Engine Fuel Efficiency
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: troon
Engine Fuel Efficiency
Hello to all
I don't usually post on this forum (I usually lurk in the Mil Aircrew area) but I have a question.
Which type of engine is more efficient Turbo prop or Jet? I know that they are similar in function but I was told that Turbo-props have the edge here. The reason I ask is that I do an awfull lot of short-haul flights (Amsterdam - Prestwick) and with the new UK Carbon taxes coming in, I'm begining to wonder if a 737-700 is appropriate for this route. I assume that Turbo-props are slower but by how much? on a short haul flight would the time difference be significant.
Thanks in Advance
AL
I don't usually post on this forum (I usually lurk in the Mil Aircrew area) but I have a question.
Which type of engine is more efficient Turbo prop or Jet? I know that they are similar in function but I was told that Turbo-props have the edge here. The reason I ask is that I do an awfull lot of short-haul flights (Amsterdam - Prestwick) and with the new UK Carbon taxes coming in, I'm begining to wonder if a 737-700 is appropriate for this route. I assume that Turbo-props are slower but by how much? on a short haul flight would the time difference be significant.
Thanks in Advance
AL
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Ormond Beach
This, of course is an age-old debate. It appears that on shorter, lower-altitude routes turboprops, especially latest one such as the Q400 are, in fact, a better bet.
Our airline currently operates CRJ200s and 700s. It's been calculated that on routes of 350nm or less, the Q400 will land perhaps 10 minutes behind the CRJ200, but will have burned some 1500lb less, while carrying more people.
This is one example. Here's another one:
For my previous job, I flew a Piper Meridian. We used to be able to block 260 at 260 at 260, meaning 260KTAS at FL260 at 260pph. This meant that on routes of less than 500nm, we were only marginally slower than, say, a CE500/501, but at less than a quarter of the operating cost.
You can do the math from there.
Our airline currently operates CRJ200s and 700s. It's been calculated that on routes of 350nm or less, the Q400 will land perhaps 10 minutes behind the CRJ200, but will have burned some 1500lb less, while carrying more people.
This is one example. Here's another one:
For my previous job, I flew a Piper Meridian. We used to be able to block 260 at 260 at 260, meaning 260KTAS at FL260 at 260pph. This meant that on routes of less than 500nm, we were only marginally slower than, say, a CE500/501, but at less than a quarter of the operating cost.
You can do the math from there.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: troon
flyboyike
Thanks for the info I thought turbo-props would be less thirsty but wow! - not 75% better. I suspect we are going to see a renascence of the turbo prop on some of the UK domestic routes in the next few years.
Once again thanks
Thanks for the info I thought turbo-props would be less thirsty but wow! - not 75% better. I suspect we are going to see a renascence of the turbo prop on some of the UK domestic routes in the next few years.
Once again thanks
