Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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
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
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.
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-
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
N1120A wrote:What E195 is flying around with 146 passengers?
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.
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
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.
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