CRJ-200 Climb Profiles

higney85

higney85

Property of Scheduling
I know there are quite a few -200 pilots on here. I was bored on some long flights over the last few weeks and started going through performance numbers and the possible fuel savings with different climbs/cruise/decent speeds as well as cruise altitudes. I am wondering what other carriers have as a "best burn" climb/cruise/decent profile.

Here is our "published" climbs:

Best Climb 250/.70M
Normal 290/.74M
High Speed 320/.77M

I was "experimenting" or maybe better to say "interpolating" with climb rates with slight variations to these climbs and found that using 270/.70M kept us at 700-1Kfpm all the way up and saved a couple hundred pounds of fuel and only cost us a couple mins of time. 280/.70 wasn't much difference in fuel but didn't change the time. The problem I have with the 290/.70M climb is the plane just dies after about FL250 trying to hold 290. At about FL250 you will indicate roughly .70M so you could climb at that speed and still be well above the 250IAS limitation for a climb and maintain more than 500fpm up. Trying to climb at 250IAS all the way up seems to have 2 big problems- 1) ATC will hate you and 2) Through FL180 at 250 the plane is a dog!

As far as cruise I have been looking at winds and such and many times we are legal and able to go up 2K and many times 4K feet with a lower fuel burn and many times the winds aren't much different and we even go faster. This is something that all pilots look at (well most), but my issue is why does dispatch/the company not look at this in the planning process. It does seem to work out better to level off at FL280 (an example for original filed ALT), pick up some speed, then continue up to FL320.

Decents for us are typically 290IAS and we have the Vnav set at 3.0degrees. Fiddling with 3.5degrees kept us higher for a little longer and still gave us the ability to slow to 250 for ATC (of they need us to) but we decend with a much lower power setting and save some fuel.

I have been going through various flights and charts and find that just a few changes will (many times) reduce burns by 300-500lbs on a 2 hour flight. At $110+/barrel gas I am curious why others haven't really started looking at burn numbers. You are talking about $100/hr savings which isn't huge, except when you look at the big picture- thats Alot of $$$..


Now I am fully aware the company published numbers probably came from Bombardier and I am sure there are many engineers and lots of science behind all the numbers, but many times the book says one thing and reality is another- we all remember the GA days of a Cessna that should climb but really won't! I am really just curious what other carriers do for the climb mainly. Also curious what people do on the ground (APU and single engine taxi procedures).
 
Also known as "How to be an even bigger roadblock in the skies than a CRJ is now."

Do you have any idea how much extra fuel a 767 burns because we can't speed up and do an unrestricted climb to cruise because a slow CRJ is in front of us out of ATL? I'll gladly give you a few hundred pounds credit if you'll just speed up!!
 
I am not discussing the issues with ATC. There is no way to make the CRJ climb like it should other than putting the -900/-700 engines on a -200. I am aware that many other A/C with autothrottles and such climb at different speeds depending on weight and temp. This is solely a question on the -200. I am sure many argue that climbing at 320 works well- it does but not on longer (higher) flights or when hot/heavy. Believe me I would love to climb out like a lear but the -200 won't do that (even cold and empty).
 
Dude, you have WAAAAYYYY too much free time. :)

Keep in mind that our books also assume a CG that will never happen in real life.
 
In the ERJ just hit Max Continuous and it will climb at close to the pole. Not very good for the fuel burn though. Never tried it though, just heard from a friend...
 
Our company climb profile is:

290 till .70M then .70 till cruise alt.
.74M for cruise
320/.77M for descends (most often we just go to barber pole). Also we use a 4.0 degree glidepath to most places except ATL and a few others.

Hope this helps and by the way, try bringing those numbers up with management if you haven't already. Maybe, just maybe, they haven't thought of it yet. Good Luck.
 
At $110+/barrel gas I am curious why others haven't really started looking at burn numbers. You are talking about $100/hr savings which isn't huge, except when you look at the big picture- thats Alot of $$$..
Click to expand...

Flying slower sounds good until you realize that adding 5 minutes of time enroute to save a couple hundred pounds of gas actually is a complete wash at my company. You might burn 200# less in fuel BUT due to the increased mx costs (approximately $16.60/minute) it'll be the same cost overall (that's with fuel @ $3.50/gal). Yeah you might save some gas but you're pissing it out the other side in higher mx costs, only to arrive several minutes later. Just something to consider, of course working with your companies MX cost numbers.

Just as an FYI our costs to operate per hour, minus fuel costs, are $996/hr, which pales in comparison to your figured $100/hr. That's called stepping over a dollar to save a dime ;).
 
I am not proposing to fly any slower overall... Cruise at .74 is still on the agenda (as much as going faster is always better for the psyche). The difference in the climb (typically only 2-3 min change overall) saves a hundred bucks or so. Time is made up and lost on the ground- not the air on most of our flights. Saving 500lbs of gas and taking 2 minutes longer normally would have you (cost wise) in the black, all efforts are destroyed when you wait 15+ minutes to be parked. I see the hourly cost argument but I also see that climbing to altitude faster (time wise) and decending at a higher angle (4.0degrees mentioned) and faster (while still at a lower power setting) kinda evens out on the time, yet the fuel savings is still there- at least in my rationale. This is the sole reason I brought up this topic, keep the replies coming...
 
Well in our upgrade class our instructor said the way Montreal suggests is on a long flight climb at 250/.7mach on the climb. Get up to altitude as fast as you can, so you can save the fuel. But on short flights, climb at 320. Basically you're never get get high enough to save fuel at alt, so just get to your destination as soon as you can. It makes sense to me.

But to echo, kellwolf.....you have way too much time on your hands. Think about girls, partying, investing, retirement. B*^%es and money, thats what life is about. haha...jk
 
blee256 said:
But to echo, kellwolf.....you have way too much time on your hands. Think about girls, partying, investing, retirement. B*^%es and money, thats what life is about. haha...jk
Click to expand...

Girls... getting married in 6 weeks. patying... does spending entire afternoons at the saucer count? investing... Yep do that (must offset FO pay) Retirement... Yep covered, only 43 years left but I plan on being out in 33. B****s... My dog prefers another name. Money.... comes with investing/retirement and leaves with girls and partying.....


I do have too much free time though at this point. I can only go to the gym for so long every day.
 
I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe climbing at 270 saves 500# of gas. Even on a 2 hour flight you're saying you increase fuel efficiency almost 10%? Hmmm I dunno. I agree with power off descents, I know UPS has been working with ATC to perfect them as much as possible. However it's not always possible to go from FL320 to 3 mile final without touching the thrust levers. Maybe in podunk AR but certainly not anywhere on the east or west coasts. Also just because you burn less gas at a higher altitude doesn't mean it's cost effective to go up there, one has to consider the additional burn to reach that higher altitude.

I start a trip tomorrow, I'll plug 270/.7 into the VNAV page to see what the FMS calculates fuel burn at on some legs and get back to you. I'm not trying to downplay your work, I applaud this sort of stuff, I am an efficiency connoisseur, however I remain skeptical of any "magic" profiles.
 
wheelsup said:
I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe climbing at 270 saves 500# of gas. Even on a 2 hour flight you're saying you increase fuel efficiency almost 10%? Hmmm I dunno. I agree with power off descents, I know UPS has been working with ATC to perfect them as much as possible. However it's not always possible to go from FL320 to 3 mile final without touching the thrust levers. Maybe in podunk AR but certainly not anywhere on the east or west coasts. Also just because you burn less gas at a higher altitude doesn't mean it's cost effective to go up there, one has to consider the additional burn to reach that higher altitude.

I start a trip tomorrow, I'll plug 270/.7 into the VNAV page to see what the FMS calculates fuel burn at on some legs and get back to you. I'm not trying to downplay your work, I applaud this sort of stuff, I am an efficiency connoisseur, however I remain skeptical of any "magic" profiles.
Click to expand...


Give it a shot but re-read the post. 500 lbs over a 2 hour flight with a combo of the climb, higher cruise alt, and a steeper decent. Not just a steep climb. I was getting between 300-500 lb differences on the long flight (1.5hours+ enroute). On the short stuff there is not much difference cause you don't go high or far.

In the Vnav you would want 270/.70, cruise at 290/.74 (default), decent at 320/.74 (to get an idle decent not a .77 acceleration) and the default planning to 4.0 degrees. I would be interested in seeing how it works out for others.
 
blee256 said:
Well in our upgrade class our instructor said the way Montreal suggests is on a long flight climb at 250/.7mach on the climb. Get up to altitude as fast as you can, so you can save the fuel. But on short flights, climb at 320. Basically you're never get get high enough to save fuel at alt, so just get to your destination as soon as you can. It makes sense to me.
Click to expand...


Until you get to DTW/MSP 20 minutes early and wait 30 minutes to get parked. :) Granted, if you're smart, you shut an engine down a while ago. I don't think our company is really all that concerned about saving gas anymore. With the new ASA, I think any gas savings gets passed on to NWA instead of letting 9E keep it. NWA still pays for the gas (minus any untoward contingency fuel, and THAT they're pretty stingy on).
 
kellwolf said:
Until you get to DTW/MSP 20 minutes early and wait 30 minutes to get parked. :) Granted, if you're smart, you shut an engine down a while ago. I don't think our company is really all that concerned about saving gas anymore. With the new ASA, I think any gas savings gets passed on to NWA instead of letting 9E keep it. NWA still pays for the gas (minus any untoward contingency fuel, and THAT they're pretty stingy on).
Click to expand...

As I understand we send NWA our total bill and get paid all cost plus our margin minus any penalty fees (cancellations, delays, etc). Could be wrong but our costs (including fuel) does get passed on. I am not saying all this to necessarily help the company, I just don't see it as efficient for anyone- be that the company, NWA, mother nature, or the middle east palace that we pay for.
 
It's cost in parity with average. So, if we're charging them for 8500 lbs of fuel on a flight everyone else is using 6000.....we get 6000. Which to me means they could afford to pay at LEAST industry average for pay since it would get passed on to NWA.....
 
kellwolf said:
It's cost in parity with average. So, if we're charging them for 8500 lbs of fuel on a flight everyone else is using 6000.....we get 6000. Which to me means they could afford to pay at LEAST industry average for pay since it would get passed on to NWA.....
Click to expand...


Kell you are working into a whole new can of worms with the pay discussion. This company could pay industry leading and we would still be a profitable company but industry average is not even a conversation piece because its obvious. Enjoy that captain paycheck next month...
 
higney85 said:
Kell you are working into a whole new can of worms with the pay discussion. This company could pay industry leading and we would still be a profitable company but industry average is not even a conversation piece because its obvious. Enjoy that captain paycheck next month...
Click to expand...

Oh, believe me. We got into that can o' worms in upgrade class. Hey, the instructor used to be on the negotiating committee. We weren't gonna let him off easy. :)

The pay issue boils down to the fact that the company doesn't take morale into account in their cost analysis. XJT probably woulda done more than voluntary furloughs if their labor and management didn't work so well together. If that had been us in that situation, I'd probably be looking for a new job rather than upgrading.

Industry leading contract and still profitable, for sure. The only difference is, the profit margin would be smaller, which means less $$$ in bonuses all around. Hopefully, the drop off in performance (which IMO is DIRECTLY associated with low morale) that's gonna tank said bonuses this quarter will get some of the people in the ivory tower to wake up.
 
wheelsup said:
Flying slower sounds good until you realize that adding 5 minutes of time enroute to save a couple hundred pounds of gas actually is a complete wash at my company. You might burn 200# less in fuel BUT due to the increased mx costs (approximately $16.60/minute) it'll be the same cost overall (that's with fuel @ $3.50/gal). Yeah you might save some gas but you're pissing it out the other side in higher mx costs, only to arrive several minutes later. Just something to consider, of course working with your companies MX cost numbers.
.
Click to expand...

The MX argument you give is not totally correct. Flying 5 more minutes will not equate to $80 in higher cost for the flight ($16 x 5) even though mx costs are what you say they are.

The majority of the MX costs are fixed costs, C-Checks, engine changes, line mechanics etc. These costs will be present whether the aircraft flies 10hrs/day or 8hrs/day. The actual wear and tear of 5 minutes of flying is rather insignificant.

Here's an example...I have a Learjet...I do $180,000 worth of MX on it per year or $500/day. This includes it's annual, and all required checks and having MX available 6hrs/day. I fly the plane 1hr per day....So Mx costs are $500/hr. If I now decide to fly the plane 2 hrs per day, my mx cost per hr flown would drop ($250/hr). Sure I would have more mx on the aircraft throughout the year, but overall the cost of mx would be distributed over more hours flown lowering the cost of mx per hour.

So....getting back to your example...Flying 5 more minutes will not directly cost $80 in increased maintenance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top