Well the EMB-145 will burn probably 1,300 lbs. a side, so 2,600 lbs. per hour, say on the same 600nm trip (which would take what? 1.25 hours?). That means you burn 3,250 pounds of fuel to move 50 people the same distance 45 minutes faster.
Somebodies numbers are jacked somewhere, either mine 'cause I'm completely spaced out or Minuteman's.
Maybe not, but oh man is this post going to get flayed by you guys that see the numbers everyday.
After some ciphering I came up with an average 2550 lb/hr for a 145, but that's only during cruise (not the trip-average burn rate). The Q400 is bigger than a 145. It can seat 78 pax and has a MTOW roughly 10,000 lbs. higher, and my (revised) average cruise flow for it also came out to 2550 lb/hr. A 68 seat CRJ-700 should average around 3400 lb/hr in cruise (anyone feel free to call BS, please).
For all the time in the air, I found:
- A 145 would use about 1100 lbs for a 100nm trip and take about 19 minutes (wheels off-to-on).
- The Q would do it for 1200 lbs in 20 minutes
- A CRJ-700 would use 2500 lbs and take 17 minutes
(again, that's using my slightly improved numbers, which made the Q a little faster, and not counting fuel used on the ground).
For a 600 nm trip:
- E145 does it with 2200 lbs in 113 minutes
- Q400 is 2400 lbs in 120 minutes
- CRJ-700 uses 2900 lbs in 100 minutes
(Is it weird that I have the CRJ be a little faster than the ERJ for these short trips?)
So the times for 600nm and shorter were roughly comparable: a 20 minute spread at most.
The fuel economics work out a little differently, using pounds of fuel per available seat-mile (these numbers don't mean much, but kind of offer an apples-to-apples comparison when expressed as relative percentages of eachother):
- 50 seats on a 145 gives a 0.22 lb/ASM for 100nm, 0.14 lb/ASM at 600 nm
- 78 seats on a Q400 gives was 0.0.15 lb/ASM for 100nm, 0.10 lb/ASM at 600 nm
- 68 seats on a CR7 was 0.0.37 lb/ASM for 100nm, 0.12 lb/ASM at 600 nm
So, per available-seat on shorter routes, the fuel burn for a Q400 might be around only 55% of a jet's (100nm) and 80% as the legs get longer (600nm). Unfortunately, you can't linearly extrapolate those numbers to see how the Q compares at 1100nm-plus ranges.
The economics are kind of interesting. If an operator was flying twice-a-day trips in 70%-full 145s (70 passengers total). Switching to a once-a-day Q400 (90% LF) could save a lot of gas ... uh, not to mention needing one fewer aircraft and roughly ten fewer pilots.
(lets assume those assets will be used to explore new markets!)
The big "if" seems like it boils down to being able to get respectable load factors on the Q despite reduced service frequency and being a turboprop, 'cause full or not, it doesn't look like its any cheaper to fly somewhere.
)