Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Jungle Jet and CRJ speeds

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
DoinTime said:
The company will not spend the money on extra fuel and wear and tear on the engines for the minimal gain of flying a few knots faster.

Engines TBOs are based on hours flown. If a flight is flown faster, there is less time placed on the engine/airframe. As long as the engines are run at M/C or less (temps etc), there is no harm to the engines. Especially on the engines that are derated so much. Trust me, those AE3007s love flying above .91m :D :D
And fuel flows above FL410 are less than 1000pph/each.

Slowing to .84 is like doing 45mph on the interstate. :cool:

I agree, you're not going to save much time between .74-.80, you just burn a little more gas. Where if we slow from .90 to .82 it adds substantial flight time.

For the record, our flight crews share operational control of each flight.
 
Last edited:
Engines TBOs are based on hours flown. If a flight is flown faster, there is less time placed on the engine/airframe. As long as the engines are run at M/C or less (temps etc), there is no harm to the engines.

This may be true in the world of business jets but doesn't hold true at airlines and their continuous maintenance system. Engines are modular and built into sections that can be replaced independent of the rest of the engine. The "hot" section, which includes the combustion chamber and turbines, is the most frequently replaced and I believe replacement intervals is determined by trend data and visual (boroscope) inspections alone. There are reasons why we (airlines) do flex takeoffs and aren't flying around at max continuous. High temps are the number two engine killer right behind FOD.
 
DoinTime said:
This may be true in the world of business jets but doesn't hold true at airlines and their continuous maintenance system. Engines are modular and built into sections that can be replaced independent of the rest of the engine. The "hot" section, which includes the combustion chamber and turbines, is the most frequently replaced and I believe replacement intervals is determined by trend data and visual (boroscope) inspections alone. There are reasons why we (airlines) do flex takeoffs and aren't flying around at max continuous.

Actually, we are under continuous mx programs too. Everything is still base on flight time. Trend data is used to spot problems before the inspection interval (time). No-one is going to split an engine open before they have to without just cause (trend). Nothing is usually replaced during a hot section unless it is out of tolerance (condition or AD).

I'm not too familiar with flex T/Os, but I imagine noise and fuel played a big part in it too. I know it did on the 727.

Our engines are derated from the ones the ERJs use (around 8000# ?) to approx 6700# each. They don't have to work very hard and stay pretty cool also. But, airlines use an airframe for 50,000-100,000 hours, where a corp jet isn't used much beyond 10,000. (Our highest Ce750 airframe might be 4000 hours, TBO is 6000)
 
this is just an observation: to all who fly their planes fast.

why not fly the company recommended speeds or slower. by going faster you just taking money out of your pocket. sure, as fast as you can go is cool, but i will get you there 10 minutes later and a few extra bucks in your pocket.
peace!
 
For the Pinnacle guys...

The Pinnacle FCOM and FOM do not contain climb/cruise/descent speed profiles. The only time the FCOM mentions specific speeds that must be flown is on departure and approach.

On the climb for instance, take a look at your FCOM II. It lists 3 different speeds: 250, 290, and 310 kts. It states that these speeds are recommended speeds for different flight conditions: fuel saving, normal, and high-speed climb. Nowhere in the FCOM does it state that these speeds are mandatory. It says they are recommended.

For that matter, the FCOM II does not mention any speed AT ALL for cruise. Not a single speed (even recommended) is listed. The only place that states .74 is the cruise speed is on the release. That's not a profile, that's a flight plan speed. You can always fly faster or slower than the plan speed. Nothing in the FCOM mentions that you must follow the flight plan speeds.

For the record, I fly .74 in cruise 99% of the time to save fuel. I don't much like arriving within a couple hundred pounds of decision fuel. However, stating that we have a cruise profile is incorrect.
 
I generally agree with those that fly the profiles but I have some exceptions with the profiles at SkyWest. We are planned at 290 in the climb to .74 often. If we had pushed early I would climb at 250 and then go as high as possible (often 4000 feet higher than planned) go .74 and descend in the fuel conservation profile. It's so funny to see pilots who taxi on one engine to save fuel, and then climb at 290 in a tailwind, fly 4000 feet below max capable (because that's what filed) and fly .80 in cruise. Doesn't make any sense. The fuel savings on a single engine taxi is around 100 lbs. By climbing at 250 and going higher in cruise and flying .74 you'll save around 400 lbs on a 1.5 hr flight with the addition of only about 3-4 minutes to block. Interestingly it's more fuel efficient at FL 350 at .77 than FL310 at .74 (It's even better at FL 350 and .74 as well.) Altitude is a huge factor on fuel savings and so few people go higher than planned that it boggles me sometimes.
 
Just be careful about that 250 profile. You got the same E mail I did about profile speeds. Company and FAA would rather us play nicely with others out of hubs than save money at 250. Knock yourself out climbing out of Butte. I really wish we could give that place to Comair or ASA.
 
dondk said:
The question then becomes do I pi$$ off center or do I fly the profile to keep the trip values high?
That's a rhetorical one, I hope....
 
It's so funny to see pilots who taxi on one engine to save fuel, and then climb at 290 in a tailwind, fly 4000 feet below max capable (because that's what filed) and fly .80 in cruise. Doesn't make any sense


Actually, it makes plenty of sense. You can't depart an airport below Release fuel. If you're taxiing out and not sure how long until you are released by ATC, common sense says to burn as little fuel as practical. Once you're assured of a release time, go ahead and start up the other engine. You may end up departing with a few hundred above release. If everything looks good to your destination after you're airborne, go ahead and push-up the speed a bit. In the Northeast corridor, you'll be a speed bump at M.74.

Also remember that your dispatcher has probably never even looked at your flight plan. They are computer generated. There's nothing wrong with deviating from the flight plan as long as you can be sure that you'll have sufficient fuel for the flight. It's called "Captain's Authority."

-minrest
 
It seems that everyone has a different opinion on how to operate their flight. Personally, I think "Flychicaga" has it right. He's the only one that considered the passenger in his explanation. Guys, like it or not, we are in the customer service business. And, a lot of pilots seem to forget that sometimes. It would be wonderful if we could fly our profiles all the time, save fuel, engine wear and tear, increase trip values, make ATC happy, etc. But that does not always work. If you save money on fuel, but give your passengers a bumpy ride that arrives late, you have made a bad decission. We are trained to make decisions continuously to provide safe, reliable service.

Always flying fast to arrive 30 minutes early I agree makes no sense, however flying fast once in a while for the commuting pilot that needs to catch the last flight home, is justified. If you need to fly 4000 feet lower, and burn an additional 800pph fuel, but avoid some occassional mdt turbulence above, then that is justified. Taxing on one engine saves fuel, but if you are not getting enough air out of that one engine to run the packs, a one hour taxi on a hot day will most likely upset your passengers. On a certain route, if ATC tries to give you a short cut which would make you 20 minutes early (which would lower your trip values), but you continuously deny it stating it is for planning/performance reasons (actually not wanting to lower your trp values), and he vectors you 20 times, now making you 20 minutes late, then you made a bad decision, and you should have just taken the short cut. If you are flying faster, buring extra fuel, because you think it is cool to see MMO on the A/I all the time, then you are just wasting money at the company's expense, and taking money out of your own pocket. Releasing the parking break with no rampers in sight saying "cha ching" may put extra money in your pocket, but then the rampers think they can expect this from the pilots, so they continue to do their jobs half a$$ed knowing they will still get an "on time" for the departure. When actually you are leaving late, most likely arriving late, and upsetting the passengers. Personally, I think that is a foolish, unsafe practice.

There are many more examples why or why not to fly the planned profile, or normal procedures. Generally they work, but occassionally they need to be adapted to fit the situation. Bottom line is the customer. I don't believe any company thinks that fuel savings is so important to the extent that they would sacrifice customer serrvice for it. The pilots' job is to make the decissions neccessary to provide safe reliable service and maximize customer service, but not at the extra expense of the company or employee.

That's why we get paid the big bucks:D
 
Last edited:
Flea said:
On a certain route, if ATC tries to give you a short cut which would make you 20 minutes early (which would lower your trip values), but you continuously deny it stating it is for planning/performance reasons (actually not wanting to lower your trp values), and he vectors you 20 times, now making you 20 minutes late, then you made a bad decision, and you should have just taken the short cut.
Isn't this why the better companies pay the greater of block or historic segment time? It's all about managment's attitude toward labor. Take good care of your people and they'll take good care of your customers.
 
Jet_Dreamer said:
this is just an observation: to all who fly their planes fast.

why not fly the company recommended speeds or slower. by going faster you just taking money out of your pocket. sure, as fast as you can go is cool, but i will get you there 10 minutes later and a few extra bucks in your pocket.
peace!


This depends on where you work. Some airlines (where I work, for example) pay you more for getting there early. ("premium" or "underblock" pay.) If you're under block for the month, that's the only way you're going to make more than guarantee.
 
however flying fast once in a while for the commuting pilot that needs to catch the last flight home, is justified.

Wow....you think charging $75+ to the airlines fuel bill so you can make your personal connection home that night is justified?

Amazing.
 
In the sim, at least, the CRJ won't break mach. The airspeed tape pegs at 400 kts and the mach readout stops at .998
 
CRJ-700 info

At my company, the training dept has stuck with the CRJ-200 climb profile (250kts to 10,000, then 290 kts until 0.74 mach.) Field experience is that this is too slow. I often climb at 300-310 until .77 mach. Utilizing this profile I can always climb above published numbers on the altitude capability chart by as much as 2000 feet. In addition, I produce block fuel usages that are almost always less that planned by several hundred pounds. If you get slow on the climb (0.70) in the upper thirties, you will not accelerate. I utilize pitch for climb and it almost never dips below 500fpm. When the N2 turbine issue gets resolved, I expect cruise numbers could hit MMO. That will be very helpful on the long hauls be do make up some time.

Jet engines produce thrust based on mass flow. The more air you can shove in, the more thrust you get. The balancing act becomes Lift to drag ratios. Jet aircraft climb the fastest at what is called L/Dmax. This speed though varies for different weights and different altitudes. The company profile is like shooting a shotgun. The computer programs they have though could really help us save fuel and time. If we could get off of the standard "canned" flight plans and tailor each flight for the conditions of that flight, we could really make a difference. I know we as pilots would not have a problem following a different profile if it was printed on each release.

In the meantime, the beatings will continue until morale improves.....
 

Latest resources

Back
Top