burn per km per passenger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Front right seat
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
burn per km per passenger
There is a lot of talk about 3litre per km per passenger aircraft coming onto the market. I have tried doing simple arithmatic to work out what my a/c uses but don't seem to get realistic figs. Does anyone out there no how to work this out (I thought it would be rather simple)?
Here is a example if it will help someone explain.
A319-131 (120 pax)
320nm trip dist
1950kg burn off
This is quite a short sector so it's maybe not a good example.
Here is a example if it will help someone explain.
A319-131 (120 pax)
320nm trip dist
1950kg burn off
This is quite a short sector so it's maybe not a good example.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The standard measure of (car) fuel efficiency in Continental Europe is litres per 100km. So a relatively thisty car (like mine
) might do 10, a diesel with decent performance (say a BMW 320d) would be touted at about 6.5, a Prius I believe is supposed to be down at 3.5 and they are talking about the next generation of super-efficient cars getting down to 3.
Obviously, with just one occupant (ie load factor of 20%) these figures are equal to litres per 100 passenger-km.
Without looking up the figures, I believe that a representative figure for a long-haul flight in a modern aircraft with a typical l/f would be about 4 or 4.5 which would be as good or better than a VW Golf on a long journey. Next generation aircraft will hopefully get that down to 3 (better than a Prius!)
) might do 10, a diesel with decent performance (say a BMW 320d) would be touted at about 6.5, a Prius I believe is supposed to be down at 3.5 and they are talking about the next generation of super-efficient cars getting down to 3.Obviously, with just one occupant (ie load factor of 20%) these figures are equal to litres per 100 passenger-km.
Without looking up the figures, I believe that a representative figure for a long-haul flight in a modern aircraft with a typical l/f would be about 4 or 4.5 which would be as good or better than a VW Golf on a long journey. Next generation aircraft will hopefully get that down to 3 (better than a Prius!)
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks reasonable. 6kgs/mile at about 450 nautical miles/hour, about 45kgs/min overall- additional cruise about 40 kgs/min
(multiply kgs by 1.25 to get litres)
(multiply kgs by 1.25 to get litres)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 73
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assume that the density of kerosene is 0.81 kg/litre. Conversion factor 1nm = 1.852 km.
Fuel burn in litres = 1950/0.81 = 2407 litres.
Distance in km = 320 * 1.852 = 592.6 km.
Passenger kilometres travelled = 120 * 592.6 = 71,112.
Fuel burn, in litres, per passenger per kilometer = 2407/71,112 = 0.0338.
I think that the fuel burn per 100 km mentioned by the earlier contributor is the correct figure to use. Correspondingly, fuel burn per passenger/100 km = 0.0338 * 100 = 3.38.
About a 10% saving to go then for short haul. Perhaps professionals (not this wouldhavelikedtohavebeen (too old to be a wannabee!)) with similar data for medium or longhaul could provide such data to see if B777s etc are already down to the 3 mentioned in the original post.
Fuel burn in litres = 1950/0.81 = 2407 litres.
Distance in km = 320 * 1.852 = 592.6 km.
Passenger kilometres travelled = 120 * 592.6 = 71,112.
Fuel burn, in litres, per passenger per kilometer = 2407/71,112 = 0.0338.
I think that the fuel burn per 100 km mentioned by the earlier contributor is the correct figure to use. Correspondingly, fuel burn per passenger/100 km = 0.0338 * 100 = 3.38.
About a 10% saving to go then for short haul. Perhaps professionals (not this wouldhavelikedtohavebeen (too old to be a wannabee!)) with similar data for medium or longhaul could provide such data to see if B777s etc are already down to the 3 mentioned in the original post.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something not to be forgotten if you're doing a comparison between automotive and aeronautical fuel efficiency, is that road distances are, on average, 1.5 times that of air distances.
Thus, for a realistic comparison, the aircraft's consumption / 100 Km may be factored by 2/3 for a fair comparison.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Thus, for a realistic comparison, the aircraft's consumption / 100 Km may be factored by 2/3 for a fair comparison.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Smokey - Why
Miles per KM per pax is miles per KM per pax. Doesn't matter if the road route is longer, all that means is the car uses more fuel to travel more miles. You'll still get the correct litres/KM.
Miles per KM per pax is miles per KM per pax. Doesn't matter if the road route is longer, all that means is the car uses more fuel to travel more miles. You'll still get the correct litres/KM.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Os, this is a very interesting point, but where does the 1.5X figure come from?
I could see that applying on comparisons from London anywhere on the continent where the land route involves a long kink via Dover or the Channel Tunnel, but does it really apply on, say, London to Manchester?
Planes don't always fly direct either - there are always ATC issues, together with the possibility of stacking, changes in wind direction etc.
I could see that applying on comparisons from London anywhere on the continent where the land route involves a long kink via Dover or the Channel Tunnel, but does it really apply on, say, London to Manchester?
Planes don't always fly direct either - there are always ATC issues, together with the possibility of stacking, changes in wind direction etc.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strepsils:
Because all other things being equal we have to account for the fact that air transport can take more direct routes from A to B and is hence more efficient in this regard. As Old Smokey says, this makes for a fairer comparison.
Personally, I would dispute the x1.5 figure. If a car followed a zig zag route making 90 degree turns once in a while whilst an aircraft went in a straight line the car would do sqrt(2) more distance than the aircraft - another 40% or so. I would say therefore that a figure more like x1.1-1.3 would be more appropriate.
It doesn't feel like I'm going to most direct route from the Canaries to Newcastle, however, when we come off the Tango routes and go WAL-POL-NEW!
Because all other things being equal we have to account for the fact that air transport can take more direct routes from A to B and is hence more efficient in this regard. As Old Smokey says, this makes for a fairer comparison.
Personally, I would dispute the x1.5 figure. If a car followed a zig zag route making 90 degree turns once in a while whilst an aircraft went in a straight line the car would do sqrt(2) more distance than the aircraft - another 40% or so. I would say therefore that a figure more like x1.1-1.3 would be more appropriate.
It doesn't feel like I'm going to most direct route from the Canaries to Newcastle, however, when we come off the Tango routes and go WAL-POL-NEW!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Last two short-haul trips I did were Brussels-Frankfurt, great circle 304km, Michelin 401km, circuity 32%; Brussels-Geneva, great circle 530km, Michelin 724km, circuity 37%.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by divinehover
There is a lot of talk about 3litre per km per passenger aircraft coming onto the market
But it has a lot to see with the type of operation:
A-330
AMSTERDAM - VANCOUVER 4174 NM (Great Circle)
Fuel Burn 52000 Kg
Standard Airline ops at 270 pax
Fuel burn per passenger/100 km = 3.1 Liter
Standard Charter ops at 360 pax
Fuel burn per passenger/100 km = 2.3 Liter
Now I would not go in that comparison with cars as to find such highway does not look promising, even at 1.5 time the distance ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand a car will likely have to travel further, but that is surely only an issue if you are comparing car v aircraft on a specific route.
If you are just comparing litres v km's it makes no difference if one does 1000km and one does 100,000km, you are still going to calculate the burn in litres/100km
If you are just comparing litres v km's it makes no difference if one does 1000km and one does 100,000km, you are still going to calculate the burn in litres/100km
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm0wkj
My guess as follows,
APS 60,000kg
Traffic 20,000kg
Fuel 34,200kg
TTOM 114,200kg
Allowances:
Reserves: 5,000kg
C/T (un-useable) 500kg
Assumptions
Burn 3,500kg p/h
= Just under 8 ¼ hours flight time.
A 757-200 driver can answer you better though.
Bored
APS 60,000kg
Traffic 20,000kg
Fuel 34,200kg
TTOM 114,200kg
Allowances:
Reserves: 5,000kg
C/T (un-useable) 500kg
Assumptions
Burn 3,500kg p/h
= Just under 8 ¼ hours flight time.
A 757-200 driver can answer you better though.
Bored
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RANT ON:
It is only fair to compare like with like. Currently, the mass media have a hard-on about how our industry is polluting the world. From what I can establish, we are responsible for a measly 1.65% (but increasing) of the CO2 emissions in the UK where as the car is "only" responsible for 27% (also increasing). So when we compare fuel burns we must compare trip with trip, not just the mpg. Unfortunately, we haven't got the message out that shows just how efficient we really are in fuel, infrastructure and time.
In reality, if the government was really serious about our environment, they would be putting extortionate taxes on all fuels, household gas and electricity and subsidising the development of renewables and nuclear power, but Grasping Gordon is doing none of that. The seeds should be sown in peoples' imaginations that that if we are to reduce our carbon footprint we should all be walking or cycling, eating raw food and shivering in dark caves. However, they can still keep taking foreign holidays because stopping all aviation will do bugger all to reduce CO2 emissions.
RANT OFF
Regards, PM
It is only fair to compare like with like. Currently, the mass media have a hard-on about how our industry is polluting the world. From what I can establish, we are responsible for a measly 1.65% (but increasing) of the CO2 emissions in the UK where as the car is "only" responsible for 27% (also increasing). So when we compare fuel burns we must compare trip with trip, not just the mpg. Unfortunately, we haven't got the message out that shows just how efficient we really are in fuel, infrastructure and time.
In reality, if the government was really serious about our environment, they would be putting extortionate taxes on all fuels, household gas and electricity and subsidising the development of renewables and nuclear power, but Grasping Gordon is doing none of that. The seeds should be sown in peoples' imaginations that that if we are to reduce our carbon footprint we should all be walking or cycling, eating raw food and shivering in dark caves. However, they can still keep taking foreign holidays because stopping all aviation will do bugger all to reduce CO2 emissions.
RANT OFF
Regards, PM
