panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Mon May 12, 2008 7:03 am

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
 
avt007
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:51 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 12:28 am

Ask Horizon, they're dumping their CRJ700s for more Q400s.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 3:33 am



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.
 
miller22
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2000 4:48 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 10:49 am

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.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 5:25 pm

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.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 8:23 pm



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.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 9:50 pm



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.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 9:53 pm



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?
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 13, 2008 11:10 pm



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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Wed May 14, 2008 1:36 am

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.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Wed May 14, 2008 4:56 am



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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Wed May 14, 2008 5:46 pm



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.
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Wed May 14, 2008 6:25 pm



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
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3951
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Wed May 14, 2008 8:49 pm

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...?
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1944
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 15, 2008 8:32 pm



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
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 15, 2008 11:55 pm

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.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Fri May 16, 2008 9:16 am



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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Fri May 16, 2008 10:24 am

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.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Fri May 16, 2008 11:01 pm



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?
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sat May 17, 2008 2:03 am



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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sat May 17, 2008 2:26 pm



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.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1944
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sat May 17, 2008 3:04 pm



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
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sat May 17, 2008 9:33 pm



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.
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sat May 17, 2008 10:45 pm



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.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sun May 18, 2008 1:17 am



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?
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sun May 18, 2008 2:24 am



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 22):
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.

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 freakin' Toyota Prius next to the CR2. And the CR2 survives still. Yes, The Q400 is a little better, if you have a network of short-route flying that justifies the Q400. So far, this has not made the Q400 a smash hit, but it is a nice accessory player.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 22):
RJs are faster but not much as their climb performance is poor.

I think you're the first to call a CR7's climb performance "poor." If climbs higher than a Q400 could even fly, and does so without performance problems. CR7s have been to Aspen and Key West, FL.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 22):
70 pax in coach is still probably a money losing proposition.

Then why do they do it?

Do you really think all 1,500 RJs below the Embraers are going to just park... ? Did you know they generally make profits? I am no CR2 defender. It is marginal. But the CR2 survives. Despite people's nasty words. THe CR7, by definition, is much more than a survivor. It is a key element of the various networks. NW, AA, DL, US all use it. AS uses it too, even if their rationale isn't the greatest. The CR7 is so much cheaper to fly than a 737 that it's not even funny.

Which would you rather fly on a weak coach route of 75 people.... a 737 or a CR7? Exactly, the CR7 turns a money-losing route into a winner. The total security, however, comes from the fact that if the market weakens, the CR7 will just go on to replace the 737 and DC-9 flying in this world.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sun May 18, 2008 2:58 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):

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 freakin' Toyota Prius next to the CR2. And the CR2 survives still. Yes, The Q400 is a little better, if you have a network of short-route flying that justifies the Q400. So far, this has not made the Q400 a smash hit, but it is a nice accessory player.

You are chatting about something that you do not know much about.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
I think you're the first to call a CR7's climb performance "poor." If climbs higher than a Q400 could even fly, and does so without performance problems. CR7s have been to Aspen and Key West, FL.

RJs are poor climbers and have poor performance; I have noted that for about 3 years on this forum along with the reasons for their demise.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
CR7s have been to Aspen and Key West, FL.

And C130s have flown off a carrier flight deck....

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
Do you really think all 1,500 RJs below the Embraers are going to just park... ? Did you know they generally make profits?

Give me some #s.... "generally make profits"? Yeah, the world is beating down the door to buy 70 seat CRJs... But really, let's talk specific performance #s on the -700, b/c you have only offerred opinions.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sun May 18, 2008 3:35 am

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 10):
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.

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 than an all-economy Q400. And I doubt anyone would be happy flying YYC-IAH on a Q400 (1518 nm and block time of 4:15 northbound on the CRJ-705). It's beyond the Q400's economic range anyway.

[Edited 2008-05-17 20:38:00]
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Mon May 19, 2008 5:03 am



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 24):
So, are NZ planning to cut Mount Cook Airlines loose? Those planes are still less than 10 years old, so not exactly obsolescent.

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 them inhouse.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Mon May 19, 2008 6:45 am



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 27):
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 than an all-economy Q400.

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 a coach seat and yield for a business class seat are 2 different things. Aircraft are configured by an airline with a mix that that airline predicts will maximize profit based upon the amount of payload the aircraft will carry over a certain distance. Under about 375 nm, a Q400 will carry a comparable payload to a 75 seat or larger RJ with a much lower fuel burn with a similar block time.

A/c performance relates to payload over a distance, with some consideration to time over that distance. A fast, large turboprop at $127 bbl oil absolutely destroys a 75 to 100 seat RJ within that (approx) 375 nm distance in terms of direct operating cost. In other words, "yield" is not an aircraft performance parameter. Does that make sense?
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Mon May 19, 2008 10:23 am



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 28):
No, they will switch over to whatever aircraft is ordered.

Do they have a buyer for the ATRs? If I were running Rex, I'd rather be flying them than the Saab 340s.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Mon May 19, 2008 12:01 pm



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 30):
Do they have a buyer for the ATRs? If I were running Rex, I'd rather be flying them than the Saab 340s.

Not that I know of, but most are leased and come off lease about the time a replacement is due.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
MQTmxguy
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:58 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Tue May 20, 2008 8:38 pm



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 26):
RJs are poor climbers and have poor performance; I have noted that for about 3 years on this forum along with the reasons for their demise.

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 at the max initial climb rate (standard day from takeoff - FL200) of the ER4 vs the A320
ERJ-145 2,560 ft / min
A320 2,400 ft/min

I don't know about the CRJ, but I can't imagine it's THAT much worse since the whole selling point of an RJ is that it can quickly get up to an economical cruise altitude on a short flight.

I only bring it up because you keep telling Flighty that he doesn't know what he's talking about and one of your biggest (yet to be qualified) points is that RJs have horrible climb performance.
Well at least we can all take comfort in the fact that NW will never retire their DC-9s
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Wed May 21, 2008 5:35 am



Quoting MQTmxguy (Reply 32):
I only bring it up because you keep telling Flighty that he doesn't know what he's talking about and one of your biggest (yet to be qualified) points is that RJs have horrible climb performance.

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 the high altitude climb performance that the original CRJ 100/200 lacked. I don't think you can make blanket statements about RJ performance, since there are very significant differences between the early CRJs and ERJs and the later variants.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Wed May 21, 2008 7:52 pm

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 commercially to EYW and ASE just like I mentioned. Think about it, the CRJ1000 is the same platform. The CR7 is the baby of the CR7 / CR9 / CR10 family.

The CR2 is another topic entirely... it has nothing to do with this thread at all.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 26):
You are chatting about something that you do not know much about.

You can say whatever you like. But the facts (and air fleets) don't back up your radical ideas. The Q400 will not replace all, or even most of the 1,500-2,000 RJs in this country. I am a CR7 fanboy and make no bones about that. I also respect that the Q400 has a role. Call that a semi-professional opinion (don't ask).

But I have ridden the Q400 and it's nice too. It's just not as fast or quiet as a CR7. And it can't do the same fleet missions. QX will struggle with the fact that Q400 _is_ better for some flights. But for long flights, the Q400 is piss poor. So it is not capable of the overall fleet duty, while the CR7 is. Sad but true.

CO has its Q400s, but then again, it has a scope clause that prohibits the turbofan CR7. Would they operate the CR7 if they could? My guess is definitely yes!
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 3:49 am



Quoting MQTmxguy (Reply 32):

I'm trying to figure out where your getting this idea that RJs have poor climb performance. What are you comparing them to?

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, and ERJ will climb at 290 kts indicated and 1000 fpm up to FL370; at that point is is about .60 mach or 200 kts indicated when it gets there.

That is horrible. A 737 or Airbus can do 330 kts to .80 mach, and when it gets there it is still doing aboout 2000 fpm in the heaviest, hottest scenarios.


Quoting MQTmxguy (Reply 32):
For instance, if we look at the max initial climb rate (standard day from takeoff - FL200) of the ER4 vs the A320
ERJ-145 2,560 ft / min
A320 2,400 ft/min

What is your reference? A 737 or A319/20 etc, on any given day or load condition, can do 250 kts below 10000 and from 2500 - 5500 fpm. About that, see my quote above.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
The CR7 has stellar climb performance.

Better than the 50 seaters, not even close to a Boeing or Abus.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
You can say whatever you like. But the facts (and air fleets) don't back up your radical ideas.

You wouldn't even know how to open the door and power up any of these a/c, but you know how they fly? Have you done a search on this thread about RJ performance? You are ignorant on this topic.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 5:00 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
And it can't do the same fleet missions

What does that mean?
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 11:00 am



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 26):
And C130s have flown off a carrier flight deck....

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.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 35):
You wouldn't even know how to open the door and power up any of these a/c, but you know how they fly? Have you done a search on this thread about RJ performance? You are ignorant on this topic.

You keep talking about how we (the guys your talking to) should reference other topics on this forum about this matter. are you kidding? There are more "engineers", "20 year pilots", and "VP's" on this board than I've seen anywhere else. For anything to be taken seriously, someone needs to produce numbers and credible references. I frankly don't care so that won't be me but you all are going back and forth so maybe a point should be made with a link to these numbers.
What gets measured gets done.
 
miller22
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2000 4:48 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 1:28 pm



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 26):
RJs are poor climbers and have poor performance; I have noted that for about 3 years on this forum along with the reasons for their demise.

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. Trust me. It performs, and it performs well. Of all the aircraft I've flown, which includes several business jets, the CRJ-700 was by far the best performing. Mach .83 at FL 370 with 70 pax. 1000 fpm or better all the way to 370. Runway performance was almost obscene if you went flaps 20, and single-engine operations where diagnosed solely by the blinking red light in front of you and slight pressure on one of the rudder peddles. Other than that, you just kept climbing.

The Q400 is a great aircraft, but when you're limited to FL 250, it only takes about 350-400 miles before the CR7 overtakes it in the fuel column. The time to climb numbers on the Q400 are a bit misleading as well. The Q400 climbs out at 220 - 250 kias. The CR7 climbs out at 290-320 kias. If I pulled it back to 250, the flight attendants had to spend most of cruise picking all of the loose items out from under the seats in the last row. The CR7 would definitely give the Q400 a run for its money in terms of climb performance to FL 250, and the rest is gravy for the CR7. Fuel burn for the Q400 at 250 is roughly the same, if not a bit higher than the CR7 at 370. Don't forget to add in the 100 kt ground speed advantage for the CR7 at those altitudes with comparable fuel burn. Hence the short stage length advantage for the Q. Anything over 400 miles goes to the CR7.

Horizon has long been known as the most expensive operator of CR7's. Largely due to their pilot contract, they also had other inefficiencies that drove their RJ costs through the roof. Don't get me wrong, it's a great operation, but their industry trailing costs on that aircraft were most likely the reason Alaska dumped them.
 
miller22
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2000 4:48 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 1:41 pm



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 35):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
The CR7 has stellar climb performance.

Better than the 50 seaters, not even close to a Boeing or Abus.

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 performance is a joke. I've watched many a 737/A320 slip below and behind the wing as we cruised right past. To be fair, I did get passed by a 737 once, but that was because ATC pulled us back to mach .75 when we were previously doing mach .83 (the only reason we weren't doing .84-.85 was the new RVSM restriction).

In fact, the stellar climb performance posed some unique problems for the CRJ-700 that previous non-business aircraft haven't had to deal with. The engines were capable of lifting you to the altitude, but the highly critical airfoil was sometimes not capable of sustaining that altitude. The engines would give you the thrust to get you to altitude, but the wing would put you behind the power curve. Keep the airspeed at 290 or higher (320 best) over FL 300, and you didn't have that problem.

GE really out-did themselves with that engine!
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 2:41 pm



Quoting Miller22 (Reply 38):
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. Trust me. It performs, and it performs well.

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.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 3:37 pm

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 37):
The CR7 out of ASE isn't assisted by a steam powered catapult...

No, it wasn't...

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 37):
Besides, that isn't the point. You know exactly what he meant.

Just b/c an aircraft has "been there" doesn't mean that it is economically feasible.

Quoting Miller22 (Reply 38):
The CRJ-700 has the second best thrust to weight ratio in the industry, behind the 757. Trust me. It performs, and it performs well.

Here is what you do not understand.... What you are using for thrust to weight ratios is that given at sea level on a standard day. The problem is that that ratio does not hold constant as it climbs. The RJ engines do not have the thermodynamic capability to maintain those thrust ratios as it climbs, and it decreases rather drastically. Even the 70-90 seat RJs wont keep up with a larger a/c. And BTW... the 767-200 out climbs the 757.

Quoting Miller22 (Reply 39):
The 757 is the only airliner to consistently out-climb the CR7.

Total baloney.

Quoting Miller22 (Reply 39):
The engines were capable of lifting you to the altitude, but the highly critical airfoil was sometimes not capable of sustaining that altitude. The engines would give you the thrust to get you to altitude, but the wing would put you behind the power curve. Keep the airspeed at 290 or higher (320 best) over FL 300, and you didn't have that problem.

This exact description above is a function of thrust limitations, not the wing.

[Edited 2008-05-22 08:41:03]
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 3:45 pm



Quoting Arrow (Reply 40):
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.

Yeah, write a lot on this forum, and have for years, and of course it is all made up...
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 4:45 pm



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 42):
Yeah, write a lot on this forum, and have for years, and of course it is all made up...

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 experience, you reply with hot air.

Case in point:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 41):
Quoting Miller22 (Reply 39):
The 757 is the only airliner to consistently out-climb the CR7.

Total baloney.

Until you can back up your claims with some numbers (or offer up some credentials to help us believe that you know what you're talking about) You're not going to win the argument. Miller22 isn't the only pilot I've seen say good things on A.net about the CR7 performance.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 4:55 pm

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 41):
Just b/c an aircraft has "been there" doesn't mean that it is economically feasible.

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 recall that previously, only the dedicated STOL BAE-146 was allowed to operate at ASE. Many were shocked to see DL Connection's CR7 approved for use there. I do not know the pax loads carried out of there. But it was something. This particularly relates to climb performance on one engine.

Edit: the Dash-8 family can also operate at ASE. Mesa flies the DH8-100 there to PHX. UA also flies some sort of turboprop to there I believe... or else a CR7.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 36):
Fleet mission: What does that mean?

The "fleet mission" is the whole list of flights the CR7 operates at your airline. Lets say we are talking about CO's 777s. CO believes the A333 might be a great replacement for the 777-200ER. The A333 is great for going EWR-Europe. However, CO's 777s also go to NRT and HKG. An A333 could not perform that mission. So, you would not just replace all the 777 with A333. This is what I mean.

But in the reverse case, a 777 CAN do everything an A333 can do. So a 777 can fully perform all the missions your A333s were doing: collectively their "fleet mission." You could replace an A333 fleet with 777 and not need to re-juggle flights because of any limited capability.

So Horizon at SEA is similar. They have some long range CR7 flights that are just perfect for the CR7. But, they also have shorter missions. The point is, you could not fully replace the CR7 fleet with Q400s and maintain that route map. Either you would have to add some 737s to cover long range flights (undesirable) or you simply drop those flights. So this is a trade-off in the Q400 purchase decision. Maybe it's worth it and maybe not.

[Edited 2008-05-22 09:57:49]
 
dispatchguy
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:08 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 5:45 pm

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 1800# per hour.
Nobody screws you better than an airline job!
 
miller22
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2000 4:48 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Thu May 22, 2008 6:31 pm



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 41):
Here is what you do not understand.... What you are using for thrust to weight ratios is that given at sea level on a standard day. The problem is that that ratio does not hold constant as it climbs. The RJ engines do not have the thermodynamic capability to maintain those thrust ratios as it climbs, and it decreases rather drastically. Even the 70-90 seat RJs wont keep up with a larger a/c. And BTW... the 767-200 out climbs the 757.

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 fuel schedule dependent upon altitude. The CRJ-700's FADEC works fantastically well, with a bit of a performance decrease around FL 280 - 290, and it picks back up above 300. Your ratio theory is based on ancient engine technology without FADEC. The FADEC is designed to specifically control that ratio. Thermodynamics have nothing to do with it, since the engines on a CRJ are derated substantially and any effects would be experienced by the 757 engines as well, but I will admit it's a cool buzz word to have in a post.

Thermodynamics.  laughing 

As far as a 767-200 out-climbing a 757, I have seen it happen. The 757 was full, and the 767 was empty. You see this a lot with cargo carriers who are bulking out before they weight out. Watch a FedEx MD10 or A300 take off some time and they only use about 4,500 ft. of pavement. But you give me an empty CRJ-700, and I guarantee it will out-climb any one of those. On a ferry flight, we would climb at 1,500 fpm to FL 390, and 1,000 fpm to FL410, all at mach .85 (or whatever barber pole happened to be at the lower altitudes). But if you want to go down that path, an empty anything will probably out-climb a full CR7.

In this industry, we make apples to apples comparisons.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 41):
This exact description above is a function of thrust limitations, not the wing.

This is called being behind the power curve, and even though it has the word "power" in it, its related closer to the wing, not necessarily the engines. Check out VanSickle's Modern Airmanship book, if you're at all interested in learning about high-altitude aerodynamics. It really is a different animal up there in the thin air.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Fri May 23, 2008 8:46 am



Quoting Miller22 (Reply 46):

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 it beat leaps and bounds and I loved to fly on it up to PWM to visit family and down to EYW for a little fun in the sun  Cool .
What gets measured gets done.
 
MQTmxguy
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:58 pm

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Fri May 23, 2008 6:06 pm



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 35):
Do a search on RJ climb performance.

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.)

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 35):
What is your reference?

See above. Your turn (A.net forum posts do not count.)

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 35):
You wouldn't even know how to open the door and power up any of these a/c

I do
Well at least we can all take comfort in the fact that NW will never retire their DC-9s
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700

Sat May 24, 2008 4:08 pm



Quoting MQTmxguy (Reply 48):
I do

Me too Big grin.

Boy, don't you hate the old doors with the turn handle?
What gets measured gets done.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Starlionblue, WIederling and 9 guests