Fuel Burns CRJ vs 737-700

[BigPappa]

No I am not. Not even close. Nice attempt at slander though.

 

[Long Time Gone]

The CRJ-200 is burning about 2500 lbs/hr at .74 up above FL300.

The only CRJ I've ever seen burn 1250 a side (2500 total per hour) is a CR7 at FL390 or higher doing about .75 with a light weight. The CR7 burns about 1600 a side doing .77 at about FL350 and once you get above FL370 or so, it'll drop below 1400 a side depending on speed.

 

[Flyer1015]

Which airplane can take off a treadmill quicker.... the 737-700 or the CRJ?

 

[n757st]

The only CRJ I've ever seen burn 1250 a side (2500 total per hour) is a CR7 at FL390 or higher doing about .75 with a light weight. The CR7 burns about 1600 a side doing .77 at about FL350 and once you get above FL370 or so, it'll drop below 1400 a side depending on speed.

I've seen 1150 per side in the -200, that said we were light and at FL350. I find that if we are heavy, 2600 lbs, regular weights, 2500, lighter weights, maybe a little less.

 

[Minimaniac]

Ok, my contribution towards actually providing useful information to this discussion...

Specific Range for the E175: (nm/lb)

Weight**** Alt *******.78M******* LRC

80,000 ****FL350 ***************0.122
*********FL300 *****0.107 ******0.118
*********FL250 *************** 0.111

76,000 ****FL350 ****0.122 ****** 0.127
*********FL300 *****0.109*******0.124
*********FL250 ****************0.115

70,000 ****FL350 ****0.129 ******0.134
**********FL300 ****0.113 ***** 0.131
**********FL250 *****.******** 0.120



These are just some representative numbers. 80,000lbs is generally what a fully loaded 175 weighs upon reaching cruise for a longer leg (2-2.5hr). 76,000lbs is a normal weight for a highly loaded 175 on a shorter regional hop, and 70,000 lbs is typical for short VFR legs with a 3/4 load. .78M is what we are generally filed for, and LRC is long range cruise, which of course varies (usually in the .70-.73M range). Often we pull back to .74 or .76, so a value in between .78 and LRC is typical for us. Any missing values above are due to lack of data in the manual for various reasons.

Hopefully this data is useful for comparison. I would be interested to see what a 737 does, if someone would please post.

I know the longer CRJ's are probably posting better numbers; I would be interested to see those as well. My expectation is that the heavier iron also has better numbers, at least when burn per passenger is considered. Anyhow, I offer the above in hopes of having an informative discussion, not a p1ss1ng contest.

Sorry for the formatting, but FI does not seem to like the way I tried to space the columns first time around.

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

It's not slander if it's true. See ya, Al...

No I am not. Not even close. Nice attempt at slander though.

 

[Turtle21]

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.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer but I hate that we skip over labor cost so quickly and accept the "full plane" argument.

It may be the routes I'm on but empty seats are a thing of the past, from what I see.

I think it is about eroding wages more than anything.