Tinpusher007

Plus, if you re-read your statement here, how could the 900 be 15% more fuel efficient than the E175 while putting out 10K lbs more thrust (read, fuel flow) than the E175 when the 175 is heavier?

Lighteningspeed

I am not quoting the total fuel load. Talking about the NextGen Enhanced version thrust rating. Get back to the original question.

Lighteningspeed

You are the one that stated the 30% more fuel efficiency, not I. Are you now saying CRJ9 is not even 15% more fuel efficient. You are only contradicting yourself. The thrust rating is for the NextGen Enhanced version. If I am wrong then the instructors who told us those figures were wrong.

Now get back to the original question.

bne744

This is starting to sound like a bunch of high school girls arguing over who stole who's boyfriend....

JetJock16

I've spent the better part of 2 hours looking for any proof and what I have found is that you are wrong. Unless you can generate something other than "an instructor told us so" I can't put any stock in your claims. BTW, you actually think that ground instructors know everything? Not only is there nothing on line stating anything greater than the 14500 lbs of thrust on the NG's but GE has nothing out there as well about NG CF34's producing 19K+.

It’s just doesn’t make any sense and it’s not backed up anywhere. I still think you heard wrong or they heard wrong. Without proof (that I or anyone else can find) it seems to not be so.

Although, oddly enough, your 19,450 lbs of thrust matched up perfectly with the CR9’s 19,450 lbs of fuel.

Good day and we just want facts, not "he said she said" hear say.

ConnectionPilot

Amen! I'm not even sure what to say about all this.

RoughLandings

Facts schmacts, I want some good ole fashioned mudslinging! My airline is better than your airline! Come on!

/my airline is NOT better than yours

flythemuppets

Does anyone know if there is any noticeable difference in the 900 and the 900ng in fuel burn with I believe a little more wing area and redesigned winglet. I'm assuming the majority of change is within the cabin but figured I'd throw it out there

JetJock16

The 175 vs. CR9 efficiency/size/comfort/this seat that seat is a BS debate. But the statement about the NG’s producing 19,450 lbs of thrust is not. If the NG’s do produce almost 1/3 more thrust (almost 5000 lbs more) than the older CR9’s then I’d like to know if it’s true. After flying our CR9’s with 14,501 lbs of thrust for over 1000 hours and enjoying their performance I can’t imagine them with 5000 lbs more thrust. That would be incredible, you’d be able to fully pack one out and maintain 4000 fpm all the way to FL410.

Now I know that our CR9’s are around 15% more fuel efficient than the E-175 which has the same engines and weights more. I know that the CR9 is very comfortable when configured with 76 seats and cramped with 86 (mesa). I know the E-175 is even more comfortable than the CR9. But to think that the CR9NG has 5000 lbs more thrust and still 15% more fuel efficient than the E-175? That’s a technological breakthrough in engine design.

No fighting and no name calling. BTW, I hope he's right because that would be great for all of us if you really think about the break through 5000 lbs of more thrust with the same fuel burn would be and what it could/would do for you industry and our futures. Sadly I see no proof.

JetJock16

My postings have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with any airline and there is/was no mudslinging; you are ready something into nothing my friend.