Most passenger aircraft refuel jet fuel. Each aircraft model is calculated for a certain type of fuel, the use of which will ensure maximum performance. There are also acceptable analogues, in which the engines do not lose their characteristics.

Types of jet fuel

There are two types of aircraft fuel:

• Aviation Gasoline for aircraft with piston engines, as well as for the maintenance of parts as a solvent.
• jet fuel. Suitable for jet engines. This is diesel fuel after deep processing.

Kerosene also differs in subspecies, depending on the conditions of use.

For passenger liners, mainly kerosene for subsonic aviation is used. These include brands T-1 and T-2. This is a fuel with fine gasoline fractions, the greater their percentage, the lower the practical ceiling of the aircraft height. T-1 with a lower content of fractions is a very stable fuel that meets the standards of international flights.

For subsonic and supersonic aviation, kerosene will be different. For military aircraft that go beyond the speed of sound, there is a heavier fuel - T-6 and T-8V. These are heavier types, because in jet engines at high speeds, fuel evaporates quickly.

How much fuel do you need to refuel?

Fuel consumption is almost the main parameter of an aircraft. After all, the less fuel is consumed, the less the company has to spend on servicing the aircraft.

The amount of fuel on board directly depends on the flight parameters and the type of aircraft. At a close distance, fuel is likely to save a lot.

Also important is the flight route, the presence of intermediate landing points. Even the weather conditions along the route are taken into account.

It is very difficult to calculate the exact amount of fuel that is required to refuel the liner. This number rarely coincides with what is indicated in the technical specifications. However, it is still possible to roughly calculate this figure.

For a certain flight, the aircraft will be refueled considering:

1. Fuel needed to cover the distance to the destination airport.
2. Fuel for the flight from the destination airport to the alternate airfield.
3. Fuel to wait for landing for 30 minutes at low altitude.
4. 5% surcharge for unforeseen circumstances.

Video of how the planes are refueled:

How much does it cost to refuel a plane for one flight? For example, let's take the cost of a ton of kerosene at Domodedovo Airport - approximately 47,300 rubles per ton, including VAT. For an approximate calculation, we will rely on this price.

Fuel consumption on Boeing 737-300 aircraft is indicated as 25.5 g per passenger per 1 km.

Take for example the flight Moscow - St. Petersburg. The flight distance in this case will be 633 km. By multiplying, we get the expense per passenger = 16.14 kg., And taking into account the price of kerosene at Domodedovo Airport, this is 763.5 rubles. The average capacity of the liner is 737 - 150 people, respectively, refueling it will cost 114,523 rubles. This figure, of course, is not the final cost. Given the above conditions, it can increase up to 150,000 ₽.

Consider one of the largest airliners of our time, the Boeing 747. Despite its gigantic size and high cost, the aircraft can boast of its high efficiency. It consumes for the model 100 - 32g. per passenger per kilometer, and the 300 series - 22.4 g. The hourly fuel consumption is 14,500 km., That is, about 700,000 rubles will be spent on the Moscow-St. Petersburg flight. Nevertheless, the aircraft is very popular and is in most of the leading companies in the world.

How airplanes are refueled

Refueling is a very important process in the maintenance of flight equipment.

Refueling is of two types:

• aerial refueling (military aircraft);
• full refueling at the airport.

Each type is complex in its own way. Let's consider them in order.

This is one of the most difficult and, at the same time, spectacular elements of military equipment flights. It was in Russia that air refueling was invented more than 100 years ago. It wasn't always the way we see it now. There were unique methods, in particular for Tu-16 bombers, when the planes were refueled "wing to wing". To this day, our military aviation is at the forefront of in-flight refueling technology. Unfortunately, this process is not so easy to see for ordinary viewers. All because it is simply dangerous due to the extreme convergence of aircraft (about 20 meters).

Watch the video of how the Stealth bomber is refueled:

Video of how the Su-24 is refueled:

At the moment, many types of military aviation aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces have the ability to refuel in the air.

1. Fighters - Su-27, MiG-31, MiG-29;
2. Attack aircraft - Su-24M;
3. Bombers - Tu-95, Tu-160.

The modernized IL-78M is mainly the tanker now.

It will take 6 minutes to refuel a fighter in the air, 20 minutes for a heavy bomber, and 45 minutes for a tanker.

Watch a video compilation of unsuccessful aerial refueling:

Fuel gets to the airport in two ways:

1. Railway by means of which fuel enters tanks, from which, with careful control of all parameters, the contents are pumped into special tanks. Nearby, according to the norms, there should always be underground compartments with water, which in an emergency will be used to extinguish fuel. On the tanks there are special instruments that show all the parameters of the fuel. Powerful pumps are used for distillation.
2. Pipeline. This path includes the delivery of fuel through pipes from the nearest oil refinery. On the territory of the airport there are fuel quality metering devices, which are checked according to 12 main parameters. After the analysis of the material, distillation takes place in the central filling complex.

The process of refueling the liner can be carried out in two ways: through the fuel tanker or special dispensers located throughout the territory.

On average, the speed of refueling through the fuel tanker will be about 40 minutes - this is regulated by the maximum fuel supply rate according to international standards. At all stages of refueling, safety precautions are strictly observed.

In conclusion, we note that the refueling process is very important for modern flights, both civil and military. This is a very complex and dangerous procedure. It has many features, based on the conditions of use and types of aircraft.

Civil aircraft in most cases consume a huge amount of fuel, but in terms of one passenger, this is an acceptable figure. Many manufacturers modify the aircraft to make it more fuel efficient and therefore reduce maintenance costs. Modern high-quality aviation fuel is supplied to all major airports where aircraft are refueled. Aerial refueling is one of the most exciting spectacles for spectators and one of the most important procedures for military pilots. The main factor remains one thing - compliance with safety regulations.

Hussar forum - "SSZh is inferior to the Yak-42"

From R. Gusarov's forum: ... the aircraft is inferior even to the Yak 42 in terms of efficiency !!!

Flow diagrams from the RLE

discussion

The plane is a beast. With a takeoff weight of 45 tons, it can immediately take 39,000 feet. Even with a takeoff of 49 tons, the initial flight level will be 37000.

added

From a recent article published on all Gusarov's resources, from an anonymous author with reference to anonymous "specialists". The Superjet turned out to be too voracious, which, in the current fuel prices, scared off potential buyers of the liner. At the same time, which is typical, the same Aeroflot tries not to advertise information about the fuel consumption of the Superjet, there is information that there is an agreement between Aeroflot and Sukhoi Civil Aircraft that these data are confidential. However, you cannot hide an awl in a bag. Not so long ago, the Transport Clearing House released information about the real fuel efficiency of the Superjet. The figures, I must say, shocked the experts - according to them, the “breakthrough” aircraft consumes 2296 kilograms of fuel per hour of flight, while, according to the assurances of the GSS, the “Superjet” “eats” no more than 1600-1700 kilograms per hour. Interestingly, the closest foreign competitor of the Superjet, the Brazilian Embraer-190, consumes 1850 kilograms of fuel per flight hour.

Analysis of aviation fuel consumption of the Aeroflot fleet

One of the tables from the airline's internal papers:

Total consumption for February for the Aeroflot Superjet fleet / hourly flight time: 1,695 kg/h

Total for January: 1,670 kg/h

correction: according to Aeroflot's internal documents, there were 536 flights in February (1111lh) while in the table on blogspot.com the amateur program recorded only 534. According to Aeroflot, there were 772 flights in January, while blogspot counted only 763. Therefore, the actual flight time is slightly higher, and consumption (fuel / plaque) will be, respectively, lower.

How businessmen compare planes

…Since when is block consumption measured in kilograms/hour?

Engineer_2010 writes: I was surprised myself, but it turned out that when comparing aircraft with each other, merchants also use such an indicator as the ratio of block fuel (BF) to block time (BT). Naturally, for this comparison, the basic configuration of the aircraft (economy class, no options), passenger weight, standard atmospheric conditions, the same (averaged) taxi time and the same fuel reserves are selected. Of course, in all these calculations it is assumed that the set of the cruising level, as well as the descent and landing approach, are performed continuously and in a straight line. I have already cited a few figures from last year's exhibition presentation, I will repeat them again:
OEW - 27400 kg; MLW - 41000 kg; ISA; no wind; Reserve fuel - 100 nm + 30 min + 5% trip fuel.
500 nm BF - 2600 kg; BT - 1 h 33 min; BF/BT – 1680 kg/h
1000 nm BF - 4580 kg; BT - 2 h 40 min; BF/BT – 1720 kg/h
1500 nm BF - 6660 kg; BT - 3 h 48 min; BF/BT – 1753 kg/h

As you can see, adjusted according to the results of the PSI and the operation of serial machines, the SSJ specific costs look very worthy not only in comparison with the EmB-190 aircraft, but also in comparison with the “smaller size” aircraft ... and are very different from many years of speculation on this topic … :)) I think that soon all these invented myths, including “gluttony”, “parquet”, “low engines”, “obsolete equipment”, “screwdriver assembly” and others like them, will go to a landfill. Unlike the Lieutenant, I cannot give an exact reference to “my beloved”, but a couple of years ago I wrote about the fact that as SSJ enters Russian and foreign AKs, the truth will be clarified and myths will be debunked. The quote given by Skydiver with the statements of the pilots of the AFL is very characteristic. So it will be more and more difficult for the engaged “experts” with their sing-alongs to “make a smart face”.

p.s. “... when you see the muzzle of a modern loader of the Kyiv railway station over the mantle of a professor of the medieval Sorbonne, it’s somehow hard to believe in this Latin ...” (Mikhail Zhvanetsky)

asp writes: And already now both line pilots and real passengers on his own forum are flattening him. And moderation no longer saves, and there wasn’t much left to sing along. You can’t hide an awl in a bag ;-)

Engineer_2010 writes:
p.p.s.
In contrast to the presentations that developers present at the early stages - the design of an aircraft, when all consumable characteristics are based only on purges of air models and mats. calculations, the costs in this paper are clarified on the basis of the actual operation of serial aircraft. So these figures have a completely different “weight”, they are presented to buyers, therefore, the developer bears a very specific financial responsibility for “this market” ...

Comparison with C-series

- Is the hourly fuel consumption of 1.8 tons declared by the Canadians much different from the performance of the Superjet?

No, not much. We are now at the level of 1.75 tons per hour, if the block fuel is divided by time.

Comparison of Sam-146 and D-436 consumption

bormental wrote: It’s more clear to tell about the “economy” of the D-436, evaluating it in conjunction with the aircraft according to the most reliable criterion: the specific consumption of BLOCK fuel per passenger / km ... a deadly indicator ... The D-436 has: 40-50 grams! ...compare with 25 grams for SSG)

JetPlane Program

Ivanchin Vladimir writes: ... I have the strongest feeling that they rewrote the same in the SJ RLE, and reduced cruising speeds ...

Engineer_2010 answers: Leave all unnecessary doubts ... :))
This is the advantage of an aircraft optimized for flight at maximum operational Machs, that in the presence of a headwind, a gain in fuel consumption is ensured at a higher flight speed, because. reducing the flight time reduces the drift of the aircraft in the opposite direction.

The JetPlane program we use allows you to calculate the flight plan, as with a given fixed number M (for our machine, we always choose Mcr. = 0.78), or with your favorite MD mode (fuel optimization). So, when choosing the optimization mode, the program, taking into account the headwind predicted on the route (M19 AVG), recalculated the profile and instead of M = 0.78 (Vst = 833 km/h) chose a more optimal flight at the maximum number of M = 0.8…0.805 ( Vist = 860 km/h), at the same echelon FL370. This reduced the flight time by 4 minutes, and gave a total gain in fuel consumption of 138 kg. Here are some ISR figures for this particular route (2,828 km) for a TOW of 45,831 kg, with M = 0.8 on FL370:

Takeoff + echelon set (UNNT–…–SUKOL): consumption – 1,349 kg, time – 24 min, distance – 279 km
GP on FL370 (SUKOL–…–TOD): consumption – 5,470 kg, time – 170 min, distance – 2,344 km.
Descent + landing (OKONA–…–UEEE): consumption – 227 kg, time – 19 min, distance – 205 km
- - - - - - - - -
TRIP FUEL - 7,046 kg, TRIP TIME - 213 min (3 h 33 min), DISTANCE - 2,828 km, FF / HR - 1,984.5 kg / h.

The head wind component averaged 35 km/h (M19). As a result, when flying at flight level, the true speed (TAS) was in the range of 850…860 km/h, the head wind component (W) on different legs “walked” from 26 to 69 km/h (M14…M37), respectively Therefore, the ground speed (GS) varied from 824 to 790 km/h.
This example is interesting in that it is a calculation of a flight performed with the maximum flight weight, with a headwind and at the maximum operating number M. :))

p.s. By the way, the real costs of all serial machines are better than in the calculation model used :)

It was not possible to find a real route for exactly 1300 km, but the closest distance from the Domodedovo flight is Min. Waters (UUDD - URMM) - 1,365 km (737 nm). The TOW value can only be set to 44,400 kg and no more, otherwise JetPlane reports that the LDW limit has been exceeded. Taking into account the actual headwind M08 (15 km/h), the program chose the optimal M = 0.79 (845 km/h) for the flight on FL370. Outcome is the following:
Takeoff + echelon set: consumption - 1,231 kg, time - 21 minutes, distance - 267 km
GP on FL370: consumption - 2,023 kg, time - 66 minutes, distance - 906 km.
Descent + landing: consumption - 211 kg, time - 18 minutes, distance - 192 km
TOTAL:
TRIP FUEL - 3,465 kg, TRIP TIME - 1 h 45 min, FF/HR = 1,980 kg/h, BF/HR = 1,850 kg/h.
The final flight and block consumption is somewhat far from your calculation - 2,226 kg / h.

For the sake of interest, the UNNT-UEEE flight has been recalculated with the current headwind M06 (11 km/h). In the new weather conditions, JetPlane chose to fly at M = 0.785 (835 km/h) and calculated the following figures:
TRIP FUEL - 6 804 kg, TRIP TIME - 3 h 32 min, FF/HR = 1,925 kg/h, BF/HR = 1,859 kg/h.
Here, approximately so.

Hourly (one-time) fuel consumption in real operation - photo fact

the photos were taken during the flight, the flight takes place at an altitude of 36000 ft, the rest of the parameters are on the photos.

Engineer_2010 writes: According to the pilot, in these frames the plane scored FL360 and for some time goes in level flight:
FUEL AT START = 8 160 KG, current TOTAL FUEL = 7 040 KG, i.e. in total, 1,120 kg was spent on takeoff + set + GP. Since F. USED = 1,300 KG (640 + 650 + 10), the difference (180 kg) was spent on taxiing. It even coincides with the calculations - our JetPlane for a similar TOW counted the take-off and climb of the FL360 in 18 minutes and the consumption of 1,160 kg. Accordingly, in the conditions of winter TNV, they would spend less.

I understand you, but the document is not intended for open access, of course there is no link, ethics and the promise "not to spread" do not allow to post it. And critics will speculate anyway.

You can not look at the hourly fuel consumption abstractly. Putting this figure in the first place.
Paradoxically, this is not a determining indicator for a regional aircraft (within reasonable limits).
Initially, the cost of a seat/kilometer for regional aircraft is several times (!!!) higher than for mainline ones. So the criteria are different.
So much is said about fuel consumption, because. it is clear to everyone. The lower the consumption, the better the plane. And here no one argues. But only experts know about other characteristics that make up the main difference between the models. But they are silent.

"Hourly consumption or kilometer?"

I don’t know why it was necessary to raise this issue, when everything has long been decided since the TU-16 began to be operated.

“Most critics of the Superjet are talking about hourly fuel consumption.
Engineer_2010: But you need to separate the minimum hourly and minimum kilometer fuel consumption - these are different costs and they correspond to different speeds! For a passenger aircraft, it is the kilometer rather than the hourly consumption that is important, since its main task is to deliver its cargo to the maximum distance, using as little fuel as possible. Many stubbornly offer to replace this task with a completely different one - to stay in the air with this load for as long as possible!

Right when you read, you can immediately see that the "porridge" in the head and all from ignorance! The fact that they operate with hourly consumption and no other - and they do it right!
The fact that the main task is "to deliver your cargo to the maximum distance, using as little fuel as possible" is difficult to disagree with this because it is called cruise mode (LRC), but then the conclusion (not to the village not to the city) for this need to operate minimal(no matter what kilometer or hourly consumption).

So, in order For the aircraft, 3 (charts, nomograms of fuel consumption) flight modes of the maximum speed, maximum range and maximum duration in terms of the number of M or V are prescribed in the RLE.
All these modes are applied in life.
Maximum duration generally in waiting areas
The maximum range is the main mode of operation, and it is he who is also included in commercial calculations.
The maximum speed is a special mode used as needed, etc.
It goes without saying that you can keep M and V between them (but there are no graphs - interpolation, etc.)
In addition, there is a relative speed controller, the so-called. Cost Index which sets the deviation from the Maximum range mode within the range from Maximum duration to Maximum speed.

To the question Is it true that an aircraft consumes up to 70% of all fuel in takeoff mode? given by the author Neurologist the best answer is Up to 70% of all fuel does not consume, then it will not reach. It's just that the maximum flow rate is in takeoff mode, but it cannot be maintained for a long time - the engines will not withstand it. For example: Refueling of the Tu-154 aircraft is equal to 40000 kg of fuel. On takeoff, it consumes 8000kg per hour, in level flight 6000kg, and on landing 3000kg. The average climb speed is about 30 m/s, therefore the climb passes 108 km per hour, and the height of the atmosphere is only 12 km. Therefore, it is impossible to burn up to 70%.

Answer from Cherubino[guru]
No

Answer from rapid-fire[newbie]
Of course not!

Answer from Engineering[guru]
Maybe. But only in winter

Answer from Nasopharynx[guru]
No, of course, otherwise they would not have flown that far. maybe it means fuel consumption increases in takeoff mode by 70% more than in flight mode. In this regard, it is more like the truth

Answer from ocean ocean[guru]
Well, how can I tell you .... just not at all ... because in addition to the "takeoff-landing" mode, there is the "afterburner" mode .. moreover, fuel is consumed by 11.9% more ... well, 70% is too much .. .. in general, I don’t know how it is in passenger flights (I’m a military pilot), but this is not observed at our moments .. and in my opinion everyone flutters like that))))))))

Answer from Cor48[guru]
Exactly so much the English Harrier spends on takeoff + landing, though it takes off and lands vertically.

Answer from Sergey Gritsenko[guru]
Miles pardon, mademoiselle, but this is nonsense. Well, for example, let's take the AL-21F-3 engine. It is installed on the Su-24 - the name is Grach! So his afterburner thrust is about 11,000 kg. Specific fuel consumption 1.86 kg/l. With. h. And in cruising mode, its thrust is about 6000 kg and the specific consumption is 0.76. But now consider how long the takeoff takes? 30 seconds. Well, a minute. So during this time, 70 percent, well, nothing.

Answer from User deleted[guru]
...blonde???

Answer from User deleted[newbie]
Of course not. But an airplane uses more fuel to take off than it does to fly.

Answer from User deleted[expert]
No, not true. Even if we are talking about carrier-based aircraft with vertical take-off (American), then take-off and landing eats up no more than half of the fuel. This is open source data from 7 years ago.

Answer from Andrey[master]
If the rise of a fighter-interceptor to the height of the target is considered takeoff (despite the fact that from the moment of launch to reaching the target it goes in afterburner), then the cost of this maneuver may well amount to 70% of refueling. fuel, but the main supply is spent on the flight. If the liner has to land closer than expected (due to weather conditions, for example), then the pilot has to circle around the airport until the main reserve runs out (heavy liners with full refueling cannot be landed).

Two concerns are considered the largest competitors in the civil aviation market: in Europe - Airbus, in the USA - Boeing. For the former, the A-320 is considered the flagship aircraft. The second responded with a no less successful machine, called the Boeing 737-800.

Boeing has a whole family of 737 aircraft that began their journey in 1967. Since then, the range has been constantly upgraded. 737-800 is a common model that has become a continuation of the successful Boeing 737-400.

History of creation

The 737 family has become popular in the civilian transportation segment. Moreover, the company has achieved such positions within the framework of the entire civil aviation of the world. Statistics say that 1,200 Boeing 737 aircraft are flying in the sky at any given time. And every five seconds, an airliner of this model is landing or taking off.

The countdown of the history of the family began with the models 737-100, and then - 737-200. But they turned out to be costly in terms of fuel consumption. The breakout oil crisis also influenced the change in the lineup.

They continued with the Boeing 737-300 models, and then the Boeing 737-400. The latter turned out to be successful and worked out the time measured for them. When the time came, the 737-800 was created on the basis of the 400th Boeing. Combining economy, technology and good passenger capacity, it quickly won the respect of the world's leading carriers.

To date, 737-800 is considered one of the most popular projects of the entire family.

The first delivery of liners was carried out in 1998. These aircraft are still flying and are used so widely that orders for them are booked for years to come.

The entire Boeing 737 family is currently represented by more than 10,000 models operating around the planet. And the demand for their production does not pass. The model range with the designation -800 is considered modern and technically advanced, and has not yet exhausted its resource to the proper extent.

In general, the 737 family is so large that it is even conventionally divided into generations:

• original (which includes the first models with the designation Boeing-100 and Boeing-200);
• classic (predominantly represented by Boeing-300, Boeing-400 and Boeing-500 models);
• next generation (Boeing-600, Boeing-700, Boeing-800 and Boeing-900);
• MAX (a new generation that is designed to replace the popular Boeing-800 and Boeing-900).

Boeing 737-900, which began to go on sale in 2001, differs from its predecessor (737-800) in a longer fuselage. After the presentation, this model received so many pre-orders in one day that it bypassed the entire family ordered for the whole year.

In general, each model of the 737 family has one characteristic feature. In addition to technical and structural changes, each new designation machine was longer than the previous one.

Fuselage, wing and cockpit structure, engines

The Boeing 737-800 differs little from the rest of the Next Generation aircraft in terms of aerodynamic design. But with the ancestors (737-100 and 737-200) there are already few common features.

The fuselage of the aircraft was lengthened by more than 3 meters (in comparison with the prototype - the 400th model), while significantly increasing the passenger capacity.

The new 737-800 models were created to replace the aging 737-400 (170 seats), but were able to receive a number of improvements.

So, the new aircraft already accommodated 189 people as much as possible and underwent significant changes in the design.

The Boeing 737-800 is a low-wing, swept-wing aircraft. A new generation of aircraft was created in order to regain the advantage in the fight with the main competitor - 0. Therefore, serious changes affected primarily the wing structure, control systems and engines.

The wing received a new major difference - special endings (winglets). This design gives a great advantage in terms of efficiency and significantly improves the performance of the liner during takeoff and landing (in terms of takeoff and braking, takeoff speed).

The cabin also received great differences from previous versions, which not only underwent a modified design, but also made significant progress in terms of technical equipment. Thus, traditional analog devices have been completely replaced. At first, beam screens were used, and later - liquid-crystal screens.

New developments have reduced the weight of the aircraft by almost a third, increased flight range and speed, and improved safety in the air.

Two engines are installed under the wing, which operate on turbofan thrust.

There are two power plants (one on each console). Manufactured by CFM International. A series of the applied engines - CFM-56-7B.

Such engines have been installed since 1980, due to their high efficiency and sufficient power at that time. But the design features of the new power plants left their mark on the appearance of the liner. Due to the large diameter, both engines were moved to the pylons under the wing (abandoning the built-in structures). Decreased and ground clearance of the aircraft.

When fully loaded, the distance from the engines to the ground is 46 centimeters. This makes these Boeings low-landing (low-wing) and imposes high requirements on host airports (in particular, on the condition of the runway).

Such a low location of the engines, among other things, led to design changes. It was decided to move some mechanisms and parts to the side of the engines (while they were usually located below). This led to some significant changes in the fuselage. It has become narrower and visually a little flattened. This is considered a feature of the new generation Boeing 737s (-600, -700, -800 and -900 series).

Fuel system

The location of the fuel tanks in the models 737-800 is classic. Two are located in the wing of the aircraft (in consoles on both sides). There is also a central tank, on the Next Generation generation it occupies not only part of the fuselage, but also passes into the base of the wing and reaches the pylons on which the engines are suspended.

Fuel consumption is organized in such a way that fuel is first pumped out of the central tank, and then from the wing.

A feature of the Boeing 737 is the inability to dump fuel in case of emergency. To land, you either have to take risks and land the car with the maximum weight, or produce fuel in the air.

Aircraft of the BBJ model range provide for the installation of additional fuel tanks. They can fit in luggage compartments (up to 9 tanks). This method increases the capacity on board for fuel up to 37 tons.

Chassis

The chassis of the Boeing 737-800 differ little from the classic versions, but they also have their own design features.

So, three racks are installed: one is taxiing and is located in the bow, the other two (main) are fixed on the center section. Each rack has two wheels.

A characteristic feature of Next Generation Boeings is their large diameter engines. This feature influenced not only the change in the fuselage, but also led to the redevelopment of the landing gear. They began to be further strengthened and lengthened - to increase the clearance during landing.

A distinctive feature of the Boeing 737 is the rear landing gear that does not close with consoles.

When folded, they are part of the aerodynamic configuration. This measure increases the resistance in flight (however, due to the work of engineers, it is very insignificant), but is caused by a reduction in additional equipment on board and a reduction in weight. In particular, additional hydraulics for the rear pillars are not installed.

Since 2008, the brakes of Next Generation aircraft have been significantly changed. They began to put carbon brakes on them, which, with less weight and a longer resource, work more efficiently.

Passenger cabin and operating companies

The Boeing 737-800 aircraft is highly popular in the world. He earned special love from low-cost carriers (low-cost airlines), which form for themselves entire fleets of these models of American liners.

The 737-800 is great for medium haul or short haul flights. Therefore, they are most often used within the same continent and it is difficult to find a replacement for them today (except perhaps the Airbus A320).

The Boeing 737-800 is most popular in its home market - in the USA. Most of the largest air carriers are from there:

• Southwest Airlines (696 aircraft);
• United Airlines (325 aircraft);
• American Airlines (328 aircraft);
• Delta Air Lines (83 aircraft).

In Europe, the Boeing 737-800 is also popular, although in many airlines it works together with the Airbus A320. The most representative representative of the 800th model is the Irish low-cost carrier Ryanair (413 aircraft).

In Russia, the aircraft is widely distributed and is used by Aeroflot, Rossiya, Pobeda, Utair and S7 Airlines.

The last of these companies is so ambitious that it orders personalized aircraft at the plant on an individual project, they are called the Boeing 737 800 s7.

The Boeing 737-800 is a narrow-body aircraft (it has one aisle between the rows of seats). The layout of the cabin in the economy class is found in the form of "3-3", and in the business cabin - "2-2".

The maximum capacity of the liners is 189 people. Such a number of passengers can be transported in an aircraft fully equipped with economy class seats.
There are versions of the aircraft with a mixed layout of passenger seats: 12 seats for business travelers and 150 for economy options. The total capacity is 162 people.

Exits from the cabin are provided in the front, in the middle of the fuselage and in the tail of the liner.

It is possible to board passengers and exit on both sides.

The technical characteristics of the Boeing 737-800 are presented in the table:

Length/width (with wing)/height	39.37 m/34.32 m/12.62 m
Fuselage/cabin diameter	3.76 m / 3.54 m (the same for the whole generation)
Ceiling in salon	2.20 m
cruising speed	852 km/h
Range maximum	5765 km
Flight altitude maximum	12.5 km
Empty weight / maximum takeoff	41.4 t/79 t
Fuel	26 000 l
Takeoff/landing run	2241 m/1630 m

Lineup Boeing 737-800

Boeing 737 is used not only for civil transportation. And not only for regular flights. The BBJ2 modification is distinguished by an expensive interior layout (business version, with sofas, trim and low capacity).

The plant works closely with military orders. For them, the company created the 737-800ERX and P-8 Poseidon models.

Place of production

Initially, part of the assembly of the 737 family was carried out at the company's main plant near Seattle. The fuselage and wing were placed in the same place, and the tail section was assembled at the plant in Wichita. Some parts (chassis, technical stuffing) were produced jointly or by third parties. The final assembly was carried out in Seattle, where the parts of the liners flocked.

Later, the assembly was transferred to Wichita, where both small structural elements and even fuselages with wings were transported by rail.

The scheme with the delivery of parts to the assembly line, tested at the Wichita plant, has been used since 1970 and has been used to this day.

Only today the assembly has been moved further south, to the city of Renton.

prospects

Boeing associates the main prospects for the development of medium-haul transportation with the MAX generation. Since January 2016, final tests have been underway and the first of the Boeing 737 Max models was sold in the spring of 2017. They are also capable of carrying many passengers and are equipped with the latest security systems and avionics.

Already in the short term, they will gradually push out the 737-800 and then 737-900 models from the market.

Conclusion

The Boeing 737-800 is a successful project of an American company, which is distinguished by a very thoughtful combination of high capacity, good performance in terms of economy, flight range and safety.

The liner began to be used by most airlines in the world.

Pilots and passengers note its convenience and safety. Model 737-800 took into account the shortcomings of the past aircraft of the SU family and thanks to this it became so popular. The number of produced cars is so great that it breaks all records. This means that even with the advent of new models, the Boeing 737-800 will be in the sky for many years to come.

Video

Motorists who choose an iron horse for its economy will understand: this characteristic is one of the defining ones for airline owners. After all, fuel is constantly growing in price. So, the less kerosene the equipment consumes, the more profitable it is to maintain it. This is also important for aircraft manufacturers. Who will buy a liner that “eats” a lot?!

But if most of us know about the consumption of gasoline in a car, then the consumption of kerosene by an airplane, if you are not an expert, is quite difficult to imagine. It is clear that there is a lot - after all, such a colossus needs to be raised into the sky, but with cargo and passengers. But still, how much?

Obviously, the fuel consumption in an airliner depends on its modification, weight, speed and other factors.

The amount of fuel needed for one flight is calculated as follows: we take the distance from point A to point B, add the distance to point C (alternate airfield). We add here the amount of fuel that may be needed for a couple of spare laps during the landing approach (this happens in difficult weather conditions, falling out of the schedule, etc.), then we add five percent of the resulting amount just in case. It turns out the maximum load of the aircraft, which, for the Boeing 747, for example, is 150-160 tons, depending on the modification. For the Soviet TU-154 - 40 tons, for aircraft of the Airbus A320 family - 30 tons.

Okay, the tanks are filled to capacity. But how long will this fuel last? To do this, you need to know the average consumption. To calculate it, you need to display the average figure between fuel consumption at cruising speed and at full load. The formula should take into account the flight range. We will not bore you with complex calculations, we will simply show how much kerosene the liners consume:

The Boeing 747 consumes an average of 12,000 liters of aviation fuel per hour, while the smaller 737 consumes about 3,000 liters per hour.

Airbus A320 consumes an average of 2.7 thousand liters of kerosene per hour.

TU-154 "eats" about 6 thousand liters per hour.

It turns out that the most economical of the aircraft is the Airbus? Not certainly in that way. The ratio of costs and profits is much more difficult to calculate. After all, the Boeing 747, although it spends the most fuel, flies over long distances and has more passengers. And this means that tickets are sold more expensive (and you can find tickets at the best price). Therefore, it is unequivocal to say which of them is more profitable and economical should be based on the number of passengers and cargo that the liner can take on board, distance, airfare and service prices.

Does an airplane dump fuel before landing?

There is a legend that before landing, the plane must dump all the fuel remaining in the tanks. Residents of settlements located near airports are especially worried about this.

In fact, such situations do happen, but only in the event of an emergency landing. Then the fuel is ejected through a special nozzle that disperses the liquid so that the kerosene does not fall like a waterfall on the heads of unsuspecting people. In addition, fuel can only be dumped in certain places, far from residential areas.

By the way, modern aircraft may not have a fuel dump system: aircraft designers have already come up with an overweight emergency landing system. There is another option for generating excess fuel, that is, the plane specifically “winds circles” in order to naturally burn kerosene. Of course, this option does not apply in an emergency landing.