Fuel Burns CRJ vs 737-700

[rajflyboy]

What kind of fuel burns do these two aircraft have:

1. CRJ (50 seater)
2. 737-700


I'd be curious to see the difference ?

thanks

 

[Sailpilot]

It depends:

Premium or Regular?

 

[rajflyboy]

It depends:

Premium or Regular?

In your case. How many Windmills do you need on your wings to power the Engines?

 

[Dieterly]

What kind of fuel burns do these two aircraft have:

1. 747-400 (510 seater)
2. 737-700


I'd be curious to see the difference ?

thanks

 

[rajflyboy]

The RJ's were suppose to be the answer to aviation's problems.

Cheaper? More fuel Efficient? More flights per day.

I'd like to actually know what the fuel burn difference is between the CRJ and the most popular Boeing 737.

Is the CRJ really that much more efficient?

 

[Flyerdan]

The RJ's were suppose to be the answer to aviation's problems.

Cheaper? More fuel Efficient? More flights per day.

I'd like to actually know what the fuel burn difference is between the CRJ and the most popular Boeing 737.

Is the CRJ really that much more efficient?

That is a good question but you also have to factor in the distance of the route and the loads. A half full 737 would be much less efficient than a full RJ, etc.

 

[relief tube]

take the difference in pay between flying the two planes around, and that percentage is probably close to your answer

 

[rajflyboy]

That is a good question but you also have to factor in the distance of the route and the loads. A half full 737 would be much less efficient than a full RJ, etc.

True

and thats exactly what I'm getting at. How much is the fuel burn difference with a full load of passengers?

Every plane I've been on lately is near capacity.

 

[RidddleRat]

737-700 burns about 4500#/hr in cruise.

 

[Minimaniac]

Not really the answer to your original question, but along the same lines:

I fly the 170/175, and have spent a lot of time jumpseating on the A319/320. Comparing the two aircraft, I would say that the 170/175 is half the weight (max gross), carries half the passengers, and burns pretty much exactly half the fuel. So, the Embraer is not necessarily more efficient, but it brings mainline efficiency to smaller aircraft. The big perk for the Embraer is that (labor aside, of course) you can get similar cost per mile while flying full, as opposed to flying with empty seats. The ability to fly with fewer open seats is what makes all regional jets more attractive in today's environment. Or at least last year's market.

If you want specific burn numbers, I say I see fuel flows of 1700-1850 lbs/hr/eng flying at high weights, FL300-380, at .78M. If we pull back to .74M, the fuel flows drop about 100 lbs/hr/eng. That is flying 86 people around. In the mid-20's for cruise altitude, fuel flows go up to 2000-2100 lbs/hr/eng while flying at 300 kts or so.

A lot of our 170/175 flying at Republic is east coast hops of short duration. On those flights we rarely get up to an efficient altitude. I have had ATC stop us regularly at 17000 for an hour long flight when heading into PHL. No one is efficient at those altitudes unless you are beating the air into submission with a pair of props.

I don't know what 737s and A320s burn at idle on the ground, but it is a relevant comparison for east coast flying, as we can easily spend 1.5-2 hours taxiing before a flight of equal duration. The 170/175 burns about 600 lbs/hr/eng at idle on the ground. Single engine taxi is the norm. If you also have the APU running, it is an additional 300 lbs/hr.

For a benchmark, on a PHL-IAH leg the 170/175 will burn about 11000 lbs total with average headwinds.

Hope this helps. I'll try to remember to post some Specific Range numbers, which would make for a more accurate comparison.