Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700  
User currently offlinePanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 459 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 18764 times:

For short flights less than 400 nautical miles, which is more fuel efficient, the Q-400 or the ATR -72?

For the same distance, how less efficient is a CRJ700 compared to the Q-400 or the ATR-72?

Thanks

85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 18703 times:

Ask Horizon, they're dumping their CRJ700s for more Q400s.

User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18681 times:



Quoting Panais (Thread starter):
For the same distance, how less efficient is a CRJ700 compared to the Q-400 or the ATR-72?

I would guess the ATR and Q are very similar in fuel burn: over a 200-300 nm leg, I would presume the CRJ-700 would burn about 45% more fuel. The shorter the stage length, the better the turboprops are in comparison to the RJ.


User currently offlineMiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18665 times:

The ATR has a lower burn than the Q400, but it is also much slower. The Q400 has roughly 20% less burn on a 350 nm leg than a CRJ-700.

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 18603 times:

The CR7 most certainly serves its purpose. But I honestly see its future, along with the baby CRJ a little blurry (more so for the CR2 obviously). My thing is, why fly a CR7 all the way to BTV or PWM with 70 people, when you can fly 86 (correct number?) on a CRJ-900.

A lot of markets now-a-days that the CR7 is deployed on will most likely be transfered over to the CR9.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 18564 times:



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 4):
The CR7 most certainly serves its purpose. But I honestly see its future, along with the baby CRJ a little blurry (more so for the CR2 obviously). My thing is, why fly a CR7 all the way to BTV or PWM with 70 people, when you can fly 86 (correct number?) on a CRJ-900.

A lot of markets now-a-days that the CR7 is deployed on will most likely be transfered over to the CR9

I think any jet smaller than a 737-500 or A319 is on a fast path to extinction.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18548 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 5):
I think any jet smaller than a 737-500 or A319 is on a fast path to extinction.

I think Embraer would disagree you there! They've got a pretty good backlog for their E-Jets.

Perhaps a 100 seat turboprop would give the CRJ-1000 and E-190 a run for it's money.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18544 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 6):

I think Embraer would disagree you there! They've got a pretty good backlog for their E-Jets.

Considering the fact that Horizon is unloading their larger RJs, that order backlog may be changing rapidly. They were designed at $60/bbl oil? Or at $126 bbl oil?


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 18528 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 7):
Considering the fact that Horizon is unloading their larger RJs, that order backlog may be changing rapidly.

You'd think so, but we haven't seen it yet. In fact, DJ at least has recently exercised some purchase rights. Perhaps the lack of a competitor is keeping it alive.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8393 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18518 times:

The CR7 is the lightest, most efficient 70 seat jet in the world. It has plenty of jobs where it's the most profitable aircraft to fly.

A CR9 is only better if you can fill those last 16 seats virtually all the time. If you have to do 4 flights, of 30, 51, 69 and 61 passengers, the CR7 is the best jet for that job.

The CR7 is not going anywhere for a very, very long time. I defy you to find a parked one in the USA. Nope it beats the CR2 at almost everything. It also is more economical than the CR9 for the lighter loads under 80 pax. To me, the CR7 is the only "real winner" in the entire Bombardier jet lineup.

Granted, the CR7 burns more fuel than the A400. The CR7 is a higher performance, faster, quieter airplane that serves its own kind of missions. The Q400 and CR7 go great together, working in tandem. Each one is a great plane.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18475 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 9):
The CR7 is the lightest, most efficient 70 seat jet in the world. It has plenty of jobs where it's the most profitable aircraft to fly.

Which is why Horizon is eliminating them? What do you base the 2nd statement on?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 9):

Granted, the CR7 burns more fuel than the A400. The CR7 is a higher performance, faster, quieter airplane that serves its own kind of missions. The Q400 and CR7 go great together, working in tandem. Each one is a great plane.

Pretty vague claims...other than the first one. A 70 seat RJ offers no more yield than an ATR-72 or Q 400, but burns a lot more gas. A 70 seat RJ is not close to a transcon a/c, neither are the turboprops. For 3 hr and less, the lower fuel burn of the tprops is causing the demise of the RJs.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8393 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18405 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 10):
For 3 hr and less, the lower fuel burn of the tprops is causing the demise of the RJs.

Hardly. For 1 hr and less, yes that is true. However, that is under half of the 70-seat RJ flying (as distinct from 50-seat).

Horizon was using the CR7 on missions too short to take advantage of its superior performance. So they are seeking a (quite small) fuel benefit by replacing with Q400. Are the yields not worse on turboprops? How do you base that claim? By the way, I agree with you in theory but it is still a point of controversy.

What is not controversial is, the CR7 does its missions faster and quieter. This makes it more consistent with products such as AA and DL or NW. They will consider using Q400 for their shortest missions under 300 miles. Will they consider using Q400 out past 500 miles, most likely NO.

You just have to keep perspective on the facts that hundreds of CR7s are flying today, and actually they are SO much more profitable versus CR2s, that virtually all of the CR2s will be parked before a single CR7 is parked. The extra 20 seats on a CR7 give 40% extra capacity (plus the performance to really USE it unlike the CR2). This blows the CR2 out of the water, as long as traffic is available. Would the Q400 be even better, yes for 30% of capacity. For the majority, RJs will still rule (albeit we may need 300-500 new turboprops for the weaker RJs among roughly 1,500 flying). A few RJs will go, but most will not.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3144 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18386 times:



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 4):
My thing is, why fly a CR7 all the way to BTV or PWM with 70 people, when you can fly 86 (correct number?) on a CRJ-900.

Scope. A 900 would have to be flown by a mainline crew and suddenly the costs go up.

Personally, I'd much rather have a seniority number at a major for flying my little jet but about 20 years ago ALPA and APA decided they were too good for those airplanes. Now they're crying that we're taking their jobs.

Until public perception of prop aircraft changes RJ's won't go anywhere. Put a DC-9 next to a Q-400 and most people will think the 9 is newer when the opposite is true by about 40 years.



DMI
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 18371 times:

In Canada, we've had turboprops flying around for so long that I don't think anyone cares anymore about the differences. In Alberta, we don't have the Q's but the dash 8 200's and 300's fly the same routes as crj200 and 705's. The jets are quieter but the dash's seem roomier.

Though many have voiced preferences, I don't know of anybody who refused to fly on the prop...for the same ticket price.



What the...?
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18286 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flighty (Reply 9):
The CR7 is not going anywhere for a very, very long time. I defy you to find a parked one in the USA. Nope it beats the CR2 at almost everything. It also is more economical than the CR9 for the lighter loads under 80 pax. To me, the CR7 is the only "real winner" in the entire Bombardier jet lineup.

Which CRJ700 version is the most "popular" one with airlines? The standard aircraft with the shortest range and lowest weight or the ER/LR with longer range and payload capability (plus higher airport charges?)?

I'm thinking that the ER/LR would be the best choice as they offer more payload and range options, the downside is that airport charges will be higher plus higher fuel burn due to higher structural weight... or is that wrong?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8393 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18257 times:

Even the base model -700 has very good range. It is easily capable of 1,000-mile runs under full load from my understanding. This means it fulfills a big niche in our networks. For longer than 1,000 miles, usually a 737 will provide better asset utilization. But the good performing CR7 is the cheapest way to connect these dots when it is beyond the CR2's range capabilities, or payload, or seating capacity. And of course, I'm not talking about routes the Q400 could do very effectively. DFW-ALB, CLT-MSP, MEM-BDL, things of that nature.

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18205 times:



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 12):
Scope. A 900 would have to be flown by a mainline crew and suddenly the costs go up.

Personally, I'd much rather have a seniority number at a major for flying my little jet but about 20 years ago ALPA and APA decided they were too good for those airplanes. Now they're crying that we're taking their jobs.

Until public perception of prop aircraft changes RJ's won't go anywhere. Put a DC-9 next to a Q-400 and most people will think the 9 is newer when the opposite is true by about 40 years.

That isn't an issue at Delta I believe, which is whom I was more leaning that comment to.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4801 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 18199 times:

This thread of course is relevant in that NZ is currently looking to replace its older ATRs with either Q400, new ATRs or E190.


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 18152 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 17):
This thread of course is relevant in that NZ is currently looking to replace its older ATRs with either Q400, new ATRs or E190.

Weird. NZ's ATRs are ATR72-500s, but it also has some Q300s as well as some Beechcraft 1900Ds. Wouldn't the ATRs be their best prop plane, not the worst?


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2743 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 18138 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
Horizon was using the CR7 on missions too short to take advantage of its superior performance. So they are seeking a (quite small) fuel benefit by replacing with Q400.

That's correct but misses the largest reason for dumping the CR7s. My conversations with senior QX management let me to believe that the driving forces behind the all Q400 plan are maintenance and training costs. Fuel, as you said will only be a small benefit. For every CR7 flying a short route like SEA-GEG, they also have one flying PDX-PSP or something similar (certainly the CR7 is better suited for this mission). The reason they are going all Q400 is because the Q400 is better suited to a majority of their routes, yet is such a capable aircraft that they will only take a small penalty by flying it on routes which are more suited to the CR7.

Alaska Air Group has also made some noise that they would like a 90 seat aircraft, so those may end up replacing CR7s on some routes.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4801 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 18103 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 18):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 17):
This thread of course is relevant in that NZ is currently looking to replace its older ATRs with either Q400, new ATRs or E190.

Weird. NZ's ATRs are ATR72-500s, but it also has some Q300s as well as some Beechcraft 1900Ds. Wouldn't the ATRs be their best prop plane, not the worst?

The ATR72-500s are the oldest of the 3. The Q300 was purchased to replace Saab 340s as it offered better economics, loads and speed. If NZ orders the Q400 then it will help to standardise the fleet somewhat as well as offer improved speeds over the ATR, however as has been mentioned, the Q400 has a higher fuel burn than the ATR.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 19):
Alaska Air Group has also made some noise that they would like a 90 seat aircraft, so those may end up replacing CR7s on some routes.

I suppose the cheapest option then is to get the CRJ900 or CRJ1000, so all those who work on and with the CR7 can just switch aircraft with hardly any retraining... or are they thinking about the 90-seat Q400X?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 18063 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
Horizon was using the CR7 on missions too short to take advantage of its superior performance.

Oh.. They weren't aware of the a/c's performance b/f they bought it?

Hardly. What they underestimated was the meteoric rise in fuel cost.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
So they are seeking a (quite small) fuel benefit by replacing with Q400.

I'm pretty sure here you are making a statement about which you know little. The fuel burn diff is big, and bigger on shorter legs.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
What is not controversial is, the CR7 does its missions faster and quieter.

Block times for the same stage length are largely equal, after stage lengths of 2.5 hours or so the RJs are faster but not much as their climb performance is poor.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
This blows the CR2 out of the water, as long as traffic is available.

The 50 seat CRJ is the worst performing piece of equipment in the airline industry, so the above comparison is weak.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 15):
Even the base model -700 has very good range. It is easily capable of 1,000-mile runs under full load from my understanding.

All of the RJs have less range when compared to a Boeing or Airbus. If the CRJ-700 has good range for an RJ, that is noted but 70 pax in coach is still probably a money losing proposition.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2743 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18050 times:



Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 21):
I suppose the cheapest option then is to get the CRJ900 or CRJ1000, so all those who work on and with the CR7 can just switch aircraft with hardly any retraining... or are they thinking about the 90-seat Q400X?

I don't think they want Horizon operating the jets. They want the simplified cost structures of only one aircraft type at Alaska, and only one type at Horizon. They have made it sound like they will bring in another regional to fly CRJ-900s or E-190s. That way they can pawn off the maintenance and training costs to an airline which already has the programs set up. Of course both Alaska and Horizon pilots are in contract negotiations so it's difficult to determine whether management is being honest or trying to scare the pilot group.

FWIW: I've heard rumors that Alaska Air Group has already put out a RFP for CRJ-900s to other regionals. I take it with a huge grain of salt, but at the same time it makes sense if they want to keep AS and QX one fleet type each.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18036 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 20):
The ATR72-500s are the oldest of the 3. The Q300 was purchased to replace Saab 340s as it offered better economics, loads and speed. If NZ orders the Q400 then it will help to standardise the fleet somewhat as well as offer improved speeds over the ATR, however as has been mentioned, the Q400 has a higher fuel burn than the ATR.

So, are NZ planning to cut Mount Cook Airlines loose? Those planes are still less than 10 years old, so not exactly obsolescent.

Is the fuel burn difference between the ATR-72 and the Q400 significant?


25 Flighty : I'm sorry you are feeling upset. We were having a nice chat where we talked about roughly 20% fuel burn difference. The CR7 is not a gas hog. It is a
26 EssentialPowr : You are chatting about something that you do not know much about. RJs are poor climbers and have poor performance; I have noted that for about 3 year
27 Viscount724 : I'm sure AC Jazz's CRJ-705s (a CRJ-900 with 75 seats, including 10 3-abreast business class seats, and all seats with PTVs) generate higher yield tha
28 Zkpilot : No, they will switch over to whatever aircraft is ordered. It is handy for NZ to have 3 subsiduary operators of regional flights rather than bringing
29 EssentialPowr : Oh. What if an airline put 10 first class seats in a Q400, and 50 or so coach? How about a Q400 with all business class? The point is that yield for
30 Thegeek : Do they have a buyer for the ATRs? If I were running Rex, I'd rather be flying them than the Saab 340s.
31 Zkpilot : Not that I know of, but most are leased and come off lease about the time a replacement is due.
32 MQTmxguy : I'm trying to figure out where your getting this idea that RJs have poor climb performance. What are you comparing them to? For instance, if we look
33 Arrow : I read something a while ago that suggested the CRJ700 was a rocket, with leading edge lift devices giving it the take-off performance and more power
34 Flighty : The CR7 has stellar climb performance. Maybe the Q400 is even better (until it runs into its ceiling). But the CR7 is a rocket. It has been deployed c
35 EssentialPowr : Do a search on RJ climb performance. It is poor, and a ton has been written on it on these forums but I'll give you a basic idea. Out of 10000 ft, an
36 EssentialPowr : What does that mean?
37 FlyASAGuy2005 : The CR7 out of ASE isn't assisted by a steam powered catapult... Besides, that isn't the point. You know exactly what he meant. You keep talking abou
38 Miller22 : You're way off base here. The CRJ-200 is a poor climber. The CRJ-700 has the second best thrust to weight ratio in the industry, behind the 757. Trus
39 Miller22 : The 757 is the only airliner to consistently out-climb the CR7. I'll assume you aren't including the A340 in that "Abus" category since their climb p
40 Arrow : Thank you. I was hoping to see something from someone who actually knows what he's talking about and can give us lay folks the numbers.
41 EssentialPowr : No, it wasn't... Just b/c an aircraft has "been there" doesn't mean that it is economically feasible. Here is what you do not understand.... What you
42 EssentialPowr : Yeah, write a lot on this forum, and have for years, and of course it is all made up...
43 Arrow : Your problem is you're now taking on a guy who flies the damn things, and he's telling you you're full of it. He cites numbers and personal experienc
44 Flighty : But it does mean the CR7 can climb out of a 6000' airport on one engine, then climb up over huge obstacles. ASE is a very demanding place. You may re
45 Dispatchguy : I have read that up to about 600NM, the Q400 wins over the CRJ7. The CRJ7 block fuel burn is about 3000# per hour. The Q400 has a block burn of about
46 Miller22 : Here's what you're missing. The CRJ-700 is equipped with a fabulous FADEC system. It controls fuel flow through two FADEC computers to optimize the f
47 FlyASAGuy2005 : Well said Miller! Let me tell ya, I worked for ASA for about 2 years in ATL and I loved the CR7 (and I still do). Yes, the CR2 is cool, but the 7 has
48 MQTmxguy : Why would I do that when I can just look up whatever I want in the AMM and AOM (generally considered better sources of aircraft data than google.) Se
49 FlyASAGuy2005 : Me too . Boy, don't you hate the old doors with the turn handle?
50 EssentialPowr : I'm type rated in the ERJ and 737. He's only flown RJs... So a non technical RJ guy is giving us a lesson in thermodynamics and aerodynamics? A "powe
51 Goldenshield : I haven't looked at this thread since reply 20, and all I have to say is, "Wow." That sounds like a few MEL issues, not particularly an aircraft issue
52 Saab2000 : What MEL would restrict climb performance at FL270? I fly a CRJ-200. I don't fly the CRJ-700 or CRJ-900 (though I wish I did) but I do jumpseat on la
53 Goldenshield : Whoops. I interpretted that sentence as "cruised the whole way at FL270." That's what I get for not having coffee yet, so ignore what I said about th
54 Miller22 : Sigh... I see you're not interested in facts, only trying to take cheap shots at anyone who's able to prove you wrong. If you're so determined to kee
55 EssentialPowr : Here are some facts for you: 1. A FADEC is just a computerized fuel control; FADECs have been around for 25 years and are intended to optimize an eng
56 EssentialPowr : The CRJ 200 is the worst peforming jet in the industry today, ATC, the whole industry is aware of how underpowered RJs are. How many times have you h
57 EssentialPowr : Really, I get it!
58 Arrow : Did you get fired from some position by Bombardier? Just curious. I can't debate you because my technical knowledge and understanding is non-existent
59 Saab2000 : I don't get it either. CRJ-200s are indeed notoriously bad performers. But I didn't choose the airplane and it doesn't make me a lesser pilot because
60 CRJ900 : Digressing a little, how do you guys in-the-know think the CF34-8 will perform on the CRJ1000ER, which will be around 8,000 lbs heavier at MTOW than
61 EssentialPowr : So apparently I have "credentials", as you put it, and now you "can't debate (me) because (your) technical knowledge and understanding (are) nonexist
62 Arrow : I didn't challenge it, I asked you to back it up in view of contrary reports I'd heard/read elsewhere. Couple of reasons: 1. At the outset, your qual
63 Post contains links EssentialPowr : Quoting Arrow (Reply 63): I didn't challenge it, I asked you to back it up in view of contrary reports I'd heard/read elsewhere. 1. You asked me to ba
64 Goldenshield : If I may point out something here: despite the fact that regionals are a stepping stone to the majors as you alluded to in this quote, there are many
65 EssentialPowr : I think UAL has recalled all of it furloughed "jets for jobs" guys...maybe American still has furloughed guys at Eagle (other than the TWA hires??)??
66 Goldenshield : A minority yes, but an influential one. When I jumpseat, and there's an oldbie, whether long-time regional guy, long-time major, or long-time major f
67 Post contains images Miller22 : Arrow, Do a search of his previous posts, and you'll find that he likes to throw out big words like "thermodynamics" and "HYDRO MECHanical," but doesn
68 Flighty : I am much younger than some of you, and not a pilot. But I do have experience involved with CR7 ops, and spec'ing out the Q400. It is right for some j
69 EssentialPowr : Great. You took a total drag curve out of a Jepp book... Read the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators book to understand what climb performance is predic
70 EssentialPowr : Yeah.... but thermo and fluid dynamics is what makes the whole thing go! Most people are users of the technology, not "understanders". A lot of peopl
71 EssentialPowr : No, it wasn't. It was a case of core lock on the engines. Read the NTSB report.
72 Post contains links Miller22 : Does this imply that you've actually read the NTSB report? Because if you had, you would know not only that the airplane did in fact climb when it co
73 Saab2000 : Stalling an airplane is not an engine issue. An aerodynamic wing stall is acheived by exceeding the angle of attack at which that airfoil will stall.
74 Arrow : Miller22 -- Thanks again. As a puddle-jumper pilot who never once accidentally stalled my Luscombe, or precipitated a core lock on that little 65hp fo
75 Saab2000 : The bottom line is that flying too high is dumb. There is a reason it is called 'coffin corner'. The CRJ-200 sucks in climb and I often max out for ou
76 Essentialpowr : Yes,let's post this: A zoom climb that greatly exceeds the flight envelope of the a/c. Let's publish the part of the report that YOU Omitted, apparent
77 EssentialPowr : Exactly, could not agree more.
78 EssentialPowr : That is a mistake to "learn" from what Miller22 is saying...The only way a jet will fall out of an altitude in smooth air that it LEGALLY attained is
79 Miller22 : Yep. Flown 727-200's with JT8D-15's, a long time ago. Remember that you were the one who made the assumption that I hadn't flown anything larger than
80 Post contains images Miller22 : The CRJ-200 is certified to fly at FL410. There's nothing illegal about that. But I do want to examine the term "pilot error." That's a term the NTSB
81 EssentialPowr : Than a CRJ-200? What isn't? Yeah, I just read stuff... But since you are so experienced on the 727, why is it you think a CRJ 700's FADEC is such a sp
82 Thegeek : Why do keep playing the man, rather than debating the issues? It's tiring to read.
83 EssentialPowr : You may certainly choose another topic. I have asked a specific question, ie to explain a statement. Statements like this below question my knowledge
84 EssentialPowr : What is illegal is being at FL410 at 30 something thousand pounds and 163kts. No wonder the a/c stalled, right? So what's your point? Concur. Nothing
85 EssentialPowr : Prob not. The "future" with FADECs started around 20 years ago... "Highly critical" like I am of your posts, or Supercritical meaning areas on the wi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Efficiency Of In-flight Refuelling Pax A/c posted Thu Jul 6 2006 08:08:11 by Art
Comparing Fuel Efficiency Of JT3D-3/7's & JT8D-9's posted Wed Oct 11 2000 23:44:40 by Happy-flier
Airbus Fuel Efficiency For A320 And A330 Series posted Thu Apr 30 2009 01:54:23 by Panais
Altitude And Fuel Efficiency posted Tue Apr 22 2008 23:08:10 by Vtdl
Opt. Cost Of ATR 72 VS Dash 84 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 00:00:56 by AirbusCanada
Speed And Fuel Efficiency - Optimum? posted Sat Nov 27 2004 06:25:00 by TheBigOne
Fuel Usage Of A B737 And A320 posted Wed Oct 18 2000 22:30:55 by OO-VEG
Impact Of Gradient On Takeoff And Landing B777 posted Fri Sep 23 2011 22:05:52 by mpvincent
Solenoids. What Are They For In Fuel Sys. Of B76? posted Tue Jun 14 2011 16:58:21 by levashov
Efficiency Of Modern Cfrp Airliners posted Sun May 22 2011 00:09:29 by ferpe

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format