
YVR Cockroach , May 11, 2008 11:38 am
FlyerTalk Evangelist
TodayThe key for most a/c is keeping the seats occupied though that won't help you much on older a/c such as DC9s, 727s, DC-10s and L-1011s (as well as other older a/c).
The 320s seems to be optimized for flights less than 2,000 miles which is why they have trouble with transcontinentals in the U.S. (ask B6). 321s and 3192 have just that extra range to fly U.S. transcontinentals.
Quote:
757 is good when it's used for ranges beyond 1,800-2,500 miles (but under a trans-Atlantic?) as it can carry more pax/cargo and fuel for these flights and overcome its weight penalty for shorter flights (where the lighter but shorter-legged A321 is better).Originally Posted by LarryJ
The 757/A320 size seems to be a sweat spot.
The 320s seems to be optimized for flights less than 2,000 miles which is why they have trouble with transcontinentals in the U.S. (ask B6). 321s and 3192 have just that extra range to fly U.S. transcontinentals.
Quote:
I don't know how well the newer technology in the A380 does at overcoming it's very large size.
Reportedly the A380 at 80% pax does as well as a fully loaded 744.I don't know how well the newer technology in the A380 does at overcoming it's very large size.
#5
chornedsnorkack , May 11, 2008 11:42 pm
Quote:
Reportedly the A380 at 80% pax does as well as a fully loaded 744.
The way I understood the boast of SQ, their A380 has 20 % lower fuel burn per seat fully loaded with 471 passengers compared to B747-400 with 375 seats - which means that a fully loaded A380 fuel burn matches carrying 376,8 seats on B747, and the total fuel cost per trip is only 0,5 % bigger. The extra volume of A380 over B747 is basically free.Originally Posted by YVR Cockroach
Reportedly the A380 at 80% pax does as well as a fully loaded 744.
#6
I'm assuming the OP is referring to civilian passenger jets, but without looking at any data, I'd put money on the U-2/TR-1 spyplanes-- especially if they have done a turbofan reftrofit since the early 1960s.
Of course, the killer is the per-pax fuel burn, since the darn thing only holds one person.
Of course, the killer is the per-pax fuel burn, since the darn thing only holds one person.
#7
I thought the A380 was the most fuel efficient if all the seats are occupied. If only 1 or 2 seats are occupied, it's the worse.
If the trip is short, such as Toledo, Ohio to Detroit, then possibly the Q400 is the most fuel efficient.
The joke answer would be any jet that is parked. That would use no fuel. It's not a joke completely as if you want to save gas, stay home and don't take that trip on your hybrid car.
If the trip is short, such as Toledo, Ohio to Detroit, then possibly the Q400 is the most fuel efficient.
The joke answer would be any jet that is parked. That would use no fuel. It's not a joke completely as if you want to save gas, stay home and don't take that trip on your hybrid car.
#8
chornedsnorkack , May 12, 2008 10:11 am
Quote:
Of course, the killer is the per-pax fuel burn, since the darn thing only holds one person.
Hardly. I think that the most fuel efficient jet is Cri-Cri. Which is definitely better than Global Flyer...Originally Posted by Jazzop
I'm assuming the OP is referring to civilian passenger jets, but without looking at any data, I'd put money on the U-2/TR-1 spyplanes-- especially if they have done a turbofan reftrofit since the early 1960s.Of course, the killer is the per-pax fuel burn, since the darn thing only holds one person.
#9
Quote:
That was going to be my answer--any grounded jet is very fuel-efficient! Originally Posted by 797-3
The joke answer would be any jet that is parked. That would use no fuel. It's not a joke completely as if you want to save gas, stay home and don't take that trip on your hybrid car.
#10
Mabuk dan gila , May 12, 2008 6:46 pm
AC once flew a 767 almost 50 miles without using any fuel at all.
#11
Quote:
link? This is interesting, they flew on what? even battery power is still a 'fuel'Originally Posted by Mabuk dan gila
AC once flew a 767 almost 50 miles without using any fuel at all.
#14
chornedsnorkack , May 13, 2008 9:15 am
Quote:
Air Transat got considerably further. A330 is more efficient...Originally Posted by Mabuk dan gila
AC once flew a 767 almost 50 miles without using any fuel at all.