Fuel economy in aircraft

From AviationSafetyX Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Between 1950 and 2018, efficiency per passenger grew from 0.4 to 8.2 RPK per kg of CO₂.[1]

The fuel economy in aircraft is the measure of the transport energy efficiency of aircraft. Fuel efficiency is increased with better aerodynamics and by reducing weight, and with improved engine brake-specific fuel consumption and propulsive efficiency or thrust-specific fuel consumption. Endurance and range can be maximized with the optimum airspeed, and economy is better at optimum altitudes, usually higher. An airline efficiency depends on its fleet fuel burn, seating density, air cargo and passenger load factor, while operational procedures like maintenance and routing can save fuel.

Average fuel burn of new aircraft fell 45% from 1968 to 2014, a compounded annual reduction 1.3% with a variable reduction rate. In 2018, CO₂ emissions totalled 747 million tonnes for passenger transport, for 8.5 trillion revenue passenger kilometres (RPK), giving an average of 88 grams CO₂ per RPK;[2] this represents 28 g of fuel per kilometre, or a 3.5 L/100 km (67 mpg‑US) fuel consumption per passenger, on average. The worst-performing flights are short trips of from 500 to 1500 kilometres because the fuel used for takeoff is relatively large compared to the amount expended in the cruise segment, and because less fuel-efficient regional jets are typically used on shorter flights.[2]

New technology can reduce engine fuel consumption, like higher pressure and bypass ratios, geared turbofans, open rotors, hybrid electric or fully electric propulsion; and airframe efficiency with retrofits, better materials and systems and advanced aerodynamics.

Flight efficiency theory

Diagram showing the balance of forces on an aircraft
The main forces acting on an aircraft

A powered aircraft counters its weight through aerodynamic lift and counters its aerodynamic drag with thrust. The aircraft's maximum range is determined by the level of efficiency with which thrust can be applied to overcome the aerodynamic drag.

Aerodynamics

Design speed

By increasing efficiency, a lower cruise-speed augments the range and reduces the environmental impact of aviation. According to a research project completed in 2024 and focusing on short to medium range passenger aircraft, design for subsonic instead of transonic speed (about 15% less speed) with turboprop instead of turbofan propulsion would save 21% of fuel compared to an aircraft of conventional design speed and similar characteristics in terms of size, range and expected general technology improvements. Another analysis from 2014 compared the Airbus 320 from 2009 with a hypothetical turboprop successor flying at a 33% lower Mach number, concluding that the slower aircraft would have 36% less fuel consumption. Both state that the decrease of fuel costs enabled by lower design speed would overcompensate the increase of time-related costs resp. the decrease in revenue passenger miles flown per day. In other words, subsonic turboprop aircraft would be more profitable than transonic turbofan aircraft even at current energy prices without additional costs related to climate action like emission fees, aviation fuel taxation or higher prices for sustainable aviation fuels compared to fossile kerosene.[3][4][5]

For supersonic flight, drag increases at Mach 1.0 but decreases again after the transition. With a specifically designed aircraft, such as the (discontinued) Aerion AS2, the Mach 1.1 range at 3,700 nmi is 70% of the maximum range of 5,300 nmi at Mach 0.95, but increases to 4,750 nmi at Mach 1.4 for 90% before falling again.[6]

Wingtip devices

Wingtip devices increase the effective wing aspect ratio, lowering lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices and improving the lift-to-drag ratio without increasing the wingspan. (Wingspan is limited by the available width in the ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code.) Airbus installed wingtip fences on its planes since the A310-300 in 1985, and Sharklet blended-winglets for the A320 were launched during the November 2009 Dubai Airshow. They add 200 kilograms (440 lb) but offer a 3.5% fuel burn reduction on flights over 2,800 km (1,500 nmi).[7]

On average, among large commercial jets, Boeing 737-800s benefit the most from winglets. They average a 6.69% increase in efficiency but depending on the route have a fuel savings distribution spanning from 4.6% to 10.5%. Airbus A319s see the most consistent fuel and emissions savings from winglets. Airbus A321s average a 4.8% improvement in fuel consumption, but have the widest swing based on routes and individual aircraft, recognizing anywhere from 0.2% improvement to 10.75%.[8]

Weight

bar chart of aircraft weight
The components of aircraft weight

As the weight indirectly generates lift-induced drag, its minimization leads to better aircraft efficiency. For a given payload, a lighter airframe generates a lower drag. Minimizing weight can be achieved through the airframe's configuration, materials science and construction methods. To obtain a longer range, a larger fuel fraction of the maximum takeoff weight is needed, adversely affecting efficiency.[citation needed]

The deadweight of the airframe and fuel is non-payload that must be lifted to altitude and kept aloft, contributing to fuel consumption. A reduction in airframe weight enables the use of smaller, lighter engines. The weight savings in both allow for a lighter fuel load for a given range and payload. A rule-of-thumb is that a reduction in fuel consumption of about 0.75% results from each 1% reduction in weight.[9]

The payload fraction of modern twin-aisle aircraft is 18.4% to 20.8% of their maximum take-off weight, while single-aisle airliners are between 24.9% and 27.7%. An aircraft weight can be reduced with light-weight materials such as titanium, carbon fiber and other composite plastics if the expense can be recouped over the aircraft's lifetime. Fuel efficiency gains reduce the fuel carried, reducing the take-off weight for a positive feedback. For example, the Airbus A350 design includes a majority of light-weight composite materials. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner was the first airliner with a mostly composite airframe.[10]

Flight distance

For long-haul flights, the airplane needs to carry additional fuel, leading to higher fuel consumption. Above a certain distance it becomes more fuel-efficient to make a halfway stop to refuel, despite the energy losses in descent and climb. For example, a Boeing 777-300 reaches that point at 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km). It is more fuel-efficient to make a non-stop flight at less than this distance and to make a stop when covering a greater total distance.[11]

The specific range of a Boeing 777-200 per distance

Very long non-stop passenger flights suffer from the weight penalty of the extra fuel required, which means limiting the number of available seats to compensate. For such flights, the critical fiscal factor is the quantity of fuel burnt per seat-nautical mile.[12] For these reasons, the world's longest commercial flights were cancelled Template:Circa. An example is Singapore Airlines' former New York to Singapore flight, which could carry only 100 passengers (all business class) on the 10,300-mile (16,600 km) flight. According to an industry analyst, "It [was] pretty much a fuel tanker in the air."[13] Singapore Airlines Flights 21 and 22 were re-launched in 2018 with more seats in an A350-900ULR.

In the late 2000s/early 2010s, rising fuel prices coupled with the Great Recession caused the cancellation of many ultra-long haul, non-stop flights. This included the services provided by Singapore Airlines from Singapore to both Newark and Los Angeles that was ended in late 2013.[14][15] But as fuel prices have since decreased and more fuel-efficient aircraft have come into service, many ultra-long-haul routes have been reinstated or newly scheduled[16] (see Longest flights).

Propulsive efficiency

Propulsive efficiency comparison for various gas turbine engine configurations

The efficiency can be defined as the amount of energy imparted to the plane per unit of energy in the fuel. The rate at which energy is imparted equals thrust multiplied by airspeed.[citation needed]

To get thrust, an aircraft engine is either a shaft engine – piston engine or turboprop, with its efficiency inversely proportional to its brake-specific fuel consumption – coupled with a propeller having its own propulsive efficiency; or a jet engine with its efficiency given by its airspeed divided by the thrust-specific fuel consumption and the specific energy of the fuel.[17]Template:Request quotation

Turboprops have an optimum speed below 460 miles per hour (740 km/h).[18] This is less than jets used by major airlines today, however propeller planes are much more efficient.[19]Template:Request quotation The Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 turboprop is used for this reason as a regional airliner.[20][21]Template:Vn

Jet fuel cost and emissions reduction have renewed interest in the propfan concept for jetliners with an emphasis on engine/airframe efficiency that might come into service beyond the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350XWB. For instance, Airbus has patented aircraft designs with twin rear-mounted counter-rotating propfans.[22] Propfans bridge the gap between turboprops, losing efficiency beyond Mach 0.5-0.6, and high-bypass turbofans, more efficient beyond Mach 0.8. NASA has conducted an Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), where they researched a variable-pitch propfan that produced less noise and achieved high speeds.[23]

Operations

Refuelling an Airbus A320 with biofuel

In Europe in 2017, the average airline fuel consumption per passenger was 3.4 L/100 km (69 mpg‑US), 24% less than in 2005, but as the traffic grew by 60% to 1,643 billion passenger kilometres, CO₂ emissions were up by 16% to 163 million tonnes for 99.8 g/km CO₂ per passenger.[24] In 2018, the US airlines had a fuel consumption of 58 mpg‑US (4.06 L/100 km) per revenue passenger for domestic flights,[25] or 32.5 g of fuel per km, generating 102 g CO₂ / RPK of emissions.

Seating classes

In 2013, the World Bank evaluated the business class carbon footprint as 3.04 times higher than economy class in wide-body aircraft, and first class 9.28 times higher, due to premium seating taking more space, lower weight factors, and larger baggage allowances (assuming Load Factors of 80% for Economy Class, 60% for Business Class, and 40% for First Class).[26]

Speed

At constant propulsive efficiency, the maximum range speed is when the ratio between velocity and drag is minimal,[27] while maximum endurance is attained at the best lift-to-drag ratio.

Altitude

Air density decreases with altitude, thus lowering drag, assuming the aircraft maintains a constant equivalent airspeed. However, air pressure and temperature both decrease with altitude, causing the maximum power or thrust of aircraft engines to reduce. To minimize fuel consumption, an aircraft should cruise close to the maximum altitude at which it can generate sufficient lift to maintain its altitude. As the aircraft's weight decreases throughout the flight, due to fuel burn, its optimum cruising altitude increases.

In a piston engine, the decrease in pressure at higher altitudes can be mitigated by the installation of a turbocharger.

Decreasing temperature at higher altitudes increases thermal efficiency.[citation needed]

Airlines

A Boeing 787-8 of Norwegian Long Haul

Since early 2006 until 2008, Scandinavian Airlines was flying slower, from 860 to 780 km/h, to save on fuel costs and curb emissions of carbon dioxide.[28]

From 2010 to 2012, the most fuel-efficient US domestic airline was Alaska Airlines, due partly to its regional affiliate Horizon Air flying turboprops.[20] In 2014, MSCI ranked Ryanair as the lowest-emissions-intensity airline in its ACWI index with 75 g CO2-e/revenue passenger kilometre – below Easyjet at 82 g, the average at 123 g and Lufthansa at 132 g – by using high-density 189-seat Boeing 737-800s. In 2015 Ryanair emitted 8.64 Bn t of CO2 for 545,034 sectors flown: 15.85 t per 776 miles (674 nmi; 1,249 km) average sector (or 5.04 t of fuel: 4.04 kg/km) representing 95 kg per 90.6 million passengers (30.4 kg of fuel: 3.04 L/100 km or 76 g CO2/km).[29]

In 2016, over the transpacific routes, the average fuel consumption was 31 pax-km per L (3.23 L/100 km [73 mpg‑US] per passenger). The most fuel-efficient were Hainan Airlines and ANA with 36 pax-km/L (2.78 L/100 km [85 mpg‑US] per passenger) while Qantas was the least efficient at 22 pax-km/L (4.55 L/100 km [51.7 mpg‑US] per passenger).[30] Key drivers for efficiency were the air freight share for 48%, seating density for 24%, aircraft fuel burn for 16% and passenger load factor for 12%.[30] That same year, Cathay Pacific and Cathay Dragon consumed 4,571,000 tonnes of fuel to transport 123,478 million revenue passenger kilometers, or 37 g/RPK, 25% better than in 1998: 4.63 L/100 km (50.8 mpg‑US).[31] Again in 2016, the Aeroflot Group fuel consumption is 22.9g/ASK, or 2.86 L/100 km (82 mpg‑US) per seat, 3.51 L/100 km (67.0 mpg‑US) per passenger at its 81.5% load factor.[32]

Fuel economy in air transport comes from the fuel efficiency of the aircraft + engine model, combined with airline efficiency: seating configuration, passenger load factor and air cargo. Over the transatlantic route, the most-active intercontinental market, the average fuel consumption in 2017 was 34 pax-km per L (2.94 L/100 km [80 mpg‑US] per passenger). The most fuel-efficient airline was Norwegian Air Shuttle with 44 pax-km/L (2.27 L/100 km [104 mpg‑US] per passenger), thanks to its fuel-efficient Boeing 787-8, a high 85% passenger load factor and a high density of 1.36 seat/m2 due to a low 9% premium seating. On the other side, the least efficient was British Airways at 27 pax-km/L (3.7 L/100 km [64 mpg‑US] per passenger), using fuel-inefficient Boeing 747-400s with a low density of 0.75 seat/m2 due to a high 25% premium seating, in spite of a high 82% load factor.[33]

In 2018, CO₂ emissions totalled 918 Mt with passenger transport accounting for 81% or 744 Mt, for 8.2 trillion revenue passenger kilometres:[34] an average fuel economy of 90.7 g/RPK CO₂ - 29 g/km of fuel (3.61 L/100 km [65.2 mpg‑US] per passenger)

In 2019, Wizz Air stated a 57 g/RPK CO₂ emissions (equivalent to 18.1 g/km of fuel, 2.27 L/100 km [104 mpg‑US] per passenger), 40% lower than IAG or Lufthansa (95 g CO₂/RPK - 30 g/km of fuel, 3.8 L/100 km [62 mpg‑US] per passenger), due to their business classes, lower-density seating, and flight connections.[35]

In 2021, the highest seating density in its A330neo, with 459 single-class seats, enabled Cebu Pacific to claim the lowest carbon footprint with 1.4 kg (3 lb) of fuel per seat per 100 km,[36] equivalent to 1.75 L/100 km [134 mpg‑US] per seat.

Procedures

An Airbus A330-300 of Thai Airways at Tokyo Narita

Continuous Descent Approaches can reduce emissions.[37] Beyond single-engine taxi, electric taxiing could allow taxiing on APU power alone, with the main engines shut down, to lower the fuel burn.[38][39]

Airbus presented the following measures to save fuel, in its example of an Airbus A330 flying 2,500 nautical miles (4,600 km) on a route like Bangkok–Tokyo: direct routing saves 190 kg (420 lb) fuel by flying 40 km (25 mi) less; 600 kg (1,300 lb) more fuel is consumed if flying 600 m (2,000 ft) below optimum altitude without vertical flight profile optimization; cruising Mach 0.01 above the optimum speed consumes 800 kg (1,800 lb) more fuel; 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) more fuel on board consumes 150 kg (330 lb) more fuel while 100 litres (22 imp gal; 26 US gal) of unused potable water consumes 15 kg (33 lb) more fuel.[40]

Operational procedures can save 35 kg (77 lb) fuel for every 10-minute reduction in use of the Auxiliary power unit (APU), 15 kg (33 lb) with a reduced flap approach and 30 kg (66 lb) with reduced thrust reversal on landing.[40] Maintenance can also save fuel: 100 kg (220 lb) more fuel is consumed without an engine wash schedule; 50 kg (110 lb) with a 5 mm (0.20 in) slat rigging gap, 40 kg (88 lb) with a 10 mm (0.39 in) spoiler rigging gap, and 15 kg (33 lb) with a damaged door seal.[40]

Yield management allows the optimization of the load factor, benefiting the fuel efficiency, as is the air traffic management optimization.[41]

By taking advantage of wake updraft like migrating birds (biomimicry), Airbus believes an aircraft can save 5-10% of fuel by flying in formation, 1.5–2 nmi (2.8–3.7 km) behind the preceding one.[42] After Airbus A380 tests showing 12% savings, test flights were scheduled for 2020 with two Airbus A350s, before transatlantic flight trials with airlines in 2021.[42] Certification for shorter separation is enabled by ADS-B in oceanic airspace, and the only modification required would be flight control systems software.[42] Comfort would not be affected and trials are limited to two aircraft to reduce complexity but the concept could be expanded to include more.[42] Commercial operations could begin in 2025 with airline schedule adjustments, and other manufacturers' aircraft could be included.[42]

While routes are up to 10% longer than necessary, modernized air traffic control systems using ADS-B technology like the FAA NextGen or European SESAR could allow more direct routing, but there is resistance from air traffic controllers.[43]

History

Past

The earliest jet airliner, the de Havilland Comet

Modern jet aircraft have twice the fuel efficiency of the earliest jet airliners.[44] Late 1950s piston airliners like the Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation and DC-7 were 1% to 28% more energy-intensive than 1990s jet airliners which cruise 40 to 80% faster.[45] The early jet airliners were designed at a time when air crew labor costs were higher relative to fuel costs. Despite the high fuel consumption, because fuel was inexpensive in that era the higher speed resulted in favorable economical returns since crew costs and amortization of capital investment in the aircraft could be spread over more seat-miles flown per day.[46] Productivity including speed went from around 150 ASK/MJ*km/h for the 1930s DC-3 to 550 for the L-1049 in the 1950s, and from 200 for the DH-106 Comet 3 to 900 for the 1990s B737-800.[47]

Today's turboprop airliners have better fuel-efficiency than current jet airliners, in part because of their propellers. In 2012, turboprop airliner usage was correlated with US regional carriers' fuel efficiency.[20]

The Airbus A220-300 is the most fuel-efficient, compared with the A319neo and Boeing 737 MAX 7[48]

Jet airliners became 70% more fuel efficient between 1967 and 2007,[49] 40% due to improvements in engine efficiency and 30% from airframes.[50] Efficiency gains were larger early in the jet age than later, with a 55-67% gain from 1960 to 1980 and a 20-26% gain from 1980 to 2000.[45] Average fuel burn of new aircraft fell 45% from 1968 to 2014, a compounded annual reduction 1.3% with variable reduction rate.[51]

Concorde, a supersonic transport, managed about 17 passenger-miles to the Imperial gallon, which is 16.7 L/100 km per passenger; similar to a business jet, but much worse than a subsonic turbofan aircraft. Airbus states a fuel rate consumption of their A380 at less than 3 L/100 km per passenger (78 passenger-miles per US gallon).[52]

Newer aircraft like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Airbus A350 and Bombardier CSeries, are 20% more fuel efficient per passenger kilometre than previous generation aircraft. For the 787, this is achieved through more fuel-efficient engines and lighter composite material airframes, and also through more aerodynamic shapes, winglets, more advanced computer systems for optimising routes and aircraft loading.[53]Template:Verify-inline A life-cycle assessment based on the Boeing 787 shows a 20% emission savings compared to conventional aluminium airliners, 14-15% fleet-wide when encompassing a fleet penetration below 100%, while the air travel demand would increase due to lower operating costs.[54]

Lufthansa, when it ordered both, stated the Airbus A350-900 and the Boeing 777X-9 will consume an average of 2.9 L/100 km (81 mpg‑US) per passenger.[55] The Airbus A321 featuring Sharklet wingtip devices consumes 2.2 L/100 km (110 mpg‑US) per person with a 200-seat layout for WOW Air.[56]

Airbus airliners delivered in 2019 had a carbon intensity of 66.6 g of CO2e per passenger-kilometre, improving to 63.5g in 2020.[57]

Example values

The aviation fuel density used is 6.7 lb/USgal or 0.8 kg/L.

Commuter flights

For flights of 300 nmi (560 km):

Model First flight Seats Fuel burn Fuel per seat
Antonov An-148 (241 nmi) 2004 89 4.23 kg/km (15.0 lb/mi) 5.95 L/100 km (39.5 mpg‑US)[58]
Antonov An-158 (241 nmi) 2010 99 4.34 kg/km (15.4 lb/mi) 5.47 L/100 km (43.0 mpg‑US)[58]
ATR 42-500 1995 48 1.26 kg/km (4.5 lb/mi) 3.15 L/100 km (75 mpg‑US)[59]
ATR 72-500 1997 72 1.67 kg/km (5.9 lb/mi) 2.89 L/100 km (81 mpg‑US)[59]
ATR 72-500 1997 70 1.42 kg/km (5.0 lb/mi) 2.53 L/100 km (93 mpg‑US)[60]
ATR 72-600 2010 72 1.56 kg/km (5.5 lb/mi) 2.79 L/100 km (84 mpg‑US)[61]
Beechcraft 1900D (226 nm) 1982 19 1.00 kg/km (3.56 lb/mi) 6.57 L/100 km (35.8 mpg‑US)[62]
Bombardier CRJ100 1991 50 2.21 kg/km (7.83 lb/mi) 5.50 L/100 km (42.8 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier CRJ200 1995 50 2.18 kg/km (7.73 lb/mi) 5.43 L/100 km (43.3 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier CRJ700 1999 70 2.95 kg/km (10.47 lb/mi) 5.25 L/100 km (44.8 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier CRJ900 2001 88 3.47 kg/km (12.31 lb/mi) 4.91 L/100 km (47.9 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 1998 78 2.16 kg/km (7.7 lb/mi) 3.46 L/100 km (68.0 mpg‑US)[64]
Dornier 228 1981 19 0.94 kg/km (3.3 lb/mi) 6.22 L/100 km (37.8 mpg‑US)[65]
Dornier 328 1991 32 1.22 kg/km (4.3 lb/mi) 4.76 L/100 km (49.4 mpg‑US)[66]
Embraer Brasilia 1983 30 0.92 kg/km (3.3 lb/mi) 3.82 L/100 km (61.6 mpg‑US)[67]
Embraer ERJ-135ER (309 nmi) 1998 37 1.64 kg/km (5.83 lb/mi) 5.52 L/100 km (42.6 mpg‑US)[68]
Embraer ERJ-145ER (305 nmi) 1995 50 1.76 kg/km (6.23 lb/mi) 4.37 L/100 km (53.8 mpg‑US)[68]
Saab 340 1983 32 1.1 kg/km (3.9 lb/mi) 4.29 L/100 km (54.8 mpg‑US)[69]
Saab 2000 1992 50 1.75 kg/km (6.2 lb/mi) 4.39 L/100 km (53.6 mpg‑US)[70]

Regional flights

For flights of 500–700 nmi (930–1,300 km)

Model First flight Seats Sector Fuel burn Fuel efficiency per seat
Airbus A220 100 2013 115 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.8 kg/km (10.1 lb/mi) 3.07 L/100 km (76.7 mpg‑US)[71]
Airbus A220 300 2015 140 600 nmi (1,100 km) 3.10 kg/km (11.01 lb/mi) 2.75 L/100 km (85.6 mpg‑US)[71]
Airbus A220-100 2013 125 500 nmi (930 km) 2.57 kg/km (9.1 lb/mi) 2.57 L/100 km (92 mpg‑US)[72]
Airbus A220-300 2015 160 500 nmi (930 km) 2.85 kg/km (10.11 lb/mi) 2.23 L/100 km (105 mpg‑US)[73]
Airbus A319neo 2015 144 600 nmi (1,100 km) 3.37 kg/km (11.94 lb/mi) 2.92 L/100 km (80.6 mpg‑US)[71]
Airbus A319neo 2015 124 660 nmi (1,220 km) 2.82 kg/km (10 lb/mi) 2.82 L/100 km (83.5 mpg‑US)[74]
Airbus A320neo 2015 154 660 nmi (1,220 km) 2.79 kg/km (9.9 lb/mi) 2.25 L/100 km (104.7 mpg‑US)[74]
Airbus A321neo 2015 192 660 nmi (1,220 km) 3.30 kg/km (11.7 lb/mi) 2.19 L/100 km (107.4 mpg‑US)[74]
Antonov An-148 2004 89 684 nmi (1,267 km) 2.89 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 4.06 L/100 km (57.9 mpg‑US)[58]
Antonov An-158 2010 99 684 nmi (1,267 km) 3 kg/km (11 lb/mi) 3.79 L/100 km (62.1 mpg‑US)[58]
ATR 42-600 2010 50 500 nmi (930 km) 1.30 kg/km (4.6 lb/mi) 3.27 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[75]
ATR 72-600 2010 72 500 nmi (930 km) 1.41 kg/km (5 lb/mi) 2.46 L/100 km (96 mpg‑US)[76]
Boeing 737-300 1984 126 507 nmi (939 km) 3.49 kg/km (12.4 lb/mi) 3.46 L/100 km (68 mpg‑US)[77]
Boeing 737-600 1998 110 500 nmi (930 km) 3.16 kg/km (11.2 lb/mi) 3.59 L/100 km (65.5 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737-700 1997 126 500 nmi (930 km) 3.21 kg/km (11.4 lb/mi) 3.19 L/100 km (74 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737 MAX 7 2017 128 660 nmi (1,220 km) 2.85 kg/km (10.1 lb/mi) 2.77 L/100 km (84.8 mpg‑US)[74]
Boeing 737 MAX 7 2017 144 600 nmi (1,100 km) 3.39 kg/km (12.01 lb/mi) 2.93 L/100 km (80.2 mpg‑US)[71]
Boeing 737-800 1997 162 500 nmi (930 km) 3.59 kg/km (12.7 lb/mi) 2.77 L/100 km (85 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737 MAX 8 2017 166 660 nmi (1,220 km) 3.04 kg/km (10.8 lb/mi) 2.28 L/100 km (103.2 mpg‑US)[74]
Boeing 737-900ER 2006 180 500 nmi (930 km) 3.83 kg/km (13.6 lb/mi) 2.66 L/100 km (88 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737 MAX 9 2017 180 660 nmi (1,220 km) 3.30 kg/km (11.7 lb/mi) 2.28 L/100 km (103 mpg‑US)[74]
Boeing 757-200 1982 200 500 nmi (930 km) 4.68 kg/km (16.61 lb/mi) 2.91 L/100 km (80.7 mpg‑US)[79]
Boeing 757-300 1998 243 500 nmi (930 km) 5.19 kg/km (18.41 lb/mi) 2.66 L/100 km (88.4 mpg‑US)[79]
Bombardier CRJ100 1991 50 577 nmi (1,069 km) 1.87 kg/km (6.65 lb/mi) 4.68 L/100 km (50.3 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier CRJ200 1995 50 580 nmi (1,070 km) 1.80 kg/km (6.39 lb/mi) 4.49 L/100 km (52.4 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier CRJ700 1999 70 574 nmi (1,063 km) 2.45 kg/km (8.68 lb/mi) 4.36 L/100 km (54 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier CRJ900 2001 88 573 nmi (1,061 km) 2.78 kg/km (9.88 lb/mi) 3.94 L/100 km (59.7 mpg‑US)[63]
Bombardier CRJ1000 2009 100 500 nmi (930 km) 2.66 kg/km (9.4 lb/mi) 3.33 L/100 km (71 mpg‑US)[80]
Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 1998 74 500 nmi (930 km) 2.31 kg/km (8.2 lb/mi) [convert: invalid number][81]
Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 1998 74 600 nmi (1,100 km) 1.83 kg/km (6.5 lb/mi) 3.09 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[82]
Dornier 328 1991 31 600 nmi (1,100 km) 1.08 kg/km (3.8 lb/mi) 4.35 L/100 km (54.1 mpg‑US)[83]
Embraer E-Jet E2-175 2020 88 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.44 kg/km (8.64 lb/mi) 3.44 L/100 km (68.3 mpg‑US)[71]
Embraer E-Jet E2-190 2018 106 500 nmi (930 km) 2.48 kg/km (8.8 lb/mi) 2.93 L/100 km (80 mpg‑US)[84]
Embraer E-Jet E2-190 2018 106 600 nmi (1,100 km) 2.83 kg/km (10.04 lb/mi) 3.32 L/100 km (70.8 mpg‑US)[71]
Embraer E-Jet E2-195 2019 132 500 nmi (930 km) 2.62 kg/km (9.3 lb/mi) [convert: invalid number][85]
Embraer E-Jet E2-195 2019 132 600 nmi (1,100 km) 3.07 kg/km (10.91 lb/mi) 2.90 L/100 km (81 mpg‑US)[71]
Embraer E-Jet-170 2002 80 606 nmi (1,122 km) 2.6 kg/km (9.3 lb/mi) 4.08 L/100 km (57.7 mpg‑US)[86]
Embraer E-Jet-175 2005 88 605 nmi (1,120 km) 2.80 kg/km (9.95 lb/mi) 3.97 L/100 km (59.3 mpg‑US)[86]
Embraer E-Jet-190 2004 114 607 nmi (1,124 km) 3.24 kg/km (11.48 lb/mi) 3.54 L/100 km (66.5 mpg‑US)[86]
Embraer E-Jet-195 2004 122 607 nmi (1,124 km) 3.21 kg/km (11.38 lb/mi) 3.28 L/100 km (71.8 mpg‑US)[86]
Embraer ERJ-135ER 1998 37 596 nmi (1,104 km) 1.44 kg/km (5.12 lb/mi) 4.86 L/100 km (48.4 mpg‑US)[68]
Embraer ERJ-145ER 1996 50 598 nmi (1,107 km) 1.55 kg/km (5.49 lb/mi) 3.86 L/100 km (61 mpg‑US)[68]
Pilatus PC-12 1991 9 500 nmi (930 km) 0.41 kg/km (1.5 lb/mi) 5.66 L/100 km (41.6 mpg‑US)[87]
Saab 340 1983 31 500 nmi (930 km) 0.95 kg/km (3.4 lb/mi) 3.83 L/100 km (61.4 mpg‑US)[69]
Saab 2000 1992 50 500 nmi (930 km) 1.54 kg/km (5.5 lb/mi) 3.85 L/100 km (61.1 mpg‑US)[70]
Sukhoi SSJ100 2008 98 500 nmi (930 km) 2.81 kg/km (10.0 lb/mi) 3.59 L/100 km (65.5 mpg‑US)[88]

Short-haul flights

For flights of 1,000 nmi (1,900 km):

Model First flight Seats Fuel Burn Fuel efficiency per seat
Airbus A220-100 2013 125 2.28 kg/km (8.1 lb/mi) 2.28 L/100 km (103 mpg‑US)[72]
Airbus A220-300 2015 135 2.30 kg/km (8.17 lb/mi) 2.13 L/100 km (110 mpg‑US)[48]
Airbus A220-300 2015 150 2.42 kg/km (8.6 lb/mi) 2.02 L/100 km (116 mpg‑US)[89]
Airbus A220-300 2015 160 2.56 kg/km (9.08 lb/mi) 2.00 L/100 km (118 mpg‑US)[73]
Airbus A319 1995 124 2.93 kg/km (10.4 lb/mi) 2.95 L/100 km (80 mpg‑US)[90]
Airbus A319neo 2015 136 2.4 kg/km (8.6 lb/mi) 2.22 L/100 km (106 mpg‑US)[48]
Airbus A320 1987 150 3.13 kg/km (11.1 lb/mi) 2.61 L/100 km (90 mpg‑US)[90]
Airbus A320neo 2016 180 2.79 kg/km (9.9 lb/mi) 1.94 L/100 km (121 mpg‑US)[91]
Airbus A321-200 1996 180 3.61 kg/km (12.8 lb/mi) 2.50 L/100 km (94 mpg‑US)[90]
Airbus A321neo 2017 220 3.47 kg/km (12.3 lb/mi) 1.98 L/100 km (119 mpg‑US)[92]
Airbus A330-200 1997 293 5.6 kg/km (19.8 lb/mi) 2.37 L/100 km (99 mpg‑US)[90]
Antonov An-148 (1190 nmi) 2004 89 2.75 kg/km (9.8 lb/mi) 3.86 L/100 km (60.9 mpg‑US)[58]
Antonov An-158 (1190 nmi) 2010 99 2.83 kg/km (10.0 lb/mi) 3.57 L/100 km (65.9 mpg‑US)[58]
Boeing 737-600 1998 110 2.77 kg/km (9.8 lb/mi) 3.15 L/100 km (75 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737-700 1997 126 2.82 kg/km (10.0 lb/mi) 2.79 L/100 km (84 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737-700 1997 128 2.8 kg/km (9.9 lb/mi) 2.71 L/100 km (87 mpg‑US)[90]
Boeing 737 MAX-7 2017 140 2.51 kg/km (8.91 lb/mi) 1.94 L/100 km (121 mpg‑US)[48]
Boeing 737-800 1997 162 3.17 kg/km (11.2 lb/mi) 2.44 L/100 km (96 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737-800 1997 160 3.45 kg/km (12.23 lb/mi) 2.68 L/100 km (88 mpg‑US)[90]
Boeing 737-800W 1997 162 3.18 kg/km (11.3 lb/mi) 2.45 L/100 km (96 mpg‑US)[93]
Boeing 737 MAX-8 2017 162 2.71 kg/km (9.6 lb/mi) 2.04 L/100 km (115 mpg‑US)[93]
Boeing 737-900ER 2006 180 3.42 kg/km (12.1 lb/mi) 2.38 L/100 km (99 mpg‑US)[78]
Boeing 737-900ERW 2006 180 3.42 kg/km (12.1 lb/mi) 2.37 L/100 km (99 mpg‑US)[93]
Boeing 737 MAX-9 2017 180 2.91 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 2.02 L/100 km (116 mpg‑US)[93]
Boeing 757-200 1982 190 4.60 kg/km (16.33 lb/mi) 3.02 L/100 km (78 mpg‑US)[90]
Boeing 757-200 1982 200 4.16 kg/km (14.76 lb/mi) 2.59 L/100 km (90.8 mpg‑US)[79]
Boeing 757-300 1998 243 4.68 kg/km (16.62 lb/mi) 2.40 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[79]
Boeing 787-8 2009 248 5.50 kg/km (19.5 lb/mi) 2.77 L/100 km (85 mpg‑US)[94]
Boeing 787-9 2013 296 5.67 kg/km (20.1 lb/mi) 2.39 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[95]
Boeing 787-10 2017 336 6.09 kg/km (21.6 lb/mi) 2.27 L/100 km (104 mpg‑US)[96]
Quest Kodiak 2004 9 0.71 kg/km (2.52 lb/mi) 6.28 L/100 km (37.5 mpg‑US)[97]

Medium-haul flights

For flights around 2,000–3,000 nmi (3,700–5,600 km), transcontinental (e.g. Washington Dulles – Seattle-Tacoma is 2,000 nmi) to short transatlantic flights (e.g. New York JFK – London-Heathrow is 3,000 nmi).[98]

Model First flight Seats Sector Fuel burn Fuel per seat
Airbus A220-300 2015 150 2,000 nmi (3,700 km) 2.42 kg/km (8.59 lb/mi) 2.02 L/100 km (116 mpg‑US)[73]
Airbus A320 1987 150 2,151 nmi (3,984 km) 2.91 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 2.43 L/100 km (97 mpg‑US)[99]
Airbus A321LR 2016 154 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 2.99 kg/km (10.6 lb/mi) 2.43 L/100 km (97 mpg‑US)[100]
Airbus A330-200 1997 241 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6 kg/km (21 lb/mi) 3.11 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[101]
Airbus A330-300 1992 262 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.25 kg/km (22.2 lb/mi) 2.98 L/100 km (79 mpg‑US)[101]
Airbus A330-900 2016 310 3,350 nmi (6,200 km) 6 kg/km (21 lb/mi) 2.42 L/100 km (97 mpg‑US)[102]
Airbus A340-300 1992 262 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.81 kg/km (24.2 lb/mi) 3.25 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[101]
Airbus A380 2005 544 2,000 nmi (3,700 km) 13.6 kg/km (48.4 lb/mi) 3.14 L/100 km (75 mpg‑US)[103]
Boeing 737 MAX-8 2017 168 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 2.86 kg/km (10.1 lb/mi) 2.13 L/100 km (110 mpg‑US)[104]
Boeing 737 MAX-9 2017 144 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 2.91 kg/km (10.3 lb/mi) 2.53 L/100 km (93 mpg‑US)[100]
Boeing 747-400 1988 416 2,151 nmi (3,984 km) 10.77 kg/km (38.2 lb/mi) 3.24 L/100 km (73 mpg‑US)[99]
Boeing 747-8 2011 467 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 9.9 kg/km (35 lb/mi) 2.65 L/100 km (89 mpg‑US)[105]
Boeing 757-200W 1981 158 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 3.79 kg/km (13.4 lb/mi) 3.00 L/100 km (78 mpg‑US)[100]
Boeing 767-200ER 1984 181 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 4.83 kg/km (17.1 lb/mi) 3.34 L/100 km (70 mpg‑US)[106]
Boeing 767-200ER 1984 193 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 5.01 kg/km (17.8 lb/mi) 3.25 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[100]
Boeing 767-200ER 1984 224 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 4.93 kg/km (17.5 lb/mi) 2.75 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[106]
Boeing 767-300ER 1988 218 2,151 nmi (3,984 km) 5.38 kg/km (19.1 lb/mi) 3.09 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[99]
Boeing 767-300ER 1988 218 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.39 kg/km (19.1 lb/mi) 3.09 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[106]
Boeing 767-300ER 1988 269 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.51 kg/km (19.5 lb/mi) 2.56 L/100 km (92 mpg‑US)[106]
Boeing 767-400ER 1999 245 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.78 kg/km (20.5 lb/mi) 2.95 L/100 km (80 mpg‑US)[106]
Boeing 767-400ER 1999 304 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 5.93 kg/km (21.0 lb/mi) 2.44 L/100 km (96 mpg‑US)[106]
Boeing 767-400ER 1999 304 3,265 nmi (6,047 km) 5.92 kg/km (21 lb/mi) 2.43 L/100 km (96.9 mpg‑US)[77]
Boeing 777-200 1994 305 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.83 kg/km (24.2 lb/mi) 2.80 L/100 km (84 mpg‑US)[107]
Boeing 777-200ER 1996 301 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 6.96 kg/km (24.7 lb/mi) 2.89 L/100 km (81 mpg‑US)[101]
Boeing 777-300 1997 368 3,000 nmi (5,600 km) 7.88 kg/km (28.0 lb/mi) 2.68 L/100 km (88 mpg‑US)[107]
Boeing 787-8 2009 291 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 5.26 kg/km (18.7 lb/mi) 2.26 L/100 km (104 mpg‑US)[104]
Boeing 787-8 2009 238 3,400 nmi (6,300 km) 5.11 kg/km (18.1 lb/mi) 2.68 L/100 km (88 mpg‑US)[100]
Boeing 787-9 2013 304 3,350 nmi (6,200 km) 5.77 kg/km (20.5 lb/mi) 2.37 L/100 km (99 mpg‑US)[102]
Irkut MC-21-300 2017 163 1,750 nmi (3,240 km) 3.04 kg/km (10.8 lb/mi) 2.33 L/100 km (101 mpg‑US)[108]

Long-haul flights

For flights around 5,000 to 7,000 nmi (9,300 to 13,000 km), including transpacific flights (e.g. Hong Kong – San Francisco International is 6,000 nmi).[109]

Model First flight Seats Sector Fuel burn Fuel per seat
Airbus A330-200 1997 241 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 6.4 kg/km (23 lb/mi) 3.32 L/100 km (71 mpg‑US)[101]
Airbus A330-200 1997 248 5,549 nmi (10,277 km) 6.55 kg/km (23.2 lb/mi) 3.3 L/100 km (71 mpg‑US)[110]
Airbus A330-300 1992 274 5,548 nmi (10,275 km) 6.81 kg/km (24.2 lb/mi) 3.11 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[110]
Airbus A330-800 2017 248 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 5.45 kg/km (19.3 lb/mi) 2.75 L/100 km (86 mpg‑US)[111]
Airbus A330-900 2017 300 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 5.94 kg/km (21.1 lb/mi) 2.48 L/100 km (95 mpg‑US)[111]
Airbus A340-300 1992 262 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 7.32 kg/km (26.0 lb/mi) 3.49 L/100 km (67.4 mpg‑US)[101]
Airbus A350-900 2013 315 4,972 nmi (9,208 km) 6.03 kg/km (21.4 lb/mi) 2.39 L/100 km (98 mpg‑US)[102]
Airbus A350-900 2013 318 5,534 nmi (10,249 km) 6.52 kg/km (23.1 lb/mi) 2.56 L/100 km (92 mpg‑US)[110]
Airbus A350-900 2013 315 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) 7.07 kg/km (25.1 lb/mi) 2.81 L/100 km (84 mpg‑US)[112]
Airbus A350-1000 2016 327 5,531 nmi (10,243 km) 7.46 kg/km (26.5 lb/mi) 2.85 L/100 km (83 mpg‑US)[110]
Airbus A350-1000 2016 367 5,531 nmi (10,243 km) 7.58 kg/km (26.9 lb/mi) 2.58 L/100 km (91 mpg‑US)[110]
Airbus A380 2005 525 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 13.78 kg/km (48.9 lb/mi) 3.27 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[113]
Airbus A380 2005 544 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 13.78 kg/km (48.9 lb/mi) 3.16 L/100 km (74 mpg‑US)[114]
Boeing 747-400 1988 416 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 11.11 kg/km (39.4 lb/mi) 3.34 L/100 km (70 mpg‑US)[115]
Boeing 747-400 1988 393 5,503 nmi (10,192 km) 11.82 kg/km (41.9 lb/mi) 3.76 L/100 km (62.6 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 747-400 1988 487 5,479 nmi (10,147 km) 12.31 kg/km (43.7 lb/mi) 3.16 L/100 km (74 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 747-8 2011 467 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 10.54 kg/km (37.4 lb/mi) 2.82 L/100 km (83 mpg‑US)[105]
Boeing 747-8 2011 405 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 10.9 kg/km (39 lb/mi) 3.35 L/100 km (70 mpg‑US)[113]
Boeing 777-200ER 1996 304 5,535 nmi (10,251 km) 7.57 kg/km (26.9 lb/mi) 3.11 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 777-200ER 1996 301 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 7.42 kg/km (26.3 lb/mi) 3.08 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[101]
Boeing 777-200ER 1996 301 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 7.44 kg/km (26.4 lb/mi) 3.09 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[107]
Boeing 777-200LR 2005 291 4,972 nmi (9,208 km) 7.57 kg/km (26.9 lb/mi) 3.25 L/100 km (72 mpg‑US)[102]
Boeing 777-300ER 2003 382 5,507 nmi (10,199 km) 8.86 kg/km (31.4 lb/mi) 2.9 L/100 km (81 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 777-300ER 2003 365 6,000 nmi (11,000 km) 8.49 kg/km (30.1 lb/mi) 2.91 L/100 km (81 mpg‑US)[107]
Boeing 777-300ER 2003 344 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 8.58 kg/km (30.4 lb/mi) 3.11 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[113]
Boeing 777-9X 2020 395 7,200 nmi (13,300 km) 7.69 kg/km (27.3 lb/mi) 2.42 L/100 km (97 mpg‑US)[113]
Boeing 787-8 2011 243 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 5.38 kg/km (19.1 lb/mi) 2.77 L/100 km (85 mpg‑US)[111]
Boeing 787-8 GEnx 2011 220 5,537 nmi (10,255 km) 5.3 kg/km (19 lb/mi) 3.01 L/100 km (78 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 787-8 Trent 2011 220 5,537 nmi (10,255 km) 5.51 kg/km (19.5 lb/mi) 3.13 L/100 km (75 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 787-9 GEnx 2013 294 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) 5.85 kg/km (20.8 lb/mi) 2.49 L/100 km (94 mpg‑US)[111]
Boeing 787-9 2013 304 4,972 nmi (9,208 km) 5.63 kg/km (20.0 lb/mi) 2.31 L/100 km (102 mpg‑US)[102]
Boeing 787-9 GEnx 2013 266 5,534 nmi (10,249 km) 5.62 kg/km (19.9 lb/mi) 2.64 L/100 km (89 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 787-9 2013 291 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) 7.18 kg/km (25.5 lb/mi) 3.08 L/100 km (76 mpg‑US)[112]
Boeing 787-10 GEnx 2017 337 5,529 nmi (10,240 km) 6.12 kg/km (21.7 lb/mi) 2.27 L/100 km (104 mpg‑US)[110]
Boeing 787-10 Trent 2017 337 5,529 nmi (10,240 km) 6.24 kg/km (22.1 lb/mi) 2.31 L/100 km (102 mpg‑US)[110]

For a comparison with ground transportation - much slower and with shorter range than air travel - a Volvo bus 9700 averages 0.41 L/100 km (570 mpg‑US) per seat for 63 seats.[116] In highway travel an average auto has the potential for 1.61 L/100 km (146 mpg‑US)[117] per seat (assuming 4 seats) and for a 5-seat 2014 Toyota Prius, 0.98 L/100 km (240 mpg‑US).[118] While this shows the capabilities of the vehicles, the load factors (percentage of seats occupied) may differ between personal use (commonly just the driver in the car) and societal averages for long-distance auto use, and among those of particular airlines.

General aviation

For private aircraft in general aviation, current FAI Aeroplane Efficiency records are :[119]

  • 33.92 km/kg fuel or 3.9 L/100 km in a Aeroprakt-40 two seater for 300– 500 kg MTOW airplanes (C-1a class) (1.95 L/100 km per seat).
  • 37.22 km/kg fuel or 3.56 L/100 km in a Monnett Sonerai single-seat racer for 500-1,000 kg MTOW airplanes(C-1b class)
  • 9.19 km/kg or 13.6 L/100 km in a four-seat diesel-powered Cessna 182 for 1,000-1,750 kg MTOW airplanes (C-1c class) (3.4 L/100 km per seat).
  • 3.08 km/kg or 40.6 L/100 km in a Cirrus SF50 seven-seat jet for 1.75-3 t MTOW airplanes (C-1d class) (5.8 L/100 km per seat).

A four-seat Dyn'Aéro MCR4S powered by a Rotax 914 consumes 8.3 L/100 km at 264 km/h[120] (2.1 L/100 km per seat).

Business aircraft

Hourly Fuel Burn for Private Aircraft[121]
Type Aircraft US gal L lb kg
Turboprops Pilatus PC12[lower-alpha 1] 66 250 442 200
Cessna Grand Caravan EX[lower-alpha 2] 58 220 390 177
King Air 350[lower-alpha 2] 100 379 670 304
Light Jets Cessna Citation M2 137–104 519–394 918–697 416–316
Embraer Phenom 100[lower-alpha 3] 109–77 413–291 730–516 331–234
Cessna Citation CJ3+[lower-alpha 4] 124–116 469–439 830–780 376–354
Embraer Phenom 300[lower-alpha 3] 166–115 628–435 1,112–770 504–349
Learjet 70/75[lower-alpha 3] 239–179 905–678 1,600–1,200 726–544
Mid-Size Jets Bombardier Challenger 300[lower-alpha 1] 266 1,007 1,782 808
Gulfstream G200[lower-alpha 1] 233 882 1,561 708
Hawker 900XP[lower-alpha 1] 257 973 1,722 781
Cessna Citation X+[lower-alpha 1] 336 1,272 2,251 1,021
Dassault Falcon 7X[lower-alpha 1] 318 1,204 2,130 966
Long-Range Jets Gulfstream G550[lower-alpha 3] 672–447 2,544–1,692 4,500–3,000 2,041–1,361
Bombardier Global 6000 512–486 1,938–1,840 3,430–3,256 1,556–1,477
Airbus ACJ319[lower-alpha 1] 640 2,423 4,288 1,945


Future

Boeing/NASA's X-48B blended wing body demonstrator
Boeing's blended wing body concept
NASA / Aurora Flight Sciences D8 airliner concept
Boeing Volt truss-braced wing concept

NASA and Boeing flight-tested a 500 lb (230 kg) blended wing body (BWB) X-48B demonstrator from August 2012 to April 2013. This design provides greater fuel efficiency, since the whole craft produces lift, not just the wings.[122] The BWB concept offers advantages in structural, aerodynamic and operating efficiencies over today's more-conventional fuselage-and-wing designs. These features translate into greater range, fuel economy, reliability and life-cycle savings, as well as lower manufacturing costs.[123][124] NASA has created a cruise efficient STOL (CESTOL) concept.

Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Applied Materials Research (IFAM) have researched a sharkskin-imitating paint that would reduce drag through a riblet effect.[125] Aviation is a major potential application for new technologies such as aluminium metal foam and nanotechnology.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) technology roadmap envisions improvements in aircraft configuration and aerodynamics. It projects the following reductions in engine fuel consumption, compared to baseline aircraft in service in 2015:[126]

  • 10-15% from higher pressure and bypass ratios, lighter materials, implemented in 2010–2019
  • 20-25% from high pressure core + ultra-high by-pass ratio geared turbofan, from ~2020-25
  • 30% from open rotors (propfans), from ~2030
  • 40-80% from hybrid electric propulsion (depending on battery use), from ~2030-40
  • up to 100% due to Fully electric propulsion (primary energy from renewable source), from ~2035-40.

Moreover, it projects the following gains for aircraft design technologies:[126]

  • 6 to 12% from airframe retrofits (winglets, riblets, lightweight cabin furnishing) currently available
  • 4 to 10% from materials and Structure (composite structure, adjustable landing gear, fly-by-wire) also currently available
  • 1 to 4% from electric taxiing from 2020+
  • 5 to 15% from advanced aerodynamics (hybrid/natural laminar flow, variable camber, spiroid wingtip) from 2020–25
  • 30% from strut-braced wings (with advanced turbofan engines, ~2030-35)
  • 35% from a double bubble fuselage like the Aurora D8 (with advanced turbofan engines, ~2035)
  • 30-35% from a box/joined closed wing (with advanced turbofan engines, ~2035-40)
  • 27 to 50% from a blended wing body design (with hybrid propulsion, ~2040)
  • Up to 100% with fully electric aircraft (short range, ~2035-45)

Today's tube-and-wing configuration could remain in use until the 2030s due to drag reductions from active flutter suppression for slender flexible-wings and natural and hybrid laminar flow.[127] Large, ultra high bypass engines will need upswept gull wings or overwing nacelles as Pratt & Whitney continue to develop their geared turbofan to save a projected 10–15% of fuel costs by the mid-2020s.[127] NASA indicates this configuration could gain up to 45% with advanced aerodynamics, structures and geared turbofans, but longer term suggests savings of up to 50% by 2025 and 60% by 2030 with new ultra-efficient configurations and propulsion architectures: hybrid wing body, truss-braced wing, lifting body designs, embedded engines, and boundary-layer ingestion.[127] By 2030 hybrid-electric architectures may be ready for 100 seaters and distributed propulsion with tighter integration of airframe may enable further efficiency and emissions improvements.[127]

Research projects such as Boeing's ecoDemonstrator program have sought to identify ways of improving the fuel economy of commercial aircraft operations. The U.S. government has encouraged such research through grant programs, including the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, and NASA's Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project.[citation needed]

Multiple concepts are projected to reduce fuel consumption:[128]

  • the Airbus/Rolls-Royce E-Thrust is a hybrid electric with a gas turbine engine and electric ducted fans with energy storage allowing peak power for takeoff and climb while for the descent the engine is shut down and the fans recover energy to recharge the batteries;[128]
  • Empirical Systems Aerospace (ESAero) is developing the 150-seat ECO-150 concept for turboelectric distributed propulsion with two turboshaft engines mounted on the wing and driving generators powering ducted fans embedded in the inboard wing sections, effectively increasing the bypass ratio and propulsive efficiency for 20–30% fuel savings over the Boeing 737 NG, while providing some powered lift;[128]
  • NASA's single-aisle turbo-electric aircraft with an aft boundary layer propulsor (STARC-ABL) is a conventional tube-and-wing 737-sized airliner with an aft-mounted electric fan ingesting the fuselage boundary layer hybrid-electric propulsion, with 5.4 MW of power distributed to three electric motors: the design will be evaluated by Aurora Flight Sciences;[129]
  • The Boeing blended wing body (BWB) with a wide fuselage mated to high-aspect-ratio wings is more aerodynamically efficient because the entire aircraft contributes to the lift and it has less surface area, producing less drag and offering weight savings due to lower wing loading, while noise is shielded by locating the engines on the aft upper surface;[128]
  • Developed with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and refined with NASA, the Lockheed Martin Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) combines a blended forward fuselage and wing with a conventional aft fuselage and T-tail for compatibility with existing infrastructure and airdrop; the engines in overwing nacelles on struts over the trailing edge enable higher-bypass-ratio engines with 5% less drag, provide acoustic shielding and increases lift without a thrust or drag penalty at low speed;[128]
  • Airbus-backed German Bauhaus-Luftfahrt designed the Propulsive Fuselage concept, reducing drag with a fan in the tail ingesting air flowing over the fuselage via an annular (ring-shaped) inlet and re-energizes the wake, driven with a gearbox or as a turbo-electric configuration;[128]
  • Conceived by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for NASA, Aurora Flight Sciences developed the "double-bubble" D8, a 180-seat aircraft with a wide lifting fuselage, twin-aisle cabin to replace A320 and B737 narrowbodies, and boundary-layer ingestion with engines in the tail driving distortion-tolerant fans for a 49% fuel-burn reduction over the B737NG;[128]
  • The Boeing truss-braced wing (TBW) concept was developed for the NASA-funded Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research program with an aspect ratio of 19.5 compared to 11 for the Boeing 787: the strut relieves some bending moment and a braced wing can be lighter than a cantilevered wing or longer for the same weight, having better lift-to-drag ratio by lowering the induced drag and thinner, facilitating natural laminar flow and reducing wave drag at transonic speeds;[128]
  • Dzyne Technologies reduces the thickness of the blended wing body for a 110–130-seat super-regional, a configuration usually too thick for a narrowbody replacement and better suited for large aircraft, by placing the landing gear outward and storing baggage in the wing roots, enabling 20% fuel savings;[128]
  • the French research agency ONERA designed two concepts for a 180-seat airliner Versatile Aircraft (NOVA) including turbofans with higher bypass ratios and fan diameter: a gull wing with increased dihedral inboard to accommodate larger geared turbofans under without lengthening the gear and the other with engines embedded in the tail to ingest the low-energy fuselage boundary layer flow and re-energize the wake to reduce drag;[130]
  • with Cranfield University, Rolls-Royce developed the Distributed Open Rotor (DORA) with high-aspect-ratio wing and V-tail to minimize drag, and turbogenerators on the wing driving electric propellers along the inboard leading edge with open rotor high-propulsive efficiency and increasing the effective bypass ratio.[128]

Climate change

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Main article: Environmental impact of aviation

The growth of air travel outpaces its fuel-economy improvements and corresponding CO2 emissions, compromising climate sustainability. Although low-cost carriers' higher seat-density increases fuel economy and lowers greenhouse gas emissions per-passenger-kilometer, the lower airfares cause a rebound effect of more flights and larger overall emissions. The tourism industry could shift emphasis to emissions eco-efficiency in CO2 per unit of revenue or profit instead of fuel economy, favoring shorter trips and ground transportation over flying long journeys to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[131]

See also

References


External links

 Fuel and air transport.
 
 
  European Commission.
  Retrieved  from link


 Aircraft Technology Roadmap to 2050.
 
  (2019)
  IATA.
  Retrieved  from link


 Review of Propulsion Technologies for N+3 Subsonic Vehicle Concepts.
 
  (October 2011)
  NASA.
  Retrieved  from link


 Air Transport and Energy Efficiency.
 
  (February 2012)
  World Bank.
  Retrieved  from link

  • Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  • Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).

 Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2014.
 
  (November 2015)
  International Council on Clean Transportation.
  Retrieved  from link

  • Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  1. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  2. ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 CO2 emissions from commercial aviation, 2018.  (September 2019)  International Council on Clean Transportation.  Retrieved from link
  3. ↑ EXACT Results - How Slow Should We Go - DLR Presentation for Safe Landing.  Georgi Atanasov.  Retrieved 2025-01-01 from link
  4. ↑ Short Medium Range Turboprop-Powered Aircraft as an Enabler for Low Climate Impact.  G. Atanasov, D. Silberhorn, P. Wassink, Dr. J. Hartmann, E. Prenzel, S. Wöhler, Dr. N. Dzikus, B. Fröhler, Dr. T. Zill, Dr. B. Nagel; DLR - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt.  Retrieved 2025-01-01 from link
  5. ↑ Airport 2030 - AP 4.1; Configuration for Scenario 2015 (Possible A320 Successor).  Andreas Johanning, Dieter Scholz; Hamburg University of Applied Sciences.  Retrieved 2025-01-01 from link
  6. ↑ Performance > Speed.  Aerion.  Retrieved 6 April 2017 from link
  7. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  8. ↑ The impact of winglets on fuel consumption and aircraft emissions.  Retrieved 2023-08-24 from Cirium
  9. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  10. ↑ Composites flying high (Part 1).  (8 April 2014)  Materials Today.  Retrieved 23 May 2015 from link
  11. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  12. ↑ Park Y., O'Kelly M.E. (2014). Fuel burn rates of commercial passenger aircraft: variations by seat configuration and stage distance. Jrnl. Transp. Geog., 41:pp.137-147.
  13. ↑ Why the Longest Nonstop Flights Are Ending, Bloomberg Bus., 31 October 2013.
  14. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  15. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  16. ↑ A new era of 'ultra-long-haul' aviation.  (6 November 2015)  Retrieved 22 December 2016 from link
  17. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  18. ↑ Unified Propulsion Lecture 1.  Zoltan Spakovszky.  MIT.  Retrieved from link
  19. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  20. ↑ Jump up to: 20.0 20.1 20.2 Back to the Future: Return of the Turboprop?.  (3 June 2014)  The International Council on Clean Transport.  Retrieved from link
  21. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  22. ↑ <templatestyles src="Citation/styles.css"/>US application 2009020643, Airbus & Christophe Cros, "Aircraft having reduced environmental impact", published Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title). 
  23. ↑ Advanced Turboprop Project.  (January 1988)  Retrieved 2022-01-27 from ntrs.nasa.gov
  24. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  25. ↑ U.S. domestic airline fuel-efficiency ranking 2017-2018.  (12 Sep 2019)  ICCT.  Retrieved from link
  26. ↑ Calculating the carbon footprint from different classes of air travel.  (May 2013)  World Bank.  Retrieved from link
  27. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  28. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  29. ↑ Annual Report.  (July 2016)  Ryanair.  Retrieved from link
  30. ↑ Jump up to: 30.0 30.1 Transpacific airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2016.  (Jan 2018)  ICCT.  Retrieved from link
  31. ↑ Sustainable Development Report 2016.  (April 2017)  Cathay Pacific.  Retrieved from link
  32. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  33. ↑ Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2017.  (12 September 2018)  ICCT.  Retrieved from link
  34. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  35. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  36. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  37. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  38. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  39. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  40. ↑ Jump up to: 40.0 40.1 40.2 Fuel Burn vs. Maintenance Costs.  (October 2012)  Airbus.  Retrieved from link
  41. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  42. ↑ Jump up to: 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  43. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  44. ↑ Efficiency Trends for New Commercial Jet Aircraft, 1960 to 2008.  (November 2009)  The International Council on Clean Transportation.  Retrieved from link
  45. ↑ Jump up to: 45.0 45.1 Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft.  (November 2005)  Netherlands National Aerospace Laboratory.  Retrieved from link
  46. ↑ Approaches to Representing Aircraft Fuel Efficiency. Performance for the Purpose of a Commercial Aircraft.  (May 2011)  MIT International Center for Air Transportation.  Retrieved from link
  47. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  48. ↑ Jump up to: 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 CS300 first flight Wednesday, direct challenge to 737-7 and A319neo.  (25 February 2015)  Leeham News.  Retrieved from link
  49. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  50. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  51. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  52. ↑ The A380: The future of flying.  Airbus.  Retrieved 22 March 2008 from link
  53. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  54. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  55. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  56. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  57. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  58. ↑ Jump up to: 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.5 AN-148/AN-158 family overview.  (2017)  Antonov.  Retrieved from link
  59. ↑ Jump up to: 59.0 59.1 Fuel saving.  (January 2011)  ATR.  Retrieved from link
  60. ↑ Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72.  (10 November 2011)  The Flying Engineer.  Retrieved from link
  61. ↑ ATR 72-600 The first choice for operators.  Retrieved from link
  62. ↑ Beechcraft 1900D: Fuel, Emissions & Cost Savings Operational Analysis.  (21 February 2012)  Specific Range Solutions Ltd..  Retrieved from link
  63. ↑ Jump up to: 63.0 63.1 63.2 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.6 63.7 Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  64. ↑ Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72.  (10 November 2011)  The Flying Engineer.  Retrieved from link
  65. ↑ Dornier 228 Advanced Commuter Brochure.  RUAG.  Retrieved from link
  66. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  67. ↑ 120 Brasilia Sales Brochure.  Embraer.  Retrieved from link
  68. ↑ Jump up to: 68.0 68.1 68.2 68.3 Owner's & Operator's Guide: ERJ-135/-140/-145.  (Dec 2008)  Retrieved from link
  69. ↑ Jump up to: 69.0 69.1 Saab 340A data sheet.  (2009)  Saab Aircraft Leasing.  Retrieved 20 December 2016 from link
  70. ↑ Jump up to: 70.0 70.1 Saab 2000 data sheet.  (2009)  Saab Aircraft Leasing.  Retrieved 20 December 2016 from link
  71. ↑ Jump up to: 71.0 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 Embraer continues and refines its strategy at the low-end of 100-149 seat sector.  (13 January 2014)  Leeham News.  Retrieved from link
  72. ↑ Jump up to: 72.0 72.1 CS100 environmental product declaration.  (27 September 2016)  Bombardier.  Retrieved from link
  73. ↑ Jump up to: 73.0 73.1 73.2 CS300 environmental product declaration.  (27 September 2017)  Bombardier.  Retrieved from link
  74. ↑ Jump up to: 74.0 74.1 74.2 74.3 74.4 74.5 ANALYSIS: A320neo vs. 737 MAX: Airbus is Leading (Slightly) – Part II.  (5 February 2016)  Airways News.  Retrieved from link
  75. ↑ Air Investor 2021 p.43.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  76. ↑ Air Investor 2021 p.44.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  77. ↑ Jump up to: 77.0 77.1 A Prius With Wings vs. a Guzzler in the Clouds.  (12 August 2010)  Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved from link
  78. ↑ Jump up to: 78.0 78.1 78.2 78.3 78.4 78.5 78.6 78.7 737 performance summary.  (2007)  Boeing.  Retrieved from link
  79. ↑ Jump up to: 79.0 79.1 79.2 79.3 757 performance summary.  (2007)  Boeing.  Retrieved from link
  80. ↑ Bombardier CRJ1000 Fuel Consumption.  (20 August 2013)  Sun Airlines.  Retrieved from link
  81. ↑ Q400 Fuel efficiency manual.  (2014)  Bombardier.  Retrieved from link
  82. ↑ Q400 Fuel efficiency manual.  (2014)  Bombardier.  Retrieved from link
  83. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  84. ↑ Air Investor 2021, p.51.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  85. ↑ Air Investor 2021, p.52.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  86. ↑ Jump up to: 86.0 86.1 86.2 86.3 Owner's & Operator's Guide: E-Jets family.  (Jun 2009)  Retrieved from link
  87. ↑ PC-12 NG Just The Facts.  (20 October 2015)  Pilatus.  Retrieved 27 July 2016 from link
  88. ↑ Sukhoi SSJ100, Embraer ERJ190, Airbus A319 Operational and Economic Comparison.  (March 2013)  Sukhoi.  Retrieved from link
  89. ↑ Air Investor 2021 p.36.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  90. ↑ Jump up to: 90.0 90.1 90.2 90.3 90.4 90.5 90.6 Analysing the options for 757 replacement.  (August 2005)  Aircraft Commerce.  Retrieved 16 July 2014 from link
  91. ↑ Air Investor 2021.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  92. ↑ Air Investor 2021 p.39.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  93. ↑ Jump up to: 93.0 93.1 93.2 93.3 Boeing 737 MAX: performance with reported engine SFC shortfall.  (15 April 2015)  Leeham News.  Retrieved from link
  94. ↑ Air Investor 2021, p.48.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  95. ↑ Air Investor 2021, p.48.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  96. ↑ Air Investor 2021, p.48.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  97. ↑ Kodiak Brochure.  (April 2014)  Quest Aircraft.  Retrieved 20 February 2017 from link
  98. ↑ Distance from JFK to LHR.  great circle mapper.  Retrieved from link
  99. ↑ Jump up to: 99.0 99.1 99.2 Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  100. ↑ Jump up to: 100.0 100.1 100.2 100.3 100.4 Redefining the 757 replacement: Requirement for the 225/5000 Sector.  (25 February 2015)  Leeham News.  Retrieved from link
  101. ↑ Jump up to: 101.0 101.1 101.2 101.3 101.4 101.5 101.6 Boeing: 777 way much better than A330.  (8 December 2010)  Aspire aviation.  Retrieved from link
  102. ↑ Jump up to: 102.0 102.1 102.2 102.3 102.4 UPDATED ANALYSIS: Delta Order for A350; A330neo Hinged on Pricing, Availability.  (25 November 2014)  Airways News.  Retrieved 28 November 2014 from link
  103. ↑ Air Investor 2021, p.43.  (January 2021)  Air Finance Journal.  Retrieved from link
  104. ↑ Jump up to: 104.0 104.1 Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  105. ↑ Jump up to: 105.0 105.1 747-8 performance summary.  (2010)  Boeing.  Retrieved from link
  106. ↑ Jump up to: 106.0 106.1 106.2 106.3 106.4 106.5 767 performance summary.  (2006)  Boeing.  Retrieved from link
  107. ↑ Jump up to: 107.0 107.1 107.2 107.3 777 performance summary.  (2009)  Boeing.  Retrieved from link
  108. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  109. ↑ Distance from HKG to SFO.  great circle mapper.  Retrieved from link
  110. ↑ Jump up to: 110.00 110.01 110.02 110.03 110.04 110.05 110.06 110.07 110.08 110.09 110.10 110.11 110.12 110.13 Lufthansa Systems' Lido/Flight via Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  111. ↑ Jump up to: 111.0 111.1 111.2 111.3 ANALYSIS: The Boeing 787-8 and Airbus A330-800neo are Far From Dead.  (17 March 2016)  Airways News.  Retrieved from link
  112. ↑ Jump up to: 112.0 112.1 Airbus A350: is the Xtra making the difference ?.  (8 June 2015)  Aspire Aviation.  Retrieved from link
  113. ↑ Jump up to: 113.0 113.1 113.2 113.3 Updating the A380: the prospect of a neo version and what's involved.  (3 February 2014)  leeham news.  Retrieved from link
  114. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  115. ↑ 747 performance summary.  (2010)  Boeing.  Retrieved from link
  116. ↑ Coach fuel consumption.  (12 September 2013)  volvo buses.  Retrieved from link
  117. ↑ DEFRA (2008). 2008 Guidelines to Defra's GHG Conversion Factors: Methodology Paper for Transport Emission Factors Archived 5 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine
  118. ↑ 2014 Toyota Prius fuel economy.  United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Retrieved from link
  119. ↑ Records > Aeroplane efficiency > Current.  Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.  Retrieved from link
  120. ↑ MCR4S Brochure.  (Aug 2021)  SE Aviation Aircraft.  Retrieved from link
  121. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  122. ↑ Fuel Efficient Plane Prototype Hits Skies.  (8 October 2007)  Ecogeek.  Retrieved 6 July 2014 from link
  123. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  124. ↑ AEDC testing brings unique blended wing aircraft closer to flight..  (3 July 2007)  Arnold Air Force Base.  Retrieved 10 April 2012 from link
  125. ↑ A sharkskin coating for ships, planes and blades.  Melissa Mahony.  (25 May 2010)  SmartPlanet.  Retrieved 29 September 2012 from link
  126. ↑ Jump up to: 126.0 126.1 Technology Roadmap for Environmental Improvement - Fact Sheet.  (December 2019)  IATA.  Retrieved from link
  127. ↑ Jump up to: 127.0 127.1 127.2 127.3 Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  128. ↑ Jump up to: 128.00 128.01 128.02 128.03 128.04 128.05 128.06 128.07 128.08 128.09 Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  129. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  130. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
  131. ↑ Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).


Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "lower-alpha", but no corresponding <references group="lower-alpha"/> tag was found

Retrieved from "https://wiki.alsresume.com/index.php?title=Fuel_economy_in_aircraft&oldid=7990"