Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Hmm let's see 60% less fuel at half the speed with half the people...carry the one, scribble scribble, uh. Hmm. Well I'm sure it has a great personality.
Fuel Burn of the ERJ145 and CRJ200
- Thread starter A Matt
- Start date
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
not ours. -_-
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
We are between 500-700 an hour. That's amazing 300 more pph for more than double the weight and you guys are down low as well. We are usually at 290-350.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
To be fair, stall recovery back then was being taught as a proficiency maneuver and we were encouraged to slightly pull back and hold altitude to power out of the condition
Now it's taught as a survival maneuver to immediately decrease the angle of attack ASAP and accept that you will lose some altitude. That's how it should have been from day 1. It was the dumbest thing I learned in CRJ initial to hold myself in the stick shaker and power out. How the FAA signed off on that is beyond me.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
The OP posted about the ERJ145 & CRJ200, and since I don't fly either of those, I'm going to follow everyone else and post an answer unrelated to the question asked.
The R-4360 in Dreadnought burns about 2,640pph during race power. Or about 440gph.
Sent from my Startac using Tapatalk.
The R-4360 in Dreadnought burns about 2,640pph during race power. Or about 440gph.
Sent from my Startac using Tapatalk.
Last edited:
Van_Hoolio
Well-Known Member
Here's some planned fuel data from a 123 minute flight in the E145 today:
Total burn 5902 lbs.
30 minutes to top of climb FL360, burn 2143 lbs.
69 minutes in cruise, burn 3067 lbs.
24 minutes in the descent, burn 692 lbs.
Total burn 5902 lbs.
30 minutes to top of climb FL360, burn 2143 lbs.
69 minutes in cruise, burn 3067 lbs.
24 minutes in the descent, burn 692 lbs.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
To be fair, stall recovery back then was being taught as a proficiency maneuver and we were encouraged to slightly pull back and hold altitude to power out of the condition
Now it's taught as a survival maneuver to immediately decrease the angle of attack ASAP and accept that you will lose some altitude. That's how it should have been from day 1. It was the dumbest thing I learned in CRJ initial to hold myself in the stick shaker and power out. How the FAA signed off on that is beyond me.
You were encouraged that at 10,000 feet to protect altitude loss. Anyone with any idea of aerodynamics and jet engine performance knew that pulling back at FL410 (or FL200) was a bad idea. It seemed the schoolhouse assumed people would know to push at high altitude when the engines were already at maximum performance. Poor assumption.
They had the perfect lower functioning crew for that night at the time to create the accident conditions.
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
fltplan.com
Thanks for the post. Can you clarify the aircraft you are flying when you note you are at 500-700 an hour?
Having flown both - can you say one type was more "ugh" than the other? Was one more reliable? Many Thanks.
Thanks very much. Presumably you were at a lower fuel burn in the hold (lower power setting)? Any thoughts on cruise? Apologies if that is not the right way to think about it. So it reliably sucked or it was reliable, but you didn't like flying it? Ha - thanks again for your thoughts.
Thanks very much. A cruise performance table would be great if you have it.
Thanks very much - this is great. This works out to a rough average of 2,667 lbs/ hour at cruise - would you say that is pretty normal?
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
King Air 200
Baronman
Well-Known Member
The noise level is high on the 145 at high indicated airspeeds. Say above 290 KIAS it's pretty bad. Below 250KIAS not so bad.
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
Wow. This among many reasons is why I need to meet this guy. His talents are truly wasted in aviation!