Hey there avgeek family,
So I personally Im an ATR Fanboy and have always loved flying the baby prop and have also flown on few other Turbo Props like Dash 8 and Otter but I was wondering if these planes are as fuel efficent as well apart from being small in size and using prop engines ?

Now I know there are some jet engined regional jets too like Embraer,CRJ etc so does anyone which amongst all these regional category aircrafts combined has the best Fuel Efficency at the moment ?

Thanks

There are so many factors involved in fuel efficiency that it's probably not possible to single out one aircraft as "the most fuel efficient". Certainly the newest models and engines have an advantage in weight and engine efficiency.

There are economic performance models that consider payload, cabin configuration, load factor, route distance, weather, etc, to estimate how a given aircraft will perform for a given route. That is probably the closest you would come to an answer. Airlines use those models extensively, so probably the aircraft they have, are fairly well matched to their assigned routes.

Dear FR,

The ATR-72 had been advertized as "the most fuel efficient commercial aircraft" by the manufacturer literally decades ago, sporting an equivalent fuel consumption of "2,5 l/100km per passenger".
This is still a good value by today's standards and it was achieved through an efficient aerodynamic design, the good propulsive efficiency of turboprop engines vs turbofans and a deliberately lower cruise speed which is helping this particular aircraft to fly in the optimal regime.

While more recent jet designs like the A220 and the E2 have gained efficiency, let's see how this works out against the ATR-72:
- Embraer E2-195: 1600kg/h, 146 pax, 850km/h -> 1,60 l/100km per pax
- ATR-72-600: 660kg/h, 74 pax, 511 km/h -> 2,17 l/100km/pax

I have selected the most efficient regional jet currently available, I have taken hourly fuel consumption values from a thread published here a few years ago, I have chosen the most dense seating available in order to have a more or less comparable data source for the comparison.
However, the much bigger capacity of the E2 and its much more modern engine gives it an undue advantage, I also assume that the hourly fuel consumption is indicated for a longer mission than on the ATR.

I could imagine that an ATR wold beat a jet in efficiency on (very) short missions and if comparing airframes with similar capacity. Yet, it appears that the general statement "turboprops are more efficient than jets" is proven false.

Kind regards,
Hendric

On short haul routes say les than 350 miles where the flight time is comparable to a jet The ATR blows the RJs out of the water. Longer than this, flight time starts to creep up and then the RJs start gaining an advantage. The ATRs would be outstanding on the short east shuttle routes BOS-JFK/LGA, DCA-BOS/LGA but I think unfortunately there is still a stigma about flying on turboprops in the US. Also, airlines want to integrate the "experience" rather than boarding through a jet bridge for one leg and then taking a bus out to the plane and boarding via stairs. Personally, I love the latter as well as the smell of jet fuel. I love the ATRs as well. Flew the Eagle 42/72 so many times growing in PR.

hitower3 wrote:

Dear FR,

The ATR-72 had been advertized as "the most fuel efficient commercial aircraft" by the manufacturer literally decades ago, sporting an equivalent fuel consumption of "2,5 l/100km per passenger".
This is still a good value by today's standards and it was achieved through an efficient aerodynamic design, the good propulsive efficiency of turboprop engines vs turbofans and a deliberately lower cruise speed which is helping this particular aircraft to fly in the optimal regime.

While more recent jet designs like the A220 and the E2 have gained efficiency, let's see how this works out against the ATR-72:
- Embraer E2-195: 1600kg/h, 146 pax, 850km/h -> 1,60 l/100km per pax
- ATR-72-600: 660kg/h, 74 pax, 511 km/h -> 2,17 l/100km/pax

I have selected the most efficient regional jet currently available, I have taken hourly fuel consumption values from a thread published here a few years ago, I have chosen the most dense seating available in order to have a more or less comparable data source for the comparison.
However, the much bigger capacity of the E2 and its much more modern engine gives it an undue advantage, I also assume that the hourly fuel consumption is indicated for a longer mission than on the ATR.

I could imagine that an ATR wold beat a jet in efficiency on (very) short missions and if comparing airframes with similar capacity. Yet, it appears that the general statement "turboprops are more efficient than jets" is proven false.

Kind regards,
Hendric

I truly appreciate your much elaborate response for my better undrrstanding Mr Hit.
Thank you sir !

phugoid1982 wrote:

On short haul routes say les than 350 miles where the flight time is comparable to a jet The ATR blows the RJs out of the water. Longer than this, flight time starts to creep up and then the RJs start gaining an advantage. The ATRs would be outstanding on the short east shuttle routes BOS-JFK/LGA, DCA-BOS/LGA but I think unfortunately there is still a stigma about flying on turboprops in the US. Also, airlines want to integrate the "experience" rather than boarding through a jet bridge for one leg and then taking a bus out to the plane and boarding via stairs. Personally, I love the latter as well as the smell of jet fuel. I love the ATRs as well. Flew the Eagle 42/72 so many times growing in PR.

You know I myself like the very feeling of being at the tarmac and with so much modernization of airports with almost all of them now equipped with aerobridges that feeling of boarding the plane though a bus in a que outside the aircraft door or staircase has almost gone.

Thankfully in India, where I live,we have a lot of ATRs flying and I do personally enjoy my rides on them..My very first ATR flight was onboard a Jet Airways ATR 72-200 back in 2008 and it was VT-JCG from LKO to DEL and I loved it so much that since then I never miss an opportunity to fly the ATRs.I even try to book flights that are operated with ATR Aircrafts..at the moment in India IndiGo has about 35 ATR 72-6 in service and 10 or so more on order and Alliance air has 18 72-6 or so,2 ATR 42-6 on order and these planes are proving to be indespensable in connecting the big cities to the heartland of India where earlier there was no air connectivity like small towns of Pantnagar,Gorakhpur,Bareily,Bikaner,Gwalior,Kolhapur,Agatti,Shillong and so many more places and this makes ATR the perfect option for the Indian Market and it will continue to be the fulfilling option for Indian operators and has proven to be a hit for more than a decade now even defunct airlines like Kingfisher and Jet Airways used them widely.

Thanks again for your response Mr.Phugoid

Regards
Forever ATR Fan
TFR

The ATR's are perfect for India especially further south where there is low risk for aircraft icing which after 1994 crash here in the US, the ATR fleets were moved further south. Next time I visit relatives in Chennai I have to try and hop on one if I can. You are absolutely right that they are a lifeline for small communities where probably road transport would take a ton of time due geography, infrastructure. For instance in my small town in Puerto Rico it would take 2.5 hrs (without insane traffic)to get to the capital San Juan just 76 miles, air distance, away because you had drive along the coast because of central mountains. The ATRs cut it down to 20 mins. I've only flown Jet Airways once from JFK-MAA via BRU. The service was outstanding! Hopefully privatization will fix Air India which was horrible the 1 time a flew it.

Best,
-Vik-

What E195 is flying around with 146 passengers?

phugoid1982 wrote:

The ATR's are perfect for India especially further south where there is low risk for aircraft icing which after 1994 crash here in the US, the ATR fleets were moved further south. Next time I visit relatives in Chennai I have to try and hop on one if I can. You are absolutely right that they are a lifeline for small communities where probably road transport would take a ton of time due geography, infrastructure. For instance in my small town in Puerto Rico it would take 2.5 hrs (without insane traffic)to get to the capital San Juan just 76 miles, air distance, away because you had drive along the coast because of central mountains. The ATRs cut it down to 20 mins. I've only flown Jet Airways once from JFK-MAA via BRU. The service was outstanding! Hopefully privatization will fix Air India which was horrible the 1 time a flew it.

Best,
-Vik-

Oh so you've been to India I see and you also happen to have relatives too here I suggest the next time you come here make sure to take the ATRs in the north too they are everywhere.IndiGo is the largest operator of ATRs and they do operate out of my city too to a lot of nearby towns and inter state capitals..we actually have one ATR parked here overnight given my homebase LKO is a hub of IndiGo.

Also I have a lot of trip reports on my channel of ATRs (InduGo and Alliance Air) along with many others.About Air India then with my recent flight with them being on time was a sheer serendipity but I have noticed that at least their On Time Performance has improved drastically however,the interiors and other aspects not so much and I guess it would be too soon for us to judge them just yet..I reckon I would give them at least a year to see some real ground changes like the IFE,Interiors etc.

Do visit us soon !

Regards
Anks

FligtReporter wrote:

phugoid1982 wrote:

The ATR's are perfect for India especially further south where there is low risk for aircraft icing which after 1994 crash here in the US, the ATR fleets were moved further south. Next time I visit relatives in Chennai I have to try and hop on one if I can. You are absolutely right that they are a lifeline for small communities where probably road transport would take a ton of time due geography, infrastructure. For instance in my small town in Puerto Rico it would take 2.5 hrs (without insane traffic)to get to the capital San Juan just 76 miles, air distance, away because you had drive along the coast because of central mountains. The ATRs cut it down to 20 mins. I've only flown Jet Airways once from JFK-MAA via BRU. The service was outstanding! Hopefully privatization will fix Air India which was horrible the 1 time a flew it.

Best,
-Vik-

Oh so you've been to India I see and you also happen to have relatives too here I suggest the next time you come here make sure to take the ATRs in the north too they are everywhere.IndiGo is the largest operator of ATRs and they do operate out of my city too to a lot of nearby towns and inter state capitals..we actually have one ATR parked here overnight given my homebase LKO is a hub of IndiGo.

Also I have a lot of trip reports on my channel of ATRs (InduGo and Alliance Air) along with many others.About Air India then with my recent flight with them being on time was a sheer serendipity but I have noticed that at least their On Time Performance has improved drastically however,the interiors and other aspects not so much and I guess it would be too soon for us to judge them just yet..I reckon I would give them at least a year to see some real ground changes like the IFE,Interiors etc.

Do visit us soon !

Regards
Anks

Yeah. My entire family is Tamil and mostly from Chennai and Bengaluru although I was raised in the US. I'd love to travel North. The thing that irks me that is when I go to India is I never get to go explore anywhere. It's always just spending time with different relatives in their houses. I'd love to explore the country especially the North. I've never seen the Taj Mahal and I'd like to go skiing in Shimla. I might have to surreptitiously make a trip without telling relatives so they aren't offended that i've gone without visiting them....ride on my ATRs and ski! =) Thanks for your insightful suggestions. I'll definitely check it out and your channel.

Best,
Vik

N1120A wrote:

What E195 is flying around with 146 passengers?

I took the maximum allowable seat capacity for both aircraft in order to get comparable results.

hitower3 wrote:

N1120A wrote:

What E195 is flying around with 146 passengers?

I took the maximum allowable seat capacity for both aircraft in order to get comparable results.

What would the seat pitch have to be to fit that many people in an E195.

phugoid1982 wrote:

FligtReporter wrote:

phugoid1982 wrote:

The ATR's are perfect for India especially further south where there is low risk for aircraft icing which after 1994 crash here in the US, the ATR fleets were moved further south. Next time I visit relatives in Chennai I have to try and hop on one if I can. You are absolutely right that they are a lifeline for small communities where probably road transport would take a ton of time due geography, infrastructure. For instance in my small town in Puerto Rico it would take 2.5 hrs (without insane traffic)to get to the capital San Juan just 76 miles, air distance, away because you had drive along the coast because of central mountains. The ATRs cut it down to 20 mins. I've only flown Jet Airways once from JFK-MAA via BRU. The service was outstanding! Hopefully privatization will fix Air India which was horrible the 1 time a flew it.

Best,
-Vik-

Oh so you've been to India I see and you also happen to have relatives too here I suggest the next time you come here make sure to take the ATRs in the north too they are everywhere.IndiGo is the largest operator of ATRs and they do operate out of my city too to a lot of nearby towns and inter state capitals..we actually have one ATR parked here overnight given my homebase LKO is a hub of IndiGo.

Also I have a lot of trip reports on my channel of ATRs (InduGo and Alliance Air) along with many others.About Air India then with my recent flight with them being on time was a sheer serendipity but I have noticed that at least their On Time Performance has improved drastically however,the interiors and other aspects not so much and I guess it would be too soon for us to judge them just yet..I reckon I would give them at least a year to see some real ground changes like the IFE,Interiors etc.

Do visit us soon !

Regards
Anks

Yeah. My entire family is Tamil and mostly from Chennai and Bengaluru although I was raised in the US. I'd love to travel North. The thing that irks me that is when I go to India is I never get to go explore anywhere. It's always just spending time with different relatives in their houses. I'd love to explore the country especially the North. I've never seen the Taj Mahal and I'd like to go skiing in Shimla. I might have to surreptitiously make a trip without telling relatives so they aren't offended that i've gone without visiting them....ride on my ATRs and ski! =) Thanks for your insightful suggestions. I'll definitely check it out and your channel.

Best,
Vik

Aww...I can understand how it would be given when we visit relatives it just becomes almost impossible to say no to them as they are all looking forward to your visit and have already done myriads of preps in your welcome lol..But yeah you could prolly tell them in advance that you'd spend a few days with them and then explore the country on your own Im sure they will understand and be considerate of your wish.If they dont then show them my channel and tell them Im your friend so they dont need to worry

Oh and btw I havent myself ever visited the Taj Mahal but yes I have seen it from the flight when I was enroute Khajuraho from Delhi,It was the most beautiful sight ever Oh and its on my channel too however,most of my Khajuraho Trip Report videos are in messed up condition due to me being new to editing back then and I committed a huge blunder like deleting the original file whilst the Final Edit was under processs cause of which a few of them turned out to be pixelated at places.

Theres so much you should see apart from traditional hotspots of tourism in India like Khajuraho,Mussoorie,Auli etc.

Best
Anks

hitower3 wrote:

N1120A wrote:

What E195 is flying around with 146 passengers?

I took the maximum allowable seat capacity for both aircraft in order to get comparable results.

What E195 carries even 120 seats? There are plenty of ATRs with the max

N1120A wrote:

hitower3 wrote:

N1120A wrote:

What E195 is flying around with 146 passengers?

I took the maximum allowable seat capacity for both aircraft in order to get comparable results.

What E195 carries even 120 seats? There are plenty of ATRs with the max

Anyone noticed the original plane was E2-195, and not E-195 (gen1)? Fuel burn figures also reflected that.

E2 is considered 132 @31 in, max 146 @28 in plane.

Cheers,
Adam

Easy. The one that’s sitting on the ground with its engines off!!

Thank you thank you. I’ll be here all week.