Best aircraft candidate from economical perspective

I draft a list to compare all aircrafts which was mentioned as best aircraft in the forum. And try to decide my favor ones. I am more focus on the economical items. e.g. less fuel consuming and lower price. Right now, the Dash 8-400 BASIC and Embraer 195 E2 are the TOP 1. Previous one for short range and later one for media range. Any other candidate? Please kindly share your favors.


I would look into SSJ as well

i don’t have the number in front of me, but you excluded CRJ900 and CRJ1000?

Also, to be fair, CRJ100/200 are not in the same market as 700 and E-jet, they should go against ERJs.

There is also the An148, which is not really a fair comparison to any of the types in the category. I know you probably try to simplify the problem, but it is the only one that can go 4000+ range in that seating and a very good option if it is a low demand hub for low demand airports.

Also, when you select the ‘best’ aircraft, you are selecting the whole category type. When you select Dash 8 Q400, you are getting close to STOL performance Q200/Q300. When you get the CRJ, you have the option to go down to 200 while E-jet will be a different cat (E-jet plus ERJs, two maintenance cats). while E2 get you something between CRJ700+ and Cseries seating and range wise. It is very based on how you want your airline to be and where you are trying to base at.

this is a quite simplified calculation as

  • you took theoretical seats, not the number you can put into in AS, for example one don’t get 146 seats into 195 E2
  • consumption per seat per 100km depends on distance (did you took always the same? which?) as some “magical” value for start and landing is consumed and the fuel for the distance itself
    for example an A220-100 consumes more fuel on 500 km distance than E195 E2 (as it seems to need more than 400 litre additional compared to E195 E2 for start) but on 2000km distance A220-100 it consumes less (as it consumes more than 30 litre less than E195 E2 on 100km)
  • total economic cost depends on some more than just fuel cost, for example SSJ are quite cheap on capital cost thats why one should use the ingame calculator for all (ATC, Landing Fees, Maintenance, …), despite his shortcomings

btw you forgot the whole A320 family class (respectively the Boeing counterparts) (Airbus A321neo light will beat everything if you can get it filled ;)) and ATRs (which are slightly worse than Dash 8 if both get filled)

1 Like

The in-game Aircraft Evaluation tool answers all of the questions asked in this thread, doesn’t it? It confirms your findings (E195 E2 and Q400), but there are other considerations as well.

For the discussion Turboprop vs Regiojet and which one is “better”: If you use hub waves, the superior speed of a jet doesn’t matter if you waste your time on the ground waiting to get synchronised with your wave timings. And the superior economy of a turboprop doesn’t matter if you are too slow to reach your wave in time.

It seems so. In terms of specific costs for a flight, one can’t help but think if a user made an enterprise on a short term world and ran the same flight at the same price for a few days (hopefully one that is exclusive but also fills, looking a
maybe at world’s that end soon) and literally compare operating costs and margins. But that would have to be tried a few times with a few different cabin styles and combinations between Y and C… and one can’t help but think who has the time for this, especially now when all the long term server users are bracing for the storm…

Oh, I just realized your point#2. Yup, I calculated them base on a 641km route. And you are correct. The fuel consumption is diff for other distance. I think I should calculate them base on their max full-load range instead. Thx.

As every aircraft has an other max full-load range and one doesn’t neccecary have a use for it and fuelefficiency ranking can change over distance (an A220-100 will outperform 195 E2 on 3500km), i don’t think this makes much sense to calculate this way as it can lead to wrong conclusions.

Better calculate fixed distances according to your use cases if you really don’t want to use ingame Aircraft type evaluation tool. :wink:

First of all: welcome to the forum.

As Robert73 wrote, you should not assume the maximum number of seats. Instead, calculate the configuration you want to use. For example, lie-flat 140 and shorthaul are often used. So you don’t even have 60 seats in the regional jet.

Keep in mind that the consumption of planes is just as different on take-off and landing as it is on the route. For example, the CRJ 1000 NG is attractive for very short distances, while the E190 E2 has its strengths over longer distances.

If you want to be economical, you should also consider maintenance and leasing in addition to fuel.

It gets really wacky once one factors old ORS…

Leasing though is such a variable in terms of costs that one can’t assume much with that.

It would be nice for someone to quantify the maintenance “lousy”, “average”, etc so we know the specific %$ increases vs default.

Just for your information. Fuel consumption in game is based on a fixed value and a variable based on distance. This works for all distances up to MPL range. So, it could be that an aircraft takes 5,000 liters of fuel for take-off/landing and taxiing (regardless of which airports it takes off from and lands at) and then an additional 10 liters per km of distance.

Once you have these figures you might want to either compare these aircraft for specific distances (say 500km, 1000km, 2000km, etc.) or to have in-flight fuel consumption per passenger seperate from take-off fuel consumption per passenger. Both have their own pros and cons.