Emb 170

[Canadair RJ]

More interesting to me is their ability to go nearly coast to coast with 70 Pax. I think this could be the plane of the future, or maybe just a trend starter.

I don't think the airplane was made to fly longer flights. I work for Delta in CLE and during the winter months the airplane always had to have something like 30 or 40 bags removed, and then they kicked passengers off the flight. The other option was stopping in MSP for fuel. Now that it's summer it's not really having any problems that I know of. But don't get me wrong, it is a beautiful airplane!

 

[BoilerUP]

The E170 is not a "regional jet"...then again really neither is the CRJ 700/900s. Normally 800nm+ is well out of a "region" and well into another...and many segments are that long.

I still can't figure out why some people hate the 170 being at the regional level when many places have 700s and Mesa has 900s. 70 seats is 70 seats...

 

[Chicken Taco]

One pilot told me they were burning about 3600 lbs/hr.

3600 is a reasonable number for mid-weight cruise. Flying KDEN-KCMH last night we were at FL370 at around 67k burning 1700 a side at .78m. Pulling it back to LRC (around .73m) gets the burn in the 1500pph/side range.

First hour/climb numbers are another story entirely. CLB-1 until the flow drops off above the mid 20's is around 3000pph/side, and is still around 2000-2200 in the upper 30's.

Using a long leg like KSLC-KCMH as an example, if planned at .78 in fairly still air the burn will be around 13000lb for the 3:30 flight. This does not count taxi, reserve, contingency, etc. fuel, and the ramp load would likely be 17000 or so. That roughly breaks down as follows:
Takeoff, climb to FL350, rest of first hour cruise: 5000
Hour 2 cruise, incl. step to FL370: 3800
Hour 3 cruise @FL370: 3400
20 min of near-idle descent, 10 minutes of approach: 800
Flight burn of 13000. Flight is 1528 miles, we have moved 70 pax. Efficiency is roughly .12lb/seat/mile, or about .79mpg..

..CT

 

[great cornholio]

The E170 is not a "regional jet"...then again really neither is the CRJ 700/900s. Normally 800nm+ is well out of a "region" and well into another...and many segments are that long.

I still can't figure out why some people hate the 170 being at the regional level when many places have 700s and Mesa has 900s. 70 seats is 70 seats...

Yeah I know what you mean. I think its becasue the 170 "looks like mainline" and the 900 still "looks like an RJ". Or at least thats the best excuse I can come up with. The fact is they have almost 100 seats and are flying well over 1/2 way across the country. The only thing "regional" about these planes is the pay check.

 

[8HourPilot]

4500 is a bit high....though I speak softly, as I'm fairly sure you have been on the plane a bit longer than I.
At 370 the other day, full boat, .79, we were getting 1900 a side burn or less.

3600lb/hr is low. Maybe if your going right to fl410 and then crz at LRC only (not .78 or better) then a direct decent to the FAF and landing you might avg 3600lbs.

More like 4500lb.

It does not go coast to coast. 1900-2000nm with reserves. the longest leg I know of in the e170 so far is shuttle america JFK to Autsin, TX.

 

[Pirep1]

I don't think the airplane was made to fly longer flights. I work for Delta in CLE and during the winter months the airplane always had to have something like 30 or 40 bags removed, and then they kicked passengers off the flight. The other option was stopping in MSP for fuel. Now that it's summer it's not really having any problems that I know of. But don't get me wrong, it is a beautiful airplane!

I didn't know the 170 flew out of CLE for Delta. And where are you saying they go?

 

[8HourPilot]

Slc.....

 

[time builder]

3600 is a reasonable number for mid-weight cruise. Flying KDEN-KCMH last night we were at FL370 at around 67k burning 1700 a side at .78m. Pulling it back to LRC (around .73m) gets the burn in the 1500pph/side range.

First hour/climb numbers are another story entirely. CLB-1 until the flow drops off above the mid 20's is around 3000pph/side, and is still around 2000-2200 in the upper 30's.

Using a long leg like KSLC-KCMH as an example, if planned at .78 in fairly still air the burn will be around 13000lb for the 3:30 flight. This does not count taxi, reserve, contingency, etc. fuel, and the ramp load would likely be 17000 or so. That roughly breaks down as follows:
Takeoff, climb to FL350, rest of first hour cruise: 5000
Hour 2 cruise, incl. step to FL370: 3800
Hour 3 cruise @FL370: 3400
20 min of near-idle descent, 10 minutes of approach: 800
Flight burn of 13000. Flight is 1528 miles, we have moved 70 pax. Efficiency is roughly .12lb/seat/mile, or about .79mpg..

..CT

Thanks for the stats/breakdown chickentaco, I'm thinking the main advantage of this plane is point to point connectivity at smaller passenger loads, kind of like the goals of the Boeing 787. The SLC to CMH route for example eliminates a transfer in CVG, and I don't know that they want to fly something as big as a 737, they might not make break even load factor.

 

[arthompson]

they also fly DTW-SLC for DLC

 

[LearLove]

4500 is a bit high....though I speak softly, as I'm fairly sure you have been on the plane a bit longer than I.
At 370 the other day, full boat, .79, we were getting 1900 a side burn or less.

Your right, my bad. DCA to DFW tonight - almost direct climb to 360. Stayed 360 the whole way with a direct decent from 36000 to 11000 at Karla then direct from 11000 decended to 18R marker - not a typical flight to DFW, more efficient than usual - 10092lbs used from gate to gate, block 2.6.

10092/2.6=3882lbs/hr at Mach0.78

flaps 2, no reduced thrust TO at DC with about 60 PAX.

Release paperwork had the burn at 9872 if I remember correctly. Taxi out time in DCA was 15 min. Taxi in time in DFW was less than 4 min because we got 18R which is unusual - usually get 17L then its about a 20-30 min taxi.