3 ms·
“[For a 737-400] takeoff, climb, and landing burns approximately one third of the total fuel” [0]. A 747 is a different aircraft, but I’m comfortable assuming t
by pininja 6y ago
“[For a 737-400] takeoff, climb, and landing burns approximately one third of the total fuel” [0]. A 747 is a different aircraft, but I’m comfortable assuming this is a directionally correct estimate.
Regardless, fuel burn is certainly a factor to consider when looking at savings and there are interesting studies on it (See “Fuel burn implications“ for an idea of factors [1])
[0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/eller1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/eller1/
[1] https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/nextrans/assets/pdfs/086OY04%20Air%20Freight%20Hubs%20and%20Fuel%20Use.pdf https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/nextrans/assets/pdfs/08...
- pirocks 6y ago737's are usually used as short haul planes, while a 747 is typically long haul. You would expect a long haul plane to spend more time in cruise relative to climb, so the fuel consumption numbers could be quite different.
- Gravityloss 6y agoWell, it's a tradeoff. If you make one really long flight, you need more fuel - and then you need more fuel to carry that fuel (though less). Basically you need an exponential amount of fuel for more range, not linear. (It works just the same as the rocket equation, though less drastic.) But landing and takeoff take kind of a fixed amount of fuel. So, for short trips, the fixed amount is more - so better to fly directly. But for really long trips, you're on the right side, the steep end of the exponential curve. Adding more range there takes a lot more fuel. So then it's smarter to put less fuel at start and make a refueling stop instead.