Dash8 vs EMB145 fuel burns
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dash8 vs EMB145 fuel burns
MAN seems to be decimated as far as over 1 hour routes is concerned (except MXP/FRA). And loads of 6 sector jet sectors on traditional turboprop routes 
So is there any truth that JF has seen sense and is replacing some of his Q400 orders with EMB 170/175/190 orders? Might keep a few more people in house - and also prevent the likes of BMI Regional stepping in (widely publicised how they realise that public don't like propeller thingies).
So is there any truth that JF has seen sense and is replacing some of his Q400 orders with EMB 170/175/190 orders? Might keep a few more people in house - and also prevent the likes of BMI Regional stepping in (widely publicised how they realise that public don't like propeller thingies).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackcap,
Not so sure about your comment about it being sensible to replace the Q400 with jets. The whole point of the Q400 is low fuel cost with high passenger numbers. It beats the 145 hands down on the short sectors we use it for. It's one of the reasons Flybe eventually prospered while BACon struggled. Only one of the reasons but an important one.
Not so sure about your comment about it being sensible to replace the Q400 with jets. The whole point of the Q400 is low fuel cost with high passenger numbers. It beats the 145 hands down on the short sectors we use it for. It's one of the reasons Flybe eventually prospered while BACon struggled. Only one of the reasons but an important one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can someone throw some figures into the melee please.
Dash 8 Q400:
Cruise fuel flow per hour:
Total burn over a 1 hour sector:
Time to climb roughtly to 25thou:
TAS at 25thou:
The 146 would burn 2000-2100kgs per hour at 400kts TAS.
Over an hour flight we'll show a total burn of about 2150kgs.
It takes a -100 17 or 18 minutes to TOC, a -300 about half a hour sometimes!
Not the most fuel efficient, but a damn sight better than the 3000kgs a 737-500 would burn.
Also, if there's anyone on it here, what about the E195 and the E145 too?
Dash 8 Q400:
Cruise fuel flow per hour:
Total burn over a 1 hour sector:
Time to climb roughtly to 25thou:
TAS at 25thou:
The 146 would burn 2000-2100kgs per hour at 400kts TAS.
Over an hour flight we'll show a total burn of about 2150kgs.
It takes a -100 17 or 18 minutes to TOC, a -300 about half a hour sometimes!
Not the most fuel efficient, but a damn sight better than the 3000kgs a 737-500 would burn.
Also, if there's anyone on it here, what about the E195 and the E145 too?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone throw some figures into the melee please.
Dash 8 Q400:
Cruise fuel flow per hour:
In LRC it burns less than 800 kgs per hour, but most guys hoon it around at max chat, burning closer to 1200 kgs per hour.
Total burn over a 1 hour sector:
Typical 1 hour block time sector, expect 1000-1100 kgs total burn.
Time to climb roughtly to 25thou:
Empty, less than 7 minutes which is fun, but typically at 27ish tons, expect closer to 15.
TAS at 25thou:
TAS 360 kts
Dash 8 Q400:
Cruise fuel flow per hour:
In LRC it burns less than 800 kgs per hour, but most guys hoon it around at max chat, burning closer to 1200 kgs per hour.
Total burn over a 1 hour sector:
Typical 1 hour block time sector, expect 1000-1100 kgs total burn.
Time to climb roughtly to 25thou:
Empty, less than 7 minutes which is fun, but typically at 27ish tons, expect closer to 15.
TAS at 25thou:
TAS 360 kts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah ha!
Thanks for that.
By my thinking, the Barbie is more or less 2/3rds as fuel efficient as the Q4, as it has less seats. Burns the same though, but clearly on shorter sectors, it won't be able to get up high enough to cruise efficiently and will be far less efficient.
The more I think, and I know I'll be sad to be turfed of my 146, the Q4 does sound not too far off performance wise, and burns typically half the fuel as a 146 on an hour long sector. 40kts slower is not too bad either. I take it that's barber's pole stuff (we have those things on our old bus you know!)
Certainly it knocks the socks off a 78 seat -100 (bye Bye Scabby Dog!) and G-GNTZ is a waste of space in comparison too at only 79 seats. Hmm.
Shame the hold is tiny! Unfortunately, we make a good proportion of our money underfloor which we'll lose with a Dash. Time will tell.
Thanks for the info though. Food for thought and helps us understand what FlyBE are talking about when they trumpet the virtues of the Q4.
Thanks for that.
By my thinking, the Barbie is more or less 2/3rds as fuel efficient as the Q4, as it has less seats. Burns the same though, but clearly on shorter sectors, it won't be able to get up high enough to cruise efficiently and will be far less efficient.
The more I think, and I know I'll be sad to be turfed of my 146, the Q4 does sound not too far off performance wise, and burns typically half the fuel as a 146 on an hour long sector. 40kts slower is not too bad either. I take it that's barber's pole stuff (we have those things on our old bus you know!)
Certainly it knocks the socks off a 78 seat -100 (bye Bye Scabby Dog!) and G-GNTZ is a waste of space in comparison too at only 79 seats. Hmm.
Shame the hold is tiny! Unfortunately, we make a good proportion of our money underfloor which we'll lose with a Dash. Time will tell.
Thanks for the info though. Food for thought and helps us understand what FlyBE are talking about when they trumpet the virtues of the Q4.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q400 always looks fantastic to those people counting fuel receipts... It burns no fuel because the 146 is covering the flight 
There is a knack to the landings, but I reckon MVE is right - waaaaay easier to land in flap 35. and a "Gnat's Knacker" of power to fly it on.
Good luck to everyone involved on both sides, you are going to have a tough year.
There is a knack to the landings, but I reckon MVE is right - waaaaay easier to land in flap 35. and a "Gnat's Knacker" of power to fly it on.
Good luck to everyone involved on both sides, you are going to have a tough year.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When BE/flybe ordered the first Q400 we laughed ... who's going to want to travel in those things, we said, the passengers will just walk away. Give it a year or so and they'll try to dispose of them (but who's going to buy used turboprops eh?). The future is regional jets.
The company's response was "the passengers don't care if its got props, as long as they can travel for £20 or £30", and we can make this company profitable.
So who was right?
Well done JF for having the courage to stick your (our?) necks out.
The company's response was "the passengers don't care if its got props, as long as they can travel for £20 or £30", and we can make this company profitable.
So who was right?
Well done JF for having the courage to stick your (our?) necks out.
