Possible Plane Order
10-24-2019 | 07:05 AM
#783
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
1: they're not failing ANYWHERE as often as they were 2 years ago, and 2: the PW uses substantially less fuel than the CFM. This is spirit, I highly doubt we'll touch cfms at this point.
10-24-2019 | 07:20 AM
#784
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,760
Likes: 106
From: 1900D CA
Frontier guy here. I was curious what the fuel burns on the Pratt Neos are like?
Our CFMs (on the 320s) burn about 2200-2300lbs per side at .78 at 350. If you push .79 to .80 they burn about 2400-2450 a side. A CFM CEO probably burns 2800 in a normal cruise
Our CFMs (on the 320s) burn about 2200-2300lbs per side at .78 at 350. If you push .79 to .80 they burn about 2400-2450 a side. A CFM CEO probably burns 2800 in a normal cruise
10-24-2019 | 07:52 AM
#785
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
2300ish at .80
10-24-2019 | 08:08 AM
#786
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
No wonder there is such a thing called scope.
10-24-2019 | 08:16 AM
#787
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
To compare this for other's whom may not have a frame of reference, that's 2000-2100 pph per side compared to the CRJ-900 that burns 1900 pph per side at 37,000 Mach 0.78. A-220 does 1900 pph per side at 40,000 but I can't recall what speed.
No wonder there is such a thing called scope.
No wonder there is such a thing called scope.
3800 an hour to fly 76 people or 4300 an hour to fly 182 people?
It easily makes up the crew cost difference
10-24-2019 | 11:33 AM
#788
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
I've also seen 2500 a side with the LEAP down at 330 doing .80 with a full load.
I'm sure the actual fuel burn differences between the leap and Pratt are negligible when you average over 1000s of flights.
10-24-2019 | 12:45 PM
#789
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
I've seen sustained 2000lbs a side with .80 FL390 with the LEAP...only about 80 people onboard though.
I've also seen 2500 a side with the LEAP down at 330 doing .80 with a full load.
I'm sure the actual fuel burn differences between the leap and Pratt are negligible when you average over 1000s of flights.
I've also seen 2500 a side with the LEAP down at 330 doing .80 with a full load.
I'm sure the actual fuel burn differences between the leap and Pratt are negligible when you average over 1000s of flights.
Anecdotally by looking at the fuel flow gauges at various altitudes and Mach speeds the burn comparison between the LEAP and the P&W might seems negligible but let’s suppose for a moment that the new technology of the geared turbofan provides even a slight increase in efficiency. Perhaps .25 of 1 percent, although it may very well be greater than that. That increased efficiency over 1000’s of flights equates to a large and certainly not negligible savings.
10-24-2019 | 03:53 PM
#790
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 730
Likes: 59
From: Office Chair
There are many other economic factors besides burn to consider. It'd be interesting to see a dispatch reliability comparison thus far between the two. Fuel savings can be pretty quickly offset by delays, cancellations, and lost flight time. How much in associated losses did P&W cover with the introduction of this turd?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
