787 & 737 flight fuel use

[dc2013]

first of all, hello, first post for me so treat me with kindness lol

i'm in my final year at uni doing aeronautical engineering and need some advice on my dissertation if anyone of here can help than that would be great.

i won't bore you with the details of my work (unless you really want to know) but if anyone can give me advice or information about the typical values of fuel consumed per flight for the 787-8 and 767-300ER on the same route then it would be most appreciated as i need to do some comparison between them for my work.

if not then where would be the best source of information for this data to be?

many thanks in advance

[Flutter speed]

Hi dc2013,

Welcome to the forum. I suggest you update the topic title to 787 & 767 flight fuel use, now it has 787 and 737 which is not what you mean, I think.

About the fuel consumption, here is a link (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5498220/) of something I read a few ago. Other than that, just do research. The specific numbers might be hard to come by, but a general picture should be possible. You have the numbers from Boeing of course and there are a lot of other un-official sources.

Good luck with the thesis work!

[Spooky 2]

Pass along a city pair with desired alternates and I will see what I can do for you.

[glum]

You could start with max fuel load and max range to get you in the ball park.

There are of course errors in this since you have to account for diversion fuel, un-usable fuel etc, but it should certainly give you an overall comparison of the maximum capability of the aircraft.

[Ian W]

See if your Uni has access to the EUROCONTROL maintained 'Base of Aircraft DAta' (BADA) performance model. That has the publicly available fuel consumption of almost all aircraft types at various levels, temperatures and in different flight phases and sub-phases.

See Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) | EUROCONTROL (http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/bada)

[dc2013]

thanks for the responses guys,

spooky 2,
boeing suggests that a typical city pair for a 767-300er is frankfurt to los angeles but honestly any same typical flight for both would do, in the region of 5,000nmi or so but as a list maybe:
london - new york
tokyo - sydney
london - johannesburg

cheers guys for the links, been doing lots of research already, and lots more to come lol!

[Ian W]

dc2013
boeing suggests that a typical city pair for a 767-300er is frankfurt to los angeles but honestly any same typical flight for both would do, in the region of 5,000nmi or so but as a list maybe:
london - new york
tokyo - sydney
london - johannesburg

Not sure what you are trying to prove with your research. But remember that Atlantic crossings use the North Atlantic (NA) Ocean Track Structure (OTS). The NA OTS is crowded and they jam aircraft into it at minimum separation laterally, longitudinally and vertically. This means that aircraft don't get to fly efficient levels or speeds and sometimes not efficient winds/temperatures either. So it may not be a really good route to look at. Several recent crossings on 76-300 and 76-400 the flights were held at FL330 until into Canadian domestic airspace. So you cannot just use fuel burn on those routes that simply.

[toffeez]

He doesn't have to look at day-to-day variables. That's just a confusion.

The obvious and most accurate way is to pick a still air distance, like the 5000nm he suggested. It doesn't have to be between real airports.
.

[dc2013]

yep i'm just looking for a simple comparison between two identical flights of the two aircraft 787-8 & 767-300ER, so i have numbers saying these aircraft for this fight use x & x amount of fuel respectively.

[Ian W]

True and you could use an ICAN atmosphere - but that leaves you with something based on theory that you cannot validate.

[toffeez]

What we are talking about here is taking a still air distance and looking up the fuel burns from the manufacturers manuals or software.

What we are not talking about is collecting a pile of in-service fuel burns and trying to correct for wind, payload, flight level etc.

The manufacturers may well publish the minimum fuel burns, but at least they are based on hundreds of flight test hours and the relative burn 787 vs 767 should be valid.

Call that theory if you want ...

[FlightPathOBN]

good luck finding valid data on the 787.....:}

[toffeez]

Of course you're right, but one can use Boeing's published payload-range charts to deduce the distance flown on the specified max capacity of fuel. In this sense glum was on the right track.

My understanding is that this uni task is not to discover todays fuel efficiency shortfall of the 787, but to verify Boeing's vague "20% better than brand X" claims.

[FlightPathOBN]

toffeez,

I dont think the published data has enough foundation to be all that relevant...would like to see the time in use actual data...