Q400 fuel burn?
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends how fast you drive it. Typical cruise figures:
Vmo-10, around 1000kg/hr
Vmo-20, around 900kg/hr
1200kg works well for planning a 1hr sector, actual burn is usually a bit less.
Vmo-10, around 1000kg/hr
Vmo-20, around 900kg/hr
1200kg works well for planning a 1hr sector, actual burn is usually a bit less.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southampton
Age: 60
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thought (with full load anyway) Q400 with 78 seats 1200ph, 737-800 with 189 seats 2400ph.
I remember being stunned at how little the Q200 and Q300 burned compared to the Quadrasaurus.
I remember being stunned at how little the Q200 and Q300 burned compared to the Quadrasaurus.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATR 72 fuel burn & TOC
..On the topic of the ubiquitous Q400 vs ATR72 discussion: does anybody have any TOC (Total operating costs) per Blk Hr. numbers for these birds? In particular i'm looking for the ATR 72-500's. With data from Atlantic South East Airlines, and the Auzzie CAA; the avedrage seems to be USD 2200 with the recent drop in the Oil Price for the ATR72-500.
It'd be great to get figures for both acft for comparison though. Also, do any ATR drivers know if the PW127M is available for retrofit onto older gen (pre-2008) ATR 72's (-200's & -500's) ?
Also, what is the TOW for the 72-500 (PW127F) for a 300nm trip with JAR reserves with take-off from a 950m
Sea-level strip @ 25 deg. Celsius? A lot of questions, I know. Sorry about that, but gees, is it hard to find this gen. anywhere.
Just on that take-off note: I was reading a travel article by a chap who was on a flight out of Caticlan in the philippines. The equipment was a -500. The RWY is 1000m long. This dude reckons that the crew applied full-power and park brake for standing take-off.
I don't drive any aeroplanes, so I am quite poor when it comes the the technical and mechanical aspects of flying. Under what conditions can one apply full power for T/Off instead of using the de-rated flex method. What exactly is flex?
Thanks, zedelex
It'd be great to get figures for both acft for comparison though. Also, do any ATR drivers know if the PW127M is available for retrofit onto older gen (pre-2008) ATR 72's (-200's & -500's) ?
Also, what is the TOW for the 72-500 (PW127F) for a 300nm trip with JAR reserves with take-off from a 950m
Sea-level strip @ 25 deg. Celsius? A lot of questions, I know. Sorry about that, but gees, is it hard to find this gen. anywhere.Just on that take-off note: I was reading a travel article by a chap who was on a flight out of Caticlan in the philippines. The equipment was a -500. The RWY is 1000m long. This dude reckons that the crew applied full-power and park brake for standing take-off.
I don't drive any aeroplanes, so I am quite poor when it comes the the technical and mechanical aspects of flying. Under what conditions can one apply full power for T/Off instead of using the de-rated flex method. What exactly is flex?
Thanks, zedelex
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not many turboprops use derated power, the Q400 is so overpowered it's pretty normal to use full derate on nearly all takeoffs except the first of the day.
A 1hr sector should use about 1000kg all in, but slightly less if the most economical profile can be used. (no chance into LGW from the North).
At typical weights, in the cruise at FL250 only, at VMO-10 typical 500-520kgph per side, VMO-20 (roughtly 87% NL) you'll get 450-470kgph each. If the wind's behind you, you can also cruise at about 210kts indicated, VMO-40, about 84%NL) and see less than 400kg as well. Ideal in 90Kt tail winds. It enables you to burn nearly as less as an ATR and still be far quicker, especially in the descent when you let it rise to nearly 270kias. Can let you do an extra rotation in the day as well.
The big operational achillies heel of the Q400 is the damn rear hold opening on the left though! They really should have known better when they re-designed the classic models.....
A 1hr sector should use about 1000kg all in, but slightly less if the most economical profile can be used. (no chance into LGW from the North).
At typical weights, in the cruise at FL250 only, at VMO-10 typical 500-520kgph per side, VMO-20 (roughtly 87% NL) you'll get 450-470kgph each. If the wind's behind you, you can also cruise at about 210kts indicated, VMO-40, about 84%NL) and see less than 400kg as well. Ideal in 90Kt tail winds. It enables you to burn nearly as less as an ATR and still be far quicker, especially in the descent when you let it rise to nearly 270kias. Can let you do an extra rotation in the day as well.
The big operational achillies heel of the Q400 is the damn rear hold opening on the left though! They really should have known better when they re-designed the classic models.....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: European Administrative Area (Western District and Islands)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D&T, I'm going to sound really thick here especially as I drive the things, but what's the issue with the hold door being on the left??
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ask Screwing..
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mabrodb,
In terms of fuel consumption in a typical UK environment max cruising at 25,000ft with the propellers at 850 rpm and the power levers in the rating detent total fuel flow is approximately 1100 kilos per hour.... yes I did say total i.e. both engines!!!
This figure is a typical summer fuel flow with temperatures being around ISA+10 at cruising altitude of 24,000/25,000ft. This would also mean that you are cruising just below VMO (red barbers pole). Thus indicated airspeed of around 250kts.
If however you were to bring the power levers back to maintain Indicated airspeed of 210kts in the cruise, then your TOTAL flow fuel can be improved significantly to approximately 730 kilos per hour!
The latter procedure is a great way to save fuel especially if your running early. It helps if the duration of the flight is greater than 1 hour so you can clearly see the benefit from this technique.
Mind you with such a good fuel burn already you may be more than happy with 1100kgs, but its great tool to have the ability to reduce that further. Of course this is relative, however if your planning to have a large fleet this can significantly reduce your fuel bill!
Please be advised that if the aircraft has drop down masks in the cabin then the max cruising altitude with be 28,000ft but I don't have figures for that level, perhaps someone else can help here.
Aka
In terms of fuel consumption in a typical UK environment max cruising at 25,000ft with the propellers at 850 rpm and the power levers in the rating detent total fuel flow is approximately 1100 kilos per hour.... yes I did say total i.e. both engines!!!
This figure is a typical summer fuel flow with temperatures being around ISA+10 at cruising altitude of 24,000/25,000ft. This would also mean that you are cruising just below VMO (red barbers pole). Thus indicated airspeed of around 250kts.
If however you were to bring the power levers back to maintain Indicated airspeed of 210kts in the cruise, then your TOTAL flow fuel can be improved significantly to approximately 730 kilos per hour!
The latter procedure is a great way to save fuel especially if your running early. It helps if the duration of the flight is greater than 1 hour so you can clearly see the benefit from this technique.
Mind you with such a good fuel burn already you may be more than happy with 1100kgs, but its great tool to have the ability to reduce that further. Of course this is relative, however if your planning to have a large fleet this can significantly reduce your fuel bill!
Please be advised that if the aircraft has drop down masks in the cabin then the max cruising altitude with be 28,000ft but I don't have figures for that level, perhaps someone else can help here.
Aka
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that the Q400 was designed to go to 32000ft but when the CAF withdrew their interest the need to operate above 25000ft disappeared.
de Havilland decided to save weight and cost by removing the drop-down oxygen and associated costs. Can anyone confirm this?
de Havilland decided to save weight and cost by removing the drop-down oxygen and associated costs. Can anyone confirm this?
Pontius's Copilot,
The certified ceiling is 27000ft with drop down oxygen masks fitted from memory. I've got my doubts about a fully laden Q400 ever reaching 32k on a hot day, but then again the engines are derated at the moment so who knows what it'd do with full power available.
Cyclone
The certified ceiling is 27000ft with drop down oxygen masks fitted from memory. I've got my doubts about a fully laden Q400 ever reaching 32k on a hot day, but then again the engines are derated at the moment so who knows what it'd do with full power available.
Cyclone
