propilotjw
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 1:02 pm

Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:02 am

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.
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:16 am

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
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:46 am

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 (?).
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:22 am

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
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:31 am

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 avatar
coronado
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:36 am

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
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:12 pm

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.
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Fuel Burn For Embraer 170

Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:14 pm

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
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~

Who is online