Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Burn For Embraer 170  
User currently offlinePropilotjw From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 588 posts, RR: 7
Posted (11 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5638 times:

Does anyone know where I might find the fuel burn rate for the Embraer 170? I am looking for some numbers from testing since it hasn't yet been certified. Thanks for your help.

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

guess it really depends on many factors.... Embraer provides data on segment runs (fuel burn) of various degrees.

So far the plane has exceeded or met all operational standards (they should, with 6 planes in the test program!)

-n


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Actually, it was my understanding that there were issues with the FWB systems that will require add'l programming before seeking certification. I beleive this was reported by Aviation Week about three months ago.

Also, she is still a bit over the design weight--which I quess is normal for preproduction aircraft (?).


User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5537 times:

Most of those issues came up about 8 months ago, which is why the certification date was pushed back a bit. The plane has a phenominal range of over 2000 miles, so any weight penalties shouldn't affect the aircraft's performance as long as it is within 1000 #s of original specs. They did have some issues w/ the Fly-By-Wire system, and the ailerons are now hydraulically controlled. The other automation issues were not Embraer's fault, but the manufacturer of the software.

-n


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Good news.
I guess my only concern is that the EMB170 weighs more than the CRJ900 that has roughly 15 more seats. This can get expensive for European operators for landing and ATC charges (a point not lost on Lufthansa).

I imagine the larger cabin will attract it's share of premium yields...so it should be of minor concern only in sales.

It will be a welcome addition to a lot of regional and mainline fleets.

If I were Bombardier...I would be a bit worried!


User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1124 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Please compare the range and particularly the cargo capacity of the 170 family versus the Bombardiers. The double bubble of the 170 gives it more cargo hauiling space and cargo weight carrying ability than DC9-10's which are normally configured for 78 pax, while offering twice the range. CRJ900 suffer severe range and freight penalties at max pax. Embraers clean sheet design is a definite threat. I see them taking over many of the DC9/and shorter MD-80 family applications since the next jump up from a 170/175/190/195 to 737-700 (or 737-600's--have any been sold??) and A318 is a quantum leap in operating weight class.


The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4067 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5402 times:

SegmentKing

'Fly by wire' does not mean that flight controls are or were electrically activated, except in some highly specialised experimental miltary test aircraft.
It simply means that instead of a mechanic cable to the respective hydraulic actuator there is an electric signal from the control yoke or sidestick.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

The ERJ 170 can seat 70 - 74 in a 32 inch seat pitch or 78 in a bit tighter config. In terms of cargo capacity, you are looking at about 70% more cargo space in the ERJ versus any of the CRJ aircraft.

-n


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Burn For The A318, 737, And E190 posted Sat Jan 15 2005 21:25:46 by Skymileman
Possible Embraer 170 For CO/COEX posted Tue Apr 27 2004 23:32:16 by Corey07850
First Embraer 170 Routes For US Airways posted Mon Feb 2 2004 20:59:23 by N670UW
Best Seats On Lot Embraer 170 posted Sun Oct 15 2006 22:11:41 by Reifel
A345 And 772LR Fuel Burn. posted Tue Sep 19 2006 15:00:23 by Angelairways
Egypt Air Orders 6+6 Embraer 170 posted Mon Sep 18 2006 08:58:34 by BestWestern
Fuel Charges For Non-revs posted Fri Aug 25 2006 12:51:23 by Copter808
The US "Embraer 170" On MCO's Website posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:30:21 by Monorail
A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised? posted Fri Jun 23 2006 17:54:09 by UAL747-600
A320 Series Winglets Improve Fuel Burn posted Sun Jun 18 2006 10:01:20 by Joni