Interesting find on fuel consuption rates

[97prizm]

I couldn't sleep last night so n betwen iron chef episodes I was looking up fuel consumption rates of different aircraft. I fly myself (It's been a while) a Cessna 152, and I think it burns 7ish gallons per hour. One of the largest shockers was that the Boeing 707 consumed 40 gallons per minute per engine x4 engines, so 160 gallons per minute. WEhere as the 777 ony consumes 14.4 gallons per minute x2 for a total of 28.8 gallons per minute. The first tidbit may be a bit high, but wow just wow, a fleet of 707's in todays market would bankrupt just about any company in fuel costs alone. I found out for you msth guru's that the DC-8-61 with the turbo jet consumed 3000-3500 pounds per hour and the -71 with the turbo fan consumed 2500-2800 punds per hour per engine of jet fuel.

 

[Astro14]

747-400 with P&W 4056s burned about 25,000lb/hr in cruise...that's an 800,000+ lb jet going 0.86 IMN...

So, at 6.7 lb/gal, that's about 3700 gal/hr or about 62 gal/min...which, at .086 IMN is about .15 miles/gallon...but before you cry "global warming" - there are over 400 passengers, and for each passenger, you're getting about 55 MPG...at over 500 MPH - which is very efficient indeed...

Now, you want to talk about burning fuel...an F-14 in Max AB at high speed and low altitude burned about 2500 lbs/minute...that's about 375 gallons/minute...that's right...per minute....

 

[tom slick]

Max fuel consumption for each B-1b engine (GE F101) is 70,000 lbs/hr. I don't know what its cruise FF is.

 

[Astro14]

Ahh...the BONE...best dinosaur to noise conversion ratio ever!

The F110 engines in the F-14 B/D are derived from the F101 engines in the BONE...but it has 4...

 

[tom slick]

I worked on the F101-102, F110-100, and F110-129 in the same shop. You could see the progression of technology in the series.

 

[azsynthetic]

On a commercial flight, fuel burn per hour is pre-calculated and based on company policy. The basis fuel burn algorithm for a 747-400 is economy which is pretty generic. Fuel burn will be adjusted based on the Cost Index which is dictated by company policy and company routes. We are currently developing the FMS software/hardware for the 747-8, the 787, and the G650 at Honeywell FMS.

 

[Astro14]

Cost Index on the Honeywell FMC in the 747-400 ranged from 0 to 4000, company policy was CI=100...but with fuel cost where it is, I am betting they fly closer to CI=25 nowadays...

FMC will adjust mach based on weight, head/tailwind, altitude and CI...and on a 14 hour flight from LAX - HKG, that continual fine tuning can save thousands of pounds from a 325K+ burn...

But when all is said and done, if you multiply the flight time by 25K/hr, you've got the -400 burn within about 3 - 5K...

 

[azsynthetic]

From actual flight data, the current NG FMC is saving 10% or more from the basic constant fuel burn rate.

 

[Silver02ex]

We burn around 1350 lbs/hr per side on average cruising at .74M on a CRJ2. I was riding on the jumpseat of a Dash 8 Q400 not long ago and they were doing about 1300lbs/hr per side. However it carries 20 more seats.

 

[Cujet]

Our mighty Gulfstream G550 consumes about 6000 pounds per hour on take off, per engine. After takeoff, the power is then quickly reduced to about 3000 pounds per hour per engine. The consumption drops as the aircraft climbs. 19-20 minutes later, once established in high altitude cruise, at M 0.85-0.86, 49,000 feet, the fuel flow starts out at 1,400 pounds per hour per engine. At the end of the flight, when most of the fuel is consumed, flow rates are around 1,200 PPH or less.

A "rough" rule of thumb is 5-4-3, That's 5K the first hour (takeoff and climb), 4K the second hour, and 3K for ever hour after. That leaves a substantial cushion of reserve fuel.

Put another way, it's 350 gallons per hour in cruise at 550 MPH.

We have 16 seats, but the aircraft is rarely full.

 

[Steve S]

It is a good thing I didn't buy a Gulfstream I couldn't afford the gas!!!

 

[Shannow]

Cujet, are your mach numbers sea level, or at the ambient temp (K x R x sqrt T) ?

That's a lot of juice

 

[azsynthetic]

I was on the G650 test flight late last year and with a total of six people on board we could easily do 0.95M cruise at FL400. The plane is rated for 0.92M cruise. We are getting ready to do CERT1 on both the 747-8 and the G650.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Cujet, are your mach numbers sea level, or at the ambient temp (K x R x sqrt T) ?

That's a lot of juice


Indicated Mach at altitude. PlaneView cockpit is quite accurate. On a recent HMU overflight, we were 007 feet off! SSEC is darn good on this bird.

We don't fly Mach numbers at low altitudes. Well, at least we won't ever admit to it.

 

[oilboy123]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
I was on the G650 test flight late last year and with a total of six people on board we could easily do 0.95M cruise at FL400. The plane is rated for 0.92M cruise. We are getting ready to do CERT1 on both the 747-8 and the G650.
I worked on the 747 floors for about a year. I hated it, so good thing I was laid off. that being said they are nice looking planes compared to the A380. The new 747-8 models look really nice.

 

[SEMI_287]

The data I have is from Airbus and from my company OPC (Onboard Performance Computer). Airbus engine data is CFM56-5B4/P. The 737 data is from a 737-700W with CFM56-7B engines.

Format is weight, optimum altitude, Long range cruise, and fuel flow.


66,000lb payload (fuel and cargo)

A320: 155,000lb FL350 .786M 5690lb/hr.
B737: 150,661lb FL360 .786M 5300lb/hr. Optimum altitude is FL363.


51,000lb payload

A320: 140,000lb FL370 .786M 5152lb/hr.
B737: 135,661lb FL390 .788M 4860lb/hr. (FL386)


36,000lb payload

A320: 125,000lb FL390 .784M 4636lb/hr.
B737: 120,661lb FL410 .785M 4360lb/hr. (FL409)


21,000lb payload

A320: 110,000lb FL390 .771M 4132lb/hr.
B737: 105,661lb FL410 .766M 3880lb/hr.