simFlight
    • FORUM
    • REVIEWS
    • sF NETWORK
      • simFlight.com
      • simFlight Germany
      • simFlight Portugal
      • simflight Benelux
      • simflight España
      • simflight Italia
      • simflight France
      • simflight RUSSIA
      • simFlight China
      • simFlight Japan
      • Privacy Policy
      • Copyright / Impressum
    • simMARKET
      • $$ SALES $$
      • X-PLANE
      • PREPAR3D
      • FSX
      • FSX SE
      • FLIGHT SIM WORLD
      • AEROFLY 2
      • FS2004
      • HARDWARE
      • TRAIN SIM
      • GIFT VOUCHERS
      • MORE
    • SUBMIT YOUR NEWS!
    simFlight
    Analysis

    Turboprop vs. Turbofan

    By Miguel Blaufuks7. August 2012No Comments

    Real world airlines tell us that on short routes turboprop aircraft are just as fast as jets. I’ve done the same analysis in FS to see if this is true and valuable information for virtual airlines.

    Many airlines use Dash 8’s and ATR’s on short routes to compete against rival airlines that use jets such as Fokker 70/100’s, CRJ 200/700’s, and the newer Embraer 190/195’s. They claim that modern day turboprops are more fuel efficient and just as fast as jets on short routes that demand less than 100 passengers per flight. Also, maintaining turboprop aircraft are said to be cheaper than jets. I’ll leave that topic alone because airlines are very tight about their costs of running an aircraft making research impossible. Indeed, if the government was as good at keeping secrets as the airlines, WikiLeaks would be out of business.

    So, let’s go through the parameters I’ve set. First I’ve chosen the aircraft listed below in the chart. The ATR-72 is from Flight1, CRJ’s and EMB’s from Wilco, Dash 8-Q300 from PSS, and the Fokkers are the freeware Project Fokker offerings. All were tested in FS 2004 in order to maintain equality.

     

    aircraft

    publisher

    ATR-72

    Flight1

    Bae 146-200

    Aerosoft

    CRJ-200

    Wilco

    CRJ-700

    Wilco

    Dash-8 Q300

    PSS

    Embraer ERJ190/195

    Wilco

    Fokker F100

    Project Fokker

    Fokker F70

    Project Fokker

     

    There were 322 flights done in all. Now, I won’t lie to you, I did not do all of these flights since my last article on the A320/B738 comparison. I’ve been running a Virtual Airline, AmEuro (http://www.ameurova.com), for over 10 years and I’ve taken my FS 2004 flight records from our database. I keep very accurate records of all my flights because I am a statistics freak and now I get to use this info for the good of the community, too.

    I looked at flights 200nm or less, between 201 and 300nm, and between 301 and 400 nm to see where the point is that we start seeing an advantage of one over the other in terms of flight times and fuel burn. I did not have enough data for flights over 400 nm to make a fair comparison and that’s where I stopped.

    200 nm or less

    aircraft

    flights

    avg time

    score

    avg gal/nm

    score

    overall score

    ATR-72

    33

    0.80

    1.0

    1.02

    1

    2.0

    Dash-8 Q300

    47

    0.84

    1.0

    1.23

    1.2

    2.2

    CRJ-700

    7

    0.93

    1.2

    1.53

    1.5

    2.7

    CRJ-200

    9

    0.80

    1.0

    1.69

    1.7

    2.7

    Embraer ERJ190/195

    10

    0.90

    1.1

    2.57

    2.5

    3.6

    Fokker F70

    9

    0.82

    1.0

    3.20

    3.1

    4.1

    Bae 146-200

    5

    0.98

    1.2

    3.17

    3.1

    4.3

    Fokker F100

    20

    0.88

    1.1

    3.30

    3.2

    4.3

     

    201 – 300 nm

    aircraft

    flights

    avg time

    score

    avg gal/nm

    score

    overall score

    ATR-72

    4

    1.30

    1.3

    0.91

    1.0

    2.3

    CRJ-700

    7

    0.97

    1.0

    1.30

    1.4

    2.4

    Dash-8 Q300

    21

    1.25

    1.3

    1.00

    1.1

    2.4

    CRJ-200

    16

    1.15

    1.2

    1.56

    1.7

    2.9

    Fokker F70

    15

    1.15

    1.2

    2.51

    2.7

    3.9

    Bae 146-200

    10

    1.18

    1.2

    2.42

    2.7

    3.9

    Embraer ERJ190/195

    6

    1.13

    1.2

    2.56

    2.8

    4.0

    Fokker F100

    26

    1.12

    1.2

    2.71

    3.0

    4.2

     

    301 – 400 nm

    aircraft

    flights

    avg time

    score

    avg gal/nm

    score

    overall score

    ATR-72

    5

    1.75

    1.6

    0.89

    1.0

    2.6

    Dash-8 Q300

    14

    1.69

    1.5

    0.98

    1.1

    2.6

    CRJ-700

    5

    1.28

    1.1

    1.70

    1.9

    3.0

    CRJ-200

    7

    1.31

    1.2

    1.58

    1.8

    3.0

    Embraer ERJ190/195

    11

    1.30

    1.2

    1.97

    2.2

    3.4

    Fokker F70

    7

    1.11

    1.0

    2.43

    2.7

    3.7

    Fokker F100

    24

    1.30

    1.2

    2.32

    2.6

    3.8

    Bae 146-200

    4

    1.45

    1.3

    2.30

    2.6

    3.9

     

    So we have all this data and now you are wondering, “how did I come up with the score?” I ranked each stat and gave the best a score of 1. The scores for the others in the category are calculated by dividing the stat by the same stat for the best aircraft. In effect, it tells you how many times worst the aircraft is than the best aircraft.  The lower the score the better the aircraft is overall. Within each category you can see the score so that you may determine the best aircraft in that particular sector.

     

    overall

    aircraft

    score

    ATR-72

    6.9

    Dash-8 Q300

    7.2

    CRJ-700

    8.1

    CRJ-200

    8.6

    Embraer ERJ190/195

    11.0

    Fokker F70

    11.7

    Bae 146-200

    12.1

    Fokker F100

    12.3

     

    Overall, the ATR-72 was the best aircraft but to be honest the scores were very close. The Dash 8 Q300 was second and the CRJ-700 third. Take into consideration the fuel burn of each aircraft over the distance of the route. For example, on a route of less than 200nm the ERJ 190 may burn up two and a half times as much fuel as the ATR-72 while only reaching its destination 6 minutes earlier. That can cost your virtual airline $350 with today’s fuel prices.

    One may consider using turboprops on routes less than 300nm and then switching to jets over 300nm due to the time enroute. At this point you will probably see more daily flights (higher utilization) with the jet and will then make more profit per day.

    Now why do turboprop aircraft perform so well on short routes? The answer is in physics. A jet will fly faster and therefore will take more distance to make a turn. A wider arc you can say. If you are taking off on runway 18 and then turn to a heading of 360 the turboprop, typically traveling at 170 knots gs (groundspeed), will make a tighter turn than the jet traveling at 240 knots gs. The same goes for landing. The turboprop can turn faster and therefore you can turn onto final sooner than a jet. Also, the take-off run is shorter for turboprops and you will begin your turn to the 360 heading sooner. I can attest to this as I’ve seen it in action. At CYYZ a Dash 8 will take-off on runway 23 and begin it’s turn to 360 before it’s even reached the end of the runway. A CRJ, on the other hand, will start it’s turn a couple of nm beyond the end of the runway and be at a higher gs making a bigger turn. This may also have to do with noise regulations but that’s another advantage of the turboprop.

    Out of interest I threw in the BAE 146-200. It has 4 jet engines and I was curious to see how it stacked up against the other aircraft in this category. Not too good, but I still enjoy flying this aircraft.

    I hope you have found this article interesting and helpful in choosing an aircraft for your routes.

    Keep simming!
    Andrew Barter

     

    Related Posts

    A Study-Level Gulfstream 650/ER sim for P3D ?

    31. January 20191

    Taking a look at Lockheed Martin Prepar3D V3 (part 2)

    20. January 20162

    Taking a look at Lockheed Martin Prepar3D V3 (part 1)

    2. January 201611

    No Comments

    1. Html on 8. August 2012 9:59

      Interesting statistics.
      Ok, I am not a specialist for virtual airlines, but I was wondering what numbers and costs are important for you in comparison to a real world airline?
      I would think that one should consider the seating capacity of an airplane to determine it’s fuel efficiency (gallons per seatmile). That would change the results a lot I think?

      Reply
    2. Michel on 8. August 2012 11:28

      Great tests 🙂

      Reply
    3. Michel on 8. August 2012 12:42

      Once again I made a typo in the email in my last comment and it showed another person’s avatar :-/ sorry about that…

      I was saying that the tests are great 🙂

      Reply
    4. Andrew Barter on 8. August 2012 16:32

      Html: The tests were done to compare fuel consumption and time enroute.
      Html has a good point, however… the ATR72, CRJ700, and F70 are in the same category of seat capacity and probably the 146-200. The Dash 8 Q300 and CRJ-200 are in the same category regarding seats. This will help in further determining the best aircraft for the route. Obviously, the 190/195 and F100 don’t have competition in my test. Perhaps the Dash 8 Q400 may be of interest here.

      Reply
    5. Mark Seelbinder on 8. August 2012 22:45

      I’ve tried to develop a system that also includes cost of operation – both fixed and variable, along with crew costs – but have not found adequate information (that was free) – and was not willing to pay to obtain these costs (which are available, but for a price.)

      Has anyone run into a reliable source for these?

      Reply
    6. Phil Rademacher on 9. August 2012 7:50

      Gives at least a guideline… there should be some other things possible to find out on the Conklin de Decker site: http://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/ACCostSummary.aspx

      Best regards,

      Phil

      Reply
    7. Html on 9. August 2012 9:16

      Yes, Conklin & de Decker is a good source of information for that. One can als find a lot of more detailed cost analysis from them if you search the net using the company name + aircraft type. Example for the Boeing 737 BBJ: http://www.aviationchina.com.cn/manager/uploadfiles/1311564620968.pdf

      Reply
    8. Owen K. on 10. August 2012 16:05

      Just a comment or two from a former mechanic for a commuter airline. I do find it hard to believe that costs for operating a turboprop are that much less than a pure turbine (jet) engine. First, with two turboprop engines, you have four separate logbooks which must be kept up. One for each engine and one for each propeller. Propeller maintenance costs can run very high. Especially if the aircraft is subjected to FOD which is often found on tarmacs and taxiways of smaller airports. Propellers can be dinged up in a hurry, and these nicks and dings have to be inspected and repaired on a regular basis in addition to standard turbine engine repair costs. Propellers tend to pick up more FOD than a standard jet engine will ingest through the intake. Perhaps the savings comes through fuel burn, of which the turboprop would have the advantage. But, I do wonder if that advantage would be offset by increased maintenance costs.

      Reply
    9. Andrew Barter on 10. August 2012 22:30

      That’s very interesting, Owen, and thanks for your input from the professional side. Jet engines have 20+ blades that have to be maintained. I don’t know much about the toughness of prop vs. jet blades but I have to wonder about the cost, too. The cost of keeping a log on each prop blade has to be very small if you’re just talking about the process of a tech writing his/her findings at each maintenance stop. At a rate of $25/hr(?) it can’t take more than an hour to write the info into the log. I wonder how much logging is done on a jet engine with it’s multiple stages/blades. Anyone reading who has experience on jet engines?

      Reply
    10. Owen K. on 11. August 2012 17:43

      Propeller nick and dings sometimes have to be inspected by X-ray or dye penetrant, depending on the damage, just as turbine blades do. However, propellers also have major inspections due where the props have to be pulled and the components inspected at certain hourly intervals. Also, another problem with turboprops is the gear reduction system. The gear reduction system is another big part of engine inspection, especially on major inspections. Then there is the matter of the controllers. They too, must be inspected and tested before returning to service at certain scheduled intervals. Generally, the turbine does have it over the turboprop as turbines can run at longer hourly intervals between inspections.

      Reply
    11. KenG on 12. August 2012 16:04

      Having run the operations, training and maintenance operations of a real world small air operation I can tell you that Specific Fuel Consumption and Seat Mile Cost are not the only things that you look at for a fleet of aircraft.

      Commonality is a big cost saver in maintenance, training and offers huge flexibility from an operations standpoint.

      If I have a single aircraft for the 300nm market then a second aircraft for the 300nm to 1000nm market then I must maintain two different aircraft (which increases my cost in maintainers, spare parts, and special tools), I have to have two training pipes (with the additional costs in support systems) and I have zero flexibility across the two airframes.

      The money I can save in commonality far outweighs the money saved in fuel consumption which is why you see so many regionals going to an all jet fleet.

      Finally, there is public perception. They believe that jets are modern and are thus safer than turboprops. If you fail to offer jet service then you are giving your competitor an advantage in the public perception department.

      Reply
    12. Colin Ware on 16. August 2012 0:40

      For this to work, you also have to look at the average leg length and time above 10,000 feet. If you have short legs, both the jets and the turbo props will be constrained by the 250 knot limit – and likely even slower in congested markets.

      So yes the jet goes faster, but only above 10K feet. It is not significantly faster say, between, Portland and Seattle to fly on one of horizon’s crjs versus one of their q400s becuase so little of the flight is above $10,000 feet.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Recent Comments
    • Ian Cooper on Skydesigners – French Polynesia NTTE Tetiaroa MSFS and NTTH Huahine Fare MSFS
    • Sten-Ove Olsson on X-Plane 12 – A330 MCDU Upgrade Progress
    • Sebastien on Just Flight / DC Designs – Concorde MSFS Update 1.0.5
    • Kenneth on Just Flight / DC Designs – Concorde MSFS Update 1.0.5
    • Sebastien on GoFlight Technologies Company Sold

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

    Your Privacy
    We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you personalised advertising.
    To find out more, read our Cookie Policy
    I am OK with that My Options
    Cookies Policy

    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
    Necessary
    Always Enabled
    Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
    CookieDurationDescription
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
    DSID1 hourTo note specific user identity. Contains hashed/encrypted unique ID.
    PHPSESSIDThis cookie is native to PHP applications. The cookie is used to store and identify a users' unique session ID for the purpose of managing user session on the website. The cookie is a session cookies and is deleted when all the browser windows are closed.
    viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
    viewed_cookie_policy1 hourThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
    Functional
    Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
    CookieDurationDescription
    pid1 yearHelps users identify the users and lets the users use twitter related features from the webpage they are visiting.
    Performance
    Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
    CookieDurationDescription
    YSCThis cookies is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos.
    Analytics
    Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
    CookieDurationDescription
    GPS30 minutesThis cookie is set by Youtube and registers a unique ID for tracking users based on their geographical location
    Advertisement
    Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
    CookieDurationDescription
    ATN2 yearsThe cookie is set by atdmt.com. The cookies stores data about the user behavior on multiple websites. The data is then used to serve relevant advertisements to the users on the website.
    bscThe cookies is set by ownerIQ for the purpose of providing relevant advertisement
    everest_session_v2This cookie is used to display personalized and relevant ads to the users and measure the efficiency of the ad campaign.
    mc1 yearThis cookie is associated with Quantserve to track anonymously how a user interact with the website.
    NID6 monthsThis cookie is used to a profile based on user's interest and display personalized ads to the users.
    pxrc1 monthThe purpose of the cookie is to identify a visitor to serve relevant advertisement.
    rlas311 monthsThe cookie is set by rlcdn.com. The cookie is used to serve relevant ads to the visitor as well as limit the time the visitor sees an and also measure the effectiveness of the campaign.
    test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the users' browser supports cookies.
    uuid2 monthsTo optimize ad relevance by collecting visitor data from multiple websites such as what pages have been loaded.
    VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE5 monthsThis cookie is set by Youtube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website.
    Others
    Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
    Non Necessary
    This is an non-necessary category.
    Save & Accept