Originally Posted by
tpersuit
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.
There is a flaw in your theory. Most turboprops don't burn 2000
gal/hr and turbojets don't burn 3000
gal/hr. Now, the CRJ-200 burns about 3000
lb/hr at cruise. The Saab burns about 1000
lb/hr at cruise.
Where the inefficiencies are is flying CRJs on routes like MEM-JAN where you only get up to 16000' and do 300 KIAS. Put a Saab on it burning 1/3 the gas at 200 KIAS then you have a much more efficient and profitable route.