Conversation last night:

Me to my hubby: "Hey, do you like it? It's our new CRJ paint!"

Him: "Umm... we're not buying it for our airline (FS Passengers)."

Typical, raining on my parade...

 "Why not?"

"Look! It only carries 70 passengers, and for the price we might as well download another 737 to earn more $$ per flight."

"But.... "  


Okay, so is there any advantage to the CRJ 700 over the 737 on real life routes?

Depends on the routes you would use. You may be better off with the CRJ on routes from hubs to small airfields, whereas the 737 may be better on routes between hubs.

Overall, I would use 737s mainly at fairly sizable airfields, and CRJs to get into the niche regional regions.


Here is a list of airliners by seat-capacity, for what its worth to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliners_by_seat_capacity

Obviously not all inclusive, but it should give you a general idea of what to look for.

You might also want to take a look at the Dash-8 Q400. Seats around 70 and is very economical. (turboprop)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8

Yeah, buy some spare tires and you'll be fine.  

EDIT: And if you want to scare & deafen Greenpeace *or any other environmental/noise control organization, take a Tupolev! (A Tu-134 to be exact!)

Like the others said, the CRJ would be able to fly you into more airports as it can probably land on shorter runways than a 737.

That and it looks much prettier than a 737 in my opinion, but that's a whole different thread topic 

For what it is worth, here is my input. The CRJ is an illegitimate son of a lady who works odd hours on a Saturday night and does not have time to pull her underpants up........from a maintenance point of view that is. It is a horrible little aircraft. Any aircraft that you have to climb over the centre console to get into the cockpit should have been put down at birth Give me a 737 NG over the CRJ anytime.

Matt

Barbr wrote on May 21^st, 2009 at 12:25am:

Check the fuel burn rate in the aircraft.cfg file.
I had a Citation 2 that came with fuel burn rate correction. Turns out it was the same model as another one I have. It had a poor range even at cruising speed. Changed it from 2.5 to 1.5 and got an increase in range of 600-700nm.

aussiewannabe wrote on May 21^st, 2009 at 2:57pm:


How would one find the "correct" number?

Barbr wrote on May 21^st, 2009 at 3:42pm:

Here's what I've found:
fuel_flow_scalar (found in aircraft.cfg) - Scalar for modifying the fuel flow required by the engine(s). A value of less than 1.0 causes a slower fuel consumption for a given power setting, a value greater than 1.0 causes the aircraft to burn more fuel for a given power setting.

Examples:
Airbus A321( fuel_flow_scalar = 1 )
Aircreation582SL( fuel_flow_scalar= 1.000 )
Boeing 747-400( fuel_flow_scalar = 1.0 )
Beech Baron 58( fuel_flow_scalar= 0.9 )

I found this for a POSKY CRJ-700
fuel_flow_scalar = 1.035


Sean is right. You might be using excessive engine power which is burning your fuel more than it should.

Below 10,000 ft, you should not exceed 250kts (approx. .37 mach). I'm sure there are some charts online that show what speed the CRJ-700 should be at certain altitudes as you climb. I see that the max for this AC is .86 mach. There are converters online such as
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/velocity-ex.html if you would rather go by knots.

Does your AC come with an autothrottle (A/T) switch by chance?

Chris

Looks good to me

As a general rule, when I'm trying to test the fuel efficiency of any aircraft, I start up a flight and just let it fly straight, going as far as it can before it runs out of fuel.  Take into account the amount of fuel you need to get it down and on the ground, including at least 45 minutes minimum fuel reserve for IFR flights, and then compare the distance you traveled to the range listed in the specs.  Adjust fuel consumption accordingly.