A380 unveiling, 1/18/05, Live.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
But indeed, the comparison is of limited value, as anyone would find
out who'd try to drive his VW from the US to Europe.

The comparison has meaning from an environmental point of view. Planes
have often been portrayed as being extremely energy inefficient,
consuming vastly more fuel per passenger than cars and generating plenty
of pollution.

This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel
efficient cars, and gives the A380 better fuel economy per pax that
average US vehicles (which I think is more than 10 litres per 100km).

nobody wrote:

This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel
efficient cars

Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on 100
kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4 passengers,
or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane.

Stefan

In article , Stefan says...
nobody wrote:

This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel
efficient cars

Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on 100
kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4 passengers,
or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane.

Hard to fit five passengers into a modern car. Usually there are two
seats in the front and three seatbelt positions in the rear, for a total
of five occupants, one of whom is the driver.

"Peter" wrote in message
T...
In article , Stefan says...
nobody wrote:

This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel
efficient cars

Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on 100
kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4 passengers,
or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane.

Hard to fit five passengers into a modern car. Usually there are two
seats in the front and three seatbelt positions in the rear, for a total
of five occupants, one of whom is the driver.

And the cars that only takes 3 liters for 100 KM is not the biggest cars
either...

If you are to compare such a car with four passengers then you would also
have to compare that to a A380 with a full maximum load of some 800 pax.

Nik

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 at 22:19:48 in message
, Stefan wrote:
Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on
100 kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4
passengers, or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane.

That's excellent 78 mpg (US)
--
David CL Francis

In article , Thomas Borchert says...
But indeed, the comparison is of limited value, as anyone would find
out who'd try to drive his VW from the US to Europe.

I dunno. Russian roads aren't interstates, but they are certainly
present.

nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect
there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:04:52 -0500, alexy wrote:

nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect
there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.


Exactly. Commercial aircraft, and especially long-haul commercial
aircraft operating the sorts of routes for which the 380 is designed
have far higher occupancy rates than cars, so the number of seats a
car has is irrelevant.
--==++AJC++==--

"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:04:52 -0500, alexy wrote:

nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect
there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.


Exactly. Commercial aircraft, and especially long-haul commercial
aircraft operating the sorts of routes for which the 380 is designed
have far higher occupancy rates than cars, so the number of seats a
car has is irrelevant.
--==++AJC++==--

On the Asia-Europe rutes I do not doubt that the plane will be more or less
full to the brim...

Nik.

It would be normal corporate behaviour to calculate the "liters per
passenger per 100 Km" using the most optimistic factors. Such as maximum
number of seats, every seat filled, best city pair, no delays of any type,
etc. etc.
The reality will be interesting to see.
Harvey
"alexy" wrote in message
...
nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect
there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.