A380 operations figures
Guest
Posts: n/a
A380 operations figures
I noticed this last night and thought I'd post it to get other opinions.
I was comparing fuel usage/passenger figures last night (I was working up some operating cost data) for the A380, 747-400, and A340-600 and I was surprised at what I found. I'll start with the following info (from a table) from an Aviation Week article published late last year following the A380 launch.
A380 COMPARISON CHART
Airbus A380-100 Boeing 747-400 Boeing 747X Stretch
Passengers (3-class) 555* 416** 522**
Engines (fourturbofans) @ 68,000-75,000 lbf. @ 59,500-63,300 lbf. @ 68,000 lbf.
Wingspan 261.8 ft. 211.4 ft. 228.9 ft.
Wing area 9,100 sq. ft. 5,600 sq. ft. 6,820 sq. ft.
Aspect ratio 7.53 7.98 7.68
Wing sweep (1/4-chord) 33.5 deg. outboard 37.5 deg. outboard 37.5 deg. outboard
Length 239.5 ft. 231.8 ft. 264.3 ft.
Height 79.1 ft. 63.7 ft. 65.2 ft.
Maximum takeoff weight 1,235,000 lb. 875,000 lb. 1,043,000 lb.
Maximum landing weight 844,000 lb. 652,000 lb. N/A
Maximum zero fuel weight 789,000 lb. 555,000 lb. N/A
Operating weight empty 606,000 lb. 399,300 lb. 495,000 lb.
Fuel capacity 85,900 U.S. gal. 57,285 U.S. gal. 72,573 U.S. gal.
Wing loading @ MTOW 136 psf. 156 psf. 153 psf.
Thrust-to-weight @ MTOW 0.24 0.29 0.26
OWE/passenger 1,092 lb./pax 960 lb./pax 948 lb./pax
Normalized OWE/pax 114% 100% (reference) 99%
Range with full 8,150 naut. mi. 7,330 naut. mi. 7,785 naut. mi.
Passenger payload @ 116,550 lb. @ 87,360 lb. @ 109,620 lb.
Long range cruise speed Mach 0.85 Mach 0.85 Mach 0.86
Initial cruise altitude capability 35,000 ft. N/A 34,000 ft.
Takeoff field length (MTOW, sea level, 86F) <11,000 ft. N/A 11,000 ft.
Approach speed @ MLW <145 kt. N/A N/A
Notes:
*A380 cabin configuration is 22 first class at six abreast, 68-in. seat pitch; 96 business class at six-abreast, 44-in. pitch; and 437 economy at 8-10-abreast, 32-33-in. pitch.
**747-400 cabin configuration is 23 first class at 61-in. seat pitch; 78 business class at 39-in. pitch; and 315 economy at 10-abreast, 32-in. pitch. The 747X Stretch has the same seating dimensions.
N/A--data not available due to Christmas holiday closure.
Several things stand out here, but I'll just focus on the fuel usage/passenger data.
I had to normalize the fuel usage figures to the range of the 747-400, since it has the shortest range of the 3 aircraft listed in the table. I also used the "typical 3 class" passenger load so as to compare "apples to apples" as much as possible. I'm also assuming that appropriate fuel reserves are calculated into the maximum ranges of each aircraft.
Normalized fuel usage for the A380 at 7330nm would be (7330/8150)*85,900 = 77257.3 gallons. Take this figure and divide it by 555 passengers (77257.3/555 = 139.2 gals) yields 139.2 gallons/passenger at a full passenger load for a trip 7330nm long.
For the 747-400, take the total fuel load divided by the total passenger load (57,285/416 = 137.7 gals), yields 137.7 gallons/passenger for a trip 7330nm long.
The A340-600 can carry 380 passengers in a "typical 3 class" arrangement, has 7500nm range, and can carry 51,480 USgal of fuel. Its MTOW is 804,000 lbs. Normalizing the fuel used at 7330nm (7330/7500)*51480 = 50313 gallons of fuel. Take this figure and divide by total passenger load (50313/380 = 132.4 gals), yields 132.4 gallons/passenger at full load for a 7330nm trip.
All of this assumes that the 747-400 can actually fly 7330nm with a full load of passengers, which it can if each passenger with luggage weighs an average of 210 lbs. The passenger payload weight in the chart above assumes an average of 210 lbs. per passenger, which I think is a little low.
So now this leads me to conclude that the A340-600 is the most efficient of these 3 airliners on a long haul trip, followed by the 747-400, then the A380.
Now to the marketing of the A380, which says that the A380 can "break even" at a passenger load of only 58 percent compared to 70 percent for the "competition", which can be determined to be a 747-400 based on the passenger load being compared. I noticed from the chart above that the OWE (operating empty weight) of the A380 is slightly more than 50 percent higher than the 747-400. That thing is 206,700 lbs heavier than a 747-400 at OWE. I also noticed that the A380 is 132 lbs heavier per passenger in the OWE/passenger figure in the chart above.
How will it be possible for the A380 to have a "break even" passenger load point that is 12 percent lower (70%-58%) than the 747-400 based on these figures?
Any other comments would be welcome, and you can check my figures.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 09 April 2001).]
I was comparing fuel usage/passenger figures last night (I was working up some operating cost data) for the A380, 747-400, and A340-600 and I was surprised at what I found. I'll start with the following info (from a table) from an Aviation Week article published late last year following the A380 launch.
A380 COMPARISON CHART
Airbus A380-100 Boeing 747-400 Boeing 747X Stretch
Passengers (3-class) 555* 416** 522**
Engines (fourturbofans) @ 68,000-75,000 lbf. @ 59,500-63,300 lbf. @ 68,000 lbf.
Wingspan 261.8 ft. 211.4 ft. 228.9 ft.
Wing area 9,100 sq. ft. 5,600 sq. ft. 6,820 sq. ft.
Aspect ratio 7.53 7.98 7.68
Wing sweep (1/4-chord) 33.5 deg. outboard 37.5 deg. outboard 37.5 deg. outboard
Length 239.5 ft. 231.8 ft. 264.3 ft.
Height 79.1 ft. 63.7 ft. 65.2 ft.
Maximum takeoff weight 1,235,000 lb. 875,000 lb. 1,043,000 lb.
Maximum landing weight 844,000 lb. 652,000 lb. N/A
Maximum zero fuel weight 789,000 lb. 555,000 lb. N/A
Operating weight empty 606,000 lb. 399,300 lb. 495,000 lb.
Fuel capacity 85,900 U.S. gal. 57,285 U.S. gal. 72,573 U.S. gal.
Wing loading @ MTOW 136 psf. 156 psf. 153 psf.
Thrust-to-weight @ MTOW 0.24 0.29 0.26
OWE/passenger 1,092 lb./pax 960 lb./pax 948 lb./pax
Normalized OWE/pax 114% 100% (reference) 99%
Range with full 8,150 naut. mi. 7,330 naut. mi. 7,785 naut. mi.
Passenger payload @ 116,550 lb. @ 87,360 lb. @ 109,620 lb.
Long range cruise speed Mach 0.85 Mach 0.85 Mach 0.86
Initial cruise altitude capability 35,000 ft. N/A 34,000 ft.
Takeoff field length (MTOW, sea level, 86F) <11,000 ft. N/A 11,000 ft.
Approach speed @ MLW <145 kt. N/A N/A
Notes:
*A380 cabin configuration is 22 first class at six abreast, 68-in. seat pitch; 96 business class at six-abreast, 44-in. pitch; and 437 economy at 8-10-abreast, 32-33-in. pitch.
**747-400 cabin configuration is 23 first class at 61-in. seat pitch; 78 business class at 39-in. pitch; and 315 economy at 10-abreast, 32-in. pitch. The 747X Stretch has the same seating dimensions.
N/A--data not available due to Christmas holiday closure.
Several things stand out here, but I'll just focus on the fuel usage/passenger data.
I had to normalize the fuel usage figures to the range of the 747-400, since it has the shortest range of the 3 aircraft listed in the table. I also used the "typical 3 class" passenger load so as to compare "apples to apples" as much as possible. I'm also assuming that appropriate fuel reserves are calculated into the maximum ranges of each aircraft.
Normalized fuel usage for the A380 at 7330nm would be (7330/8150)*85,900 = 77257.3 gallons. Take this figure and divide it by 555 passengers (77257.3/555 = 139.2 gals) yields 139.2 gallons/passenger at a full passenger load for a trip 7330nm long.
For the 747-400, take the total fuel load divided by the total passenger load (57,285/416 = 137.7 gals), yields 137.7 gallons/passenger for a trip 7330nm long.
The A340-600 can carry 380 passengers in a "typical 3 class" arrangement, has 7500nm range, and can carry 51,480 USgal of fuel. Its MTOW is 804,000 lbs. Normalizing the fuel used at 7330nm (7330/7500)*51480 = 50313 gallons of fuel. Take this figure and divide by total passenger load (50313/380 = 132.4 gals), yields 132.4 gallons/passenger at full load for a 7330nm trip.
All of this assumes that the 747-400 can actually fly 7330nm with a full load of passengers, which it can if each passenger with luggage weighs an average of 210 lbs. The passenger payload weight in the chart above assumes an average of 210 lbs. per passenger, which I think is a little low.
So now this leads me to conclude that the A340-600 is the most efficient of these 3 airliners on a long haul trip, followed by the 747-400, then the A380.
Now to the marketing of the A380, which says that the A380 can "break even" at a passenger load of only 58 percent compared to 70 percent for the "competition", which can be determined to be a 747-400 based on the passenger load being compared. I noticed from the chart above that the OWE (operating empty weight) of the A380 is slightly more than 50 percent higher than the 747-400. That thing is 206,700 lbs heavier than a 747-400 at OWE. I also noticed that the A380 is 132 lbs heavier per passenger in the OWE/passenger figure in the chart above.
How will it be possible for the A380 to have a "break even" passenger load point that is 12 percent lower (70%-58%) than the 747-400 based on these figures?
Any other comments would be welcome, and you can check my figures.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 09 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just an 'Add-On'. In a recent UK newspaper it said that London(LHR) are about to spend 40 million pounds to "Upgrade" their runways to cope with the weight of the A380.
According to many Airbus supporters on this and related subjects the A380 will actually weigh less per wheel, (footprint), than the current B747-400 so why the need to spend 40 million GBP I ask?
[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 11 April 2001).]
According to many Airbus supporters on this and related subjects the A380 will actually weigh less per wheel, (footprint), than the current B747-400 so why the need to spend 40 million GBP I ask?
[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 11 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm afraid that you've fallen into the trap of assuming that an aircraft can carry full fuel and a full load of pax. Unfortunately the vast majority can't!
To take your figures for the A380, the difference between MZFW and MTOW (ie the amount of fuel that can be carried with a full load in the cabin) is 446000 lbs which is approx 67575 US galls. if you factor this for the difference in range you end up with a figure of 109.5 US gall/pax.
The 747-400 figure comes out at roughly 116 US gall/pax.
I can't work out the figure for the A340 since you haven't qouted the MZFW.
regards
F40
To take your figures for the A380, the difference between MZFW and MTOW (ie the amount of fuel that can be carried with a full load in the cabin) is 446000 lbs which is approx 67575 US galls. if you factor this for the difference in range you end up with a figure of 109.5 US gall/pax.
The 747-400 figure comes out at roughly 116 US gall/pax.
I can't work out the figure for the A340 since you haven't qouted the MZFW.
regards
F40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flap40, you also fell into a trap (easy to do with these figures), assuming that the difference between OWE and MZFW always represents a full passenger load (which it can, but usually doesn't). The MZFW for the A340-600 is 529,200 lbs, MTOW again is 804,000 lbs, and OWE is 390,300 lbs.
The problem here is that you need a "standard" passenger weight, and you need a "standard" range for a known fuel consumption at that range, with the "standard" passenger weight. I simply used the "standard" passenger weight given in the chart, which is 210 lbs, which I know is too low. If you use the difference between OWE and MZFW to calculate a "standard" passenger weight, that falls in the neighborhood of 350-375 lbs which is too high (assuming we're talking about a regular passenger flight with baggage and no other freight, just for comparision purposes).
How did you arrive at your figures? What range did you use to normalize to? Obviously the range of the A380 will be much shorter if it takes off with 20,000 gals less than a full fuel load.
BTW, I think I know of a better way to calculate this. I'll have to test it and include it later, when I have time.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 13 April 2001).]
The problem here is that you need a "standard" passenger weight, and you need a "standard" range for a known fuel consumption at that range, with the "standard" passenger weight. I simply used the "standard" passenger weight given in the chart, which is 210 lbs, which I know is too low. If you use the difference between OWE and MZFW to calculate a "standard" passenger weight, that falls in the neighborhood of 350-375 lbs which is too high (assuming we're talking about a regular passenger flight with baggage and no other freight, just for comparision purposes).
How did you arrive at your figures? What range did you use to normalize to? Obviously the range of the A380 will be much shorter if it takes off with 20,000 gals less than a full fuel load.
BTW, I think I know of a better way to calculate this. I'll have to test it and include it later, when I have time.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 13 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, I'll try again. Both Airbus and Boeing like to use 210 lbs as representing the average passenger weight with baggage. Again I think this is a little low, but at least it provides equal comparison. I'm still going to use "typical 3 class" seating to again try and keep the comparisons equal. I'll also use 6.76 lbs/gal for fuel weight.
For the Boeing 747-400:
Typical 3 class seating = 416
Standard Range (full passenger load) = 7330nm
Range is at ISA Standard day, 210 lbs/passenger, Mach .85 cruise, 10% trip contingency, 200nm diversion, 30 minute hold.
MTOW=875,000 lbs, OWE=399,300 lbs, MZFW=555,000 lbs, Max Fuel=57,285 USgal.
For the Aibus A340-600:
Typical 3 class seating = 380
Standard Range (full passenger load) = 7500nm
Range is at ISA Standard day, 210 lbs/passenger, Mach .84 Cruise, 5% trip contingency, 200nm diversion, 30 minute hold.
MTOW=804,700 lbs, OWE=390,300 lbs, MZFW=529,200 lbs, Max Fuel=51,480 USgal.
For the Airbus A380-100:
Typical 3 class seating = 555
Standard Range (full passenger load) = 8150nm (claimed)
Range is at ISA Standard day, 210 lbs/passenger, Mach .85 Cruise, 5% trip contingency, 200nm diversion, 30 minute hold.
MTOW=1,235,000 lbs, OWE=606,000 lbs, MZFW=789,000 lbs, Max Fuel=85,900 USgal.
There are going to be 2 problems with this comparison, first the Airbus models have a 5% contingency instead of 10%. Second, I have a problem with the range of the A380. The only payload/range chart I could find was for the A380F, which shows a range of about 7500nm with a payload equivalent to the passenger payload being discussed here (555x210=116,550 lbs). I know the the A380F has a 50,000 lbs greater MTOW and 130,000 lbs greater payload capacity, so due to strengthening it will be heavier. So I'll compare using both ranges.
The Boeing 747-400:
416x210=87,380 lbs Passenger Payload (PPL). MTOW (875,000 lbs) - OWE (399,000 lbs) - PPL (87,380 lbs) = 388,620 lbs Max Possible Fuel Load (MPFL). MPFL (388,620)/6.76 = 57,488 USgal possible by weight. Therefore 57,285 USgals carried. This yields (57,285/416) 137.7 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
The Airbus A340-600:
380x210=79,800 lbs Passenger payload (PPL). MTOW (804,700 lbs) - OWE (390,300 lbs) - PPL (79,800 lbs) = 334,600 lbs Max Possible Fuel Load (MPFL). MPFL (334,600)/6.76 = 49,497 USgal possible by weight. Adjusting range to the Boeing (7330/7500)x49,497 = 48,375 USgals carried. This yields (48,375/380) 127.3 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
For the Airbus A380-100:
555x210=116,550 lbs Passenger Payload (PPL). MTOW (1,235,000 lbs) - OWE (606,000 lbs) - PPL (116,550 lbs) = 512,450 lbs Max Possible Fuel Load (MPFL). MPFL (512,450)/6.76 = 75,806 USgal possible by weight. Adjusting range to the Boeing (7330/8150)x75,806 = 68,178 USgals carried. This yeilds (68,178/555) 122.8 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
If the range were actually 7500nm, then adjusting range to the Boeing (7330/7500)x75,806 = 74,088 USgal carried. This yeilds (74,088/555) 133.5 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 14 April 2001).]
For the Boeing 747-400:
Typical 3 class seating = 416
Standard Range (full passenger load) = 7330nm
Range is at ISA Standard day, 210 lbs/passenger, Mach .85 cruise, 10% trip contingency, 200nm diversion, 30 minute hold.
MTOW=875,000 lbs, OWE=399,300 lbs, MZFW=555,000 lbs, Max Fuel=57,285 USgal.
For the Aibus A340-600:
Typical 3 class seating = 380
Standard Range (full passenger load) = 7500nm
Range is at ISA Standard day, 210 lbs/passenger, Mach .84 Cruise, 5% trip contingency, 200nm diversion, 30 minute hold.
MTOW=804,700 lbs, OWE=390,300 lbs, MZFW=529,200 lbs, Max Fuel=51,480 USgal.
For the Airbus A380-100:
Typical 3 class seating = 555
Standard Range (full passenger load) = 8150nm (claimed)
Range is at ISA Standard day, 210 lbs/passenger, Mach .85 Cruise, 5% trip contingency, 200nm diversion, 30 minute hold.
MTOW=1,235,000 lbs, OWE=606,000 lbs, MZFW=789,000 lbs, Max Fuel=85,900 USgal.
There are going to be 2 problems with this comparison, first the Airbus models have a 5% contingency instead of 10%. Second, I have a problem with the range of the A380. The only payload/range chart I could find was for the A380F, which shows a range of about 7500nm with a payload equivalent to the passenger payload being discussed here (555x210=116,550 lbs). I know the the A380F has a 50,000 lbs greater MTOW and 130,000 lbs greater payload capacity, so due to strengthening it will be heavier. So I'll compare using both ranges.
The Boeing 747-400:
416x210=87,380 lbs Passenger Payload (PPL). MTOW (875,000 lbs) - OWE (399,000 lbs) - PPL (87,380 lbs) = 388,620 lbs Max Possible Fuel Load (MPFL). MPFL (388,620)/6.76 = 57,488 USgal possible by weight. Therefore 57,285 USgals carried. This yields (57,285/416) 137.7 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
The Airbus A340-600:
380x210=79,800 lbs Passenger payload (PPL). MTOW (804,700 lbs) - OWE (390,300 lbs) - PPL (79,800 lbs) = 334,600 lbs Max Possible Fuel Load (MPFL). MPFL (334,600)/6.76 = 49,497 USgal possible by weight. Adjusting range to the Boeing (7330/7500)x49,497 = 48,375 USgals carried. This yields (48,375/380) 127.3 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
For the Airbus A380-100:
555x210=116,550 lbs Passenger Payload (PPL). MTOW (1,235,000 lbs) - OWE (606,000 lbs) - PPL (116,550 lbs) = 512,450 lbs Max Possible Fuel Load (MPFL). MPFL (512,450)/6.76 = 75,806 USgal possible by weight. Adjusting range to the Boeing (7330/8150)x75,806 = 68,178 USgals carried. This yeilds (68,178/555) 122.8 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
If the range were actually 7500nm, then adjusting range to the Boeing (7330/7500)x75,806 = 74,088 USgal carried. This yeilds (74,088/555) 133.5 USgal/passenger for a trip 7330nm long, minus the reserves.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 14 April 2001).]
