5
$\begingroup$

Now that the new A320-Winglets have established themselves, I'm wondering if they have better fuel consumption than the B737-800?

I was told that Boeing used to be marginally better. Is that still the case?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd suspect that this is quite dependent on the mission -- there's a reason not everyone is grabbing these new A320s. Not sure how to change this question though. From memory each still has a block fuel burn advantage at different stage lengths, with the Boeing being better at shorter distances and vice versa. $\endgroup$ – Qantas 94 Heavy Feb 15 '14 at 1:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Qantas94Heavy there are other reasons besides marginal differences in fuel consumption for sticking with what you have :) $\endgroup$ – jwenting Feb 20 '14 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ @jwenting: true, though there have been cases of airlines switching sides because of their changing needs. $\endgroup$ – Qantas 94 Heavy Feb 21 '14 at 0:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Qantas94Heavy yes, but you'd not replace a 737-800NG with an A320NG. It's way too new. A 737-300 would be a suitable candidate. $\endgroup$ – jwenting Feb 21 '14 at 7:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Winglets do not "burn" or "consume" fuel. They just reduce fuel consumption of the parts that do. $\endgroup$ – abelenky Nov 21 '16 at 21:29
6
$\begingroup$

Airbus says this about their new blended winglets (aka "Sharklets"), being fitted to new A320s, and retrofitted:

Airbus’ next step is the large Sharklets™ wingtip devices, representing another element in the ongoing continuous improvement programme for its best-selling A320 Family. These devices improve aerodynamics, reducing fuel burn by up to 4 per cent – which amounts to annual savings of more than 900 tonnes of CO2 per aircraft.

Given that an A320's fuel burn rate is approximately 5.13 gallons per seat per hour, reducing this by 4% gives you 4.92 gallons/seat/hr.

Comparatively, a 737-800 burns about 4.88 gallons/seat/hr.

Source:

A 737-800 burns 4.88 gallons of fuel per seat per hour, compared with the comparable A320's burn of 5.13 gallons per seat per hour, according to The Airline Monitor, an industry publication.

So they're near enough the same.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ consumption per seat per hour? Now I'm curious. It seems both consumption per hour and commercial speed are similar, so consumption per kilometer must be the same? $\endgroup$ – Manu H Nov 22 '16 at 3:59
-3
$\begingroup$

The 737 MAX is more fuel efficient than the A320ceo. The A320neo, however, has marginally better range and fuel efficiency than the 737 MAX, but it is not in production yet.

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ citations? numbers? $\endgroup$ – egid Mar 8 '14 at 18:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Um, neither the A320neo nor the 737 MAX are in production yet. $\endgroup$ – shortstheory Mar 11 '14 at 5:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.