Emb 170

time builder · Jun 5, 2006

I've been watching Shuttle America's operation of EMB 170's and must say I'm impressed at the range and efficiency. One pilot told me they were burning about 3600 lbs/hr, which I believe is not much more than a 50 seat CRJ (any CRJ pilots out there to correct me?).

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.

mnixon · Jun 5, 2006

That took some balls to post that here

LearLove · Jun 5, 2006

time builder said:
I've been watching Shuttle America's operation of EMB 170's and must say I'm impressed at the range and efficiency. One pilot told me they were burning about 3600 lbs/hr, which I believe is not much more than a 50 seat CRJ (any CRJ pilots out there to correct me?).

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.

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.

The_Russian · Jun 6, 2006

They get out of EYW with less than 3000 ft T/O roll.

time builder · Jun 6, 2006

LearLove said:
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.

I've seen SLC to Columbus, OH take 16000 or 17000 lbs on the fuel load.
Regardless, this is new territory for RJ's to have this kind of range and efficiency.

coolyokeluke · Jun 6, 2006

time builder said:
Regardless, this is new territory for RJ's to have this kind of range and efficiency.

Just because it says Embraer on the side doesn't mean it's a regional jet. That's a mgmt excuse to pay pilots poorly.

Going2Baja · Jun 6, 2006

mnixon said:
That took some balls to post that here

Post in the General section - what does that have to do with "balls?"

Baja.

Alchemy · Jun 6, 2006

That's about 30% more fuel than the 50 seat Embraer.

The 145 will burn about 2400 lbs per hours in cruise at FL 370 and .76 mach. 30% more fuel for about 30% more seats.....makes sense I guess.

LearLove · Jun 6, 2006

The_Russian said:
They get out of EYW with less than 3000 ft T/O roll.

thats with flaps 4

Workin'Stiff · Jun 6, 2006

Alchemy said:
That's about 30% more fuel than the 50 seat Embraer.

And it's also about 30% more pax in the back...

Canadair RJ · Jun 6, 2006

time builder said:
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 · Jun 6, 2006

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 · Jun 6, 2006

time builder said:
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 · Jun 6, 2006

BoilerUP said:
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 · Jun 6, 2006

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.

LearLove said:
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 · Jun 6, 2006

Canadair RJ said:
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 · Jun 6, 2006

Slc.....

time builder · Jun 6, 2006

Chicken Taco said:
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 · Jun 7, 2006

they also fly DTW-SLC for DLC

LearLove · Jun 7, 2006

8HourPilot said:
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.

paulsalem · Jun 7, 2006

great cornholio said:
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.

I agree, what about the Dash 8-Q400? It has 70 seats.

jws717 · Jun 7, 2006

its a POS

asayankee · Jun 8, 2006

since nobody else really answered about the CRJ200 it usually burns about 1350-1450 lbs/hr per side when you are at .74-.75 at altitude. If you fly a little faster....say .77-.79 you are usually burning about 1600 lbs/hr per side. The bad thing about the CRJ though is it takes you FOREVER to get up to altitude though.

time builder · Jun 8, 2006

Thanks for the stats asayankee. Speaking of Canadair, I belive I saw that they were coming up with a prototype with wing mounted engines also.

great cornholio · Jun 9, 2006

paulsalem said:
I agree, what about the Dash 8-Q400? It has 70 seats.

Same as the ATRs you see floating around. They are still turboprops so they go slower which means that they dont go as far and still generally end up staying in a region hence "regional" flights. These have always typically paid "regional" type pay rates. However flying a jet with almost 100 peeps in the back 1/2 across the country is not "regional" and was typically done by mainline and paid mainline payrates. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it

graseby · Jun 9, 2006

This plane is noisy!

mnixon · Jun 9, 2006

buffettck said:
That took no brain activity to write...

At least a little, to make my fingers move. What I meant by it to the poster who asked why, was that usually when you mention on this board that any type of RJ is the wave of the future, or at least a trendsetter as it was stated, you usually get jumped on like stink on poo.

time builder · Jun 9, 2006

http://www.willflyforfood.cc/Payscales/JetBluePay.htm
It might be called a regional, but the EMB 190 pays a lot better. Why not get type rated in the 170 and then apply to Jet Blue?

MNixon, I think I know where you were going, but if you really want to get jumped on, try promoting something like pay-for-training airlines.

mnixon · Jun 10, 2006

Agreed Time Builder

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

Emb 170

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

Well-known member

Daylight scares me!

Well-known member

Low Level Pilot

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Fire in 'da hole!!!!

Well-known member

Citation style...

User.... of What??

Are you threatening me??

Stormtracker Accucast!!!

Active member

Stormtracker Accucast!!!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

registered abuser

Well-known member

Well-known member

Are you threatening me??

Active member

Daylight scares me!

Well-known member

Daylight scares me!

Share this page