JetJock16

I understand what you're saying but most routes that turbo-props fly usually average around 45 minutes to 1.2 hours in total block. Place a jet on the same route and you might save 5-10 minutes but you'll burn 3 times the amount of fuel (E120's hourly burn is usually around 800-1000 lbs were the CR2 is what? 2500-3000 lbs?).

For instance, SFO to MFR usually takes 1:41 (OUT to IN) on the E120 (30 seats) where as the CR2 (50 seats) probably takes around 1:25, that’s only 16 minutes in crew cost. The average SKW EMB crew cost 65-70% less than an RJ crew so the E120 crew can operate for 1.5 hours before it breaks even with the RJ crew.

The above is only crew cost, take into account everything else.....................we all know that on shorter routes you can't beat a TP.................period. What's amazing is that technology has increased the TP's efficiency to longer routes with the introduction of the Q400 which has very high TAS with low fuel burn and the same number of seats as your CR7’s and EMB170’s.

dashtrash300

Dang, Piedmont is N/A

JoeyMeatballs

What is the Q's TAS and Fuel burn up at altitude?

The Juice

Same answer for both
A) Less than an ERJ

BoilerUP

ATR42: 300ktas & 1397pph @ FL250 (48 seats)
ATR72: 276ktas & 1242pph @ FL250 (68 seats)
Q300: 287ktas & 1116pph @ FL250 (50 seats)
Q400: 360ktas & 2286pph @ FL250 (74 seats)
E145LR: 376ktas & 1834pph @ FL350 (50 seats)
CRJ-200: 464ktas & 2600pph @ FL370 (50 seats)
CRJ-700: 464kts & 2900pph @ FL370 (70 seats)
E170: 415ktas & 2906pph @ FL370 (70 seats)


Source: 2009 Business & Commercial Aviation Purchase Planning Handbook

ExperimentalAB

LoL thanks for the link

The Juice

Wow. Pretty even on TAS, 20% less fuel and 50% more pax. I did not think it was that comparable on the speed.

dojetdriver

I think somebody dropped the ball on those numbers. If you pull the ERJ back to .7 ish mach, you see fuel flows that low, or lower.

But I don't know how that's a valid comparison to the CRJ truing out at 464. Pull the CRJ back to .7 and I wonder what the TAS/FF numbers would be?

Me thinks somebody goofed the numbers. The ERJ will usually due 460 ish, with fuel flow around 23-2500pph at those altitudes going MSC.

BoilerUP

It shows the 145XR doing 367ktas & 1731pph @ FL350...that equates to about M0.64.

Data for this handbook is provided by manufacturers, not generated by B&CA, and is NOT reflective of "real-world" numbers but instead an idealized scenario showing whatever a manufacturer wants to emphasize about their airplane, like speed or altitude capability or fuel economy. After all, how realistic is a CRJ-200 doing a 400nm segment with a cruise altitude of FL370 while doing M0.81?

BoilerUP

Here's another comparison from B&CA, over a 400nm segment:

ATR42: Block speed 246kt, mission fuel 1869lb @ FL250
ATR72: Block speed 243kt, mission fuel 1822lb @ FL250
Q300: Block speed 246kt, mission fuel 1960lb @ FL220
Q400: Block speed 278kt, mission fuel 2883lb @ FL250
E145LR: Block speed 435kt, mission fuel 2616lb @ FL370
E145XR: Block speed 435kt, mission fuel 2636lb @ FL370
CRJ200: Block speed 342kt, mission fuel 2450lb @ FL370
CRJ700: Block speed 321kt, mission fuel 3252lb @ FL370
E170: Block speed 429kt, mission fuel 3658lb @ FL390

Also of note, the E145XR is retail priced at $26.5M while the CRJ-200 is $29.7M, and the E175 is retail priced at $33.5M while the CRJ700 is $36.5M.