ERJ-145 vs. CRJ-200

Future Cpt Kirk said:
Curious to know the difference in operating costs/efficiency between the two... Mainly fuel consumption. Could anyone shed some light?
Click to expand...

EMB-145 - ~1400lb/hr/eng at M.77 @ FL370 - 2800lb/hr two engine
CRJ-700 - ~1600lb/hr/eng at M.83 @FL370 - 3200lb/hr two engine

are the numbers I vaguely remember.
 
NewYorkophile said:
I'd guess the bigger cost impact is turbine life at the higher ITT. Does either manufacturer publish research data on engine wear/use?

For our T-56, a 40 degree difference in (T)urbine (I)nlet (T)emperature increases engine life like 40%. Huge, for 5-10kts of true.

EDIT: Wtf @Derg, I can't abbreviate Turbine Inlet Temperature? :D
Click to expand...

In Herk land, when not torque limited, I set 970 for climbs, 1010 if hot/heavy etc. For the rest of the time I just leave it at 900 and it trues out at what it trues out at, usually 295-310. At the airline I look at ITT for engine starts and then after that I forget it exists. Literally no one at the airline looks at the those gauges.
 
Last edited:
Soku39 said:
In Herk land, when not torue limited, I set 970 for climbs, 1010 if hot/heavy etc. For the rest of the time I just leave it at 900 and it trues out at what it trues out at, usually 295-310. At the airline I look at ITT for engine starts and then after that I forget it exists. Literally no one at the airline looks at the those gauges.
Click to expand...

We hear/see horror stories from the active duty crews a lot. Run 1010, 24/7...ugh, why? We do 970 everywhere, unless the TOLD requires 1010 or we need the climb for some reason. Then we've still got 1077 in the bag. But for trash hauling, c'mon guys, let's save some turbines.
 
NewYorkophile said:
We hear/see horror stories from the active duty crews a lot. Run 1010, 24/7...ugh, why? We do 970 everywhere, unless the TOLD requires 1010 or we need the climb for some reason. Then we've still got 1077 in the bag. But for trash hauling, c'mon guys, let's save some turbines.
Click to expand...

Ya I'm all about flying around at 900. I need the hours to upgrade to AC anyways, I don't care about goin fast in a Herk, because they're not.
 
Derg said:
Truth or "rumot"?
Click to expand...
True here also. The Smart CI (yes, I know I did not invent it- let's not get into that again), will actually tell us to arrive at times that are close to A:14 rather than A:0. I was also told by management during AQP that we do not get paid for underblock.
Now he also told us that they understood commuters would want to get back home as quickly as possible. So lastt leg of a four day we may not pull back to the smart CI numbers. Also as a personal thing I try for as close to A:0 verses A:14. Yes, I want to help the company bottom line, but I care more about that poor schmuck in the back trying to get home to his mother who is on her death bed.
 
NewYorkophile said:
We hear/see horror stories from the active duty crews a lot. Run 1010, 24/7...ugh, why? We do 970 everywhere, unless the TOLD requires 1010 or we need the climb for some reason. Then we've still got 1077 in the bag. But for trash hauling, c'mon guys, let's save some turbines.
Click to expand...
Other than the start limit, I can't tell you what the ITT limits actually are on my airplane.
 
Blackhawk said:
True here also. The Smart CI (yes, I know I did not invent it- let's not get into that again), will actually tell us to arrive at times that are close to A:14 rather than A:0. I was also told by management during AQP that we do not get paid for underblock.
Now he also told us that they understood commuters would want to get back home as quickly as possible. So lastt leg of a four day we may not pull back to the smart CI numbers. Also as a personal thing I try for as close to A:0 verses A:14. Yes, I want to help the company bottom line, but I care more about that poor schmuck in the back trying to get home to his mother who is on her death bed.
Click to expand...

I understood it a little differently. It aims for A-14 if you're running late. It also looks at turn time on the ground so you can get D-0 on the next flight. I don't think it's quite right to say that we're flying around shooting to arrive 14 mins late, that's incorrect. Usually if I fly the speeds you fly pretty close to scheduled block and roll in pretty much exactly on time.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I understood it a little differently. It aims for A-14 if you're running late. It also looks at turn time on the ground so you can get D-0 on the next flight. I don't think it's quite right to say that we're flying around shooting to arrive 14 mins late, that's incorrect. Usually if I fly the speeds you fly pretty close to scheduled block and roll in pretty much exactly on time.
Click to expand...
h
IDK. I've had it shoot for A:14 verses A:0 when I could make the latter. Personally if fuel permits I go for A:0.
Also it does not seem to take into account aircraft swaps.
 
Blackhawk said:
h
IDK. I've had it shoot for A:14 verses A:0 when I could make the latter. Personally if fuel permits I go for A:0.
Also it does not seem to take into account aircraft swaps.
Click to expand...
D-zero next leg: go slow, so that the next leg departs on time.

"Right!"
 
Future Cpt Kirk said:
Curious to know the difference in operating costs/efficiency between the two... Mainly fuel consumption. Could anyone shed some light?
Click to expand...

-200 at FL270 and 300/.74 about 1500lb/hr a side at .69-.70 between 1150-1200 a side.
at FL330 and .70 about 1050-1100 lb/hr a side

The problem is on the shorter legs and being heavy you probably won't get above FL270 in the summer that often, and in the winter it seems rare (at least at ASA) to ever have a dispatcher file you up to 310 even if you can make it. So most flights cruise burn is right about 1400 lbs/hr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top