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?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
asked Feb 14, 2014 at 18:10
-
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 HeavyFeb 15, 2014 at 1:40
-
$\begingroup$ @Qantas94Heavy there are other reasons besides marginal differences in fuel consumption for sticking with what you have :) $\endgroup$– jwentingFeb 20, 2014 at 11:25
-
$\begingroup$ @jwenting: true, though there have been cases of airlines switching sides because of their changing needs. $\endgroup$– Qantas 94 HeavyFeb 21, 2014 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. $\endgroup$– jwentingFeb 21, 2014 at 7:46
-
2$\begingroup$ Winglets do not "burn" or "consume" fuel. They just reduce fuel consumption of the parts that do. $\endgroup$– abelenkyNov 21, 2016 at 21:29
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
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.
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.
answered Mar 21, 2014 at 6:48
-
$\begingroup$ 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 HNov 22, 2016 at 3:59
-
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
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.
answered Mar 7, 2014 at 14:08
-
8
-
3$\begingroup$ Um, neither the A320neo nor the 737 MAX are in production yet. $\endgroup$ Mar 11, 2014 at 5:40