Originally Posted by
sargeanb
Here's another solution:
How many of our RJ routes are turboprop replacement routes....quite a few. I know the majority of our routes out of CVG could be replaced by Tprops, for alot less operating costs, instead of the 135's/145s we've got on them. On the less than 500 mile legs, with the price of fuel these days, turboprops are the way to go. As fuel prices increase, the turboprop is more economical on longer stage lengths.
Many flaws with that theory. Turboprops fly slower, thus taking it longer to get to the destination. Lets say at FL250 a Turboprop burns 2000 gal/hr and at FL250 a TurboJet burns 3000 gal/hr. Lets say it takes the TurboJet 1 hour to reach the destination but the TurboProp takes 1.5 hrs. They both burned 3000 gallons. But it took the TurboProp .5 hrs longer. This isn't 100% correct but do you see where I'm coming from?
I think on longer routes the turbojet would outperform the turboprop, because it would climb to higher altitudes, fly much faster, and burn the same amount gal/hr, thus having a cheaper gas bill.