|
Originally Posted by tpersuit
(Post 348907)
wow,
or maybe you got called out on comparing apples to oranges and you acted like it was a joke. As for the gallon remark, yeah I mistype, but you know what I meant. Bet a 4 day pairing with you is a blast. |
We had a Lynx jumpseater that told us the Q400 burns 1900-2000 lbs/hour TOTAL in cruise at FL250 and a TAS of 350kts. Anyone know if this is true??? I've only seen a FF less than 2000 lbs/hour total in the CRJ-200, in cruise, a few rare times. And it always seemed to be when we were at max altitude in the winter and half empty. Typically, it's more like 2400-2500 lbs/hour, if we're doing .74 and at FL340 or FL350. And that's, of course, with 26 fewer seats than the Q has. I don't know exactly where the CRJ would become more efficient (taking into account it's fewer seats) with those kinds of numbers, but seems like it wouldn't be until at least 700-800nm, if those Q numbers are true. In which case I can see the Q400 becoming more popular as fuel keeps going up...
|
Originally Posted by dojetdriver
(Post 349009)
SECOND time around, and you're STILL missing the joke.
Bet a 4 day pairing with you is a blast. nope think you really meant it. god i bet flying with you would suck. |
Some people are great at missing jokes.
|
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 348858)
T-props are the future and will make a comeback. Look at the speed and specs of a Q400 and tell me why they should fly an RJ with sky rocketing fuel prices.
I agree with that but Bombardier has a serious problem with quality control. There isn't any. Plus, people think the "little" prop planes are unsafe. |
Originally Posted by flyfresno
(Post 349022)
We had a Lynx jumpseater that told us the Q400 burns 1900-2000 lbs/hour TOTAL in cruise at FL250 and a TAS of 350kts. Anyone know if this is true???
|
Originally Posted by Foxcow
(Post 349102)
I agree with that but Bombardier has a serious problem with quality control. There isn't any. Plus, people think the "little" prop planes are unsafe.
|
i was just reading in the paper that reducing airplanes is never the solution due to costs being fixed. will try to find the paper and post. we all how 'good' of information is in papers but this idea is not mine.
|
Just flew the -200 today with 8 folks and 330 lbs in the tail (~38K lbs or so)...up at 370 and .74M we were burning 1980 lbs/hr total, about 980/side. Of course, with just 8 pax it doesn't really matter how efficiently we fly LoL
|
Originally Posted by JetBlast77
(Post 347250)
True or false.....those of us who fly 50 seaters will be out of a job in the near future? (unless our airline gets more larger a/c)
Look on the bright side. Those out of a job first will be senior to the rest of us when we lose our jobs and go to our next airline. You know the saying, "be nice to the junior guys, because they'll be senior to you at your next airline"? Well, I believe the same logic applies here. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:36 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands