Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CRJ's and such...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CRJ's and such...

    Seems like it's popular to bash CRJ's....Inefficient, underpowered, etc.

    Question 1: When folks say "underpowered", I have to say relative to what?

    In my flawed, anecdotal experience of about four CRJ rides- a fully loaded CRJ seemed to take off fine on a hot humid day, and reach an average cruise altitude in an average amount of time. I also would guess it's FL 410 service ceiling requires some power, so without hours of internet research, digging through positive spin, what does an "adequately-powered" plane do that a CRJ does not?

    PS, I don't claim to LOVE nore hate CRJ's but I will rank them a big ahead of a 3-wide ERJ in terms of "roominess" and comfort (not that any modern airliner offeres much of that anyway).

    Question #2: Regarding efficiency- can anyone drop a "seat miles per pound" or related numbers on RJ's vs. current airliners???

    I have to admit, it seems like the "RJ conspiracy" (I'm being slightly sarcastic, but then again...) worked very well when fuel was cheaper. LOTS of big-buck major pilots/major routes are now displaced by lower-paid regional pilots. I guess timing might be part of the equation- but I would have guessed that an RJ was more efficient than "first generation" airliners....but I guess our newer airliners are smoking them in fuel efficiency??

    Question #3 is what is next for folks who don't live at mega-hubs?. Ten years ago, folks in medium-sized cities rode "big-iron-genuine" airliners to other medium-sized cities. Now, "mini-jets" are how we get to most places.

    In another thread someone suggested that mini-jets go to the scrap yards, but for the time being, I repeat, they are HOW a lot of folks get from A to B, and converting to other types of aircraft is going to take some time.

    I that same thread some folks were implying that these "non-regional" routes were going to be taken over by newer turboprops??? (Of course a "non-regional route" is kind of an obsolete concept).

    Question #4: So what is the "magic-sized" airplane of the future??.....I recall the F-100 and the Boeing 717 being trashed as the wrong size....but now I see talk of the "RJ's-on-steroids" that are pushing size ranges similar to the 100's and 717s....

    Disclaimer- these are more discussion points than questions that have concrete answers.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    The opinion that the CRJ is underpowered is because the CRJ200 sucks hardcore once it gets up to about the mid 20s. The climb performance absolutely goes to crap. Its also a bit of a runway hog because it doesn't have leading edge slats so it needs to take off and land at higher speeds. Most of this stuff was fixed for the 700, but from what I've heard the 900 goes back to sucking.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by screaming_emu
      ...Its also a bit of a runway hog because it doesn't have leading edge slats so it needs to take off and land at higher speeds...
      Thanks but let me push you for more.

      There's no slats on Emb RJ's either- so why does the Canadair get "the label"

      None get gold stars for short-field performance, but are they somewhat worse than some airliners?

      And Do EMB's zoom on up through the 20's and 30's?

      Thanks.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 3WE

        There's no slats on Emb RJ's either- so why does the Canadair get "the label"
        Could it be because the CRJ predated the Jungle Jet by quite a bit?

        Comment


        • #5
          The CRJ was based on the bizjet design (CL65) and what is good for a bizjet is not good for a multiflight each day aircraft.

          Early CRJ's were plagued with door problems, wing anti ice problems and tires and landing gear suited for lighter loads. Even now the CRJ is a pig in the snow (a Canadian company built this acft!).

          Comment


          • #6
            Everything is relative.

            The power difference between a 727-200 with -7 engines (14,000# Thrust) vs the advanced aircraft with -17 engines (17,400# thrust) was almost equal to adding a 4th engine. It turned an aircraft with average performance into a very nice performing aircraft. All the performance gain was takeoff and climb. Gross weight increased. Cruise speed was unchanged.

            A friend of mine retired a few years ago from Delta Airlines (Former Western Pilot). Many of Western's 727-200's were powered with -7 engines. when asked how much time he had in 727's he responded; "Oh about 10,000 hours, half of it in climb!."

            Performance is always relative.
            Don
            Standard practice for managers around the world:
            Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dmmoore
              Everything is relative.
              Exactly, and so stated in the original post.

              If "we" say that a CRJ is underpowered- underpowered relative to what?

              Do 5000 ft long runways on a hot humid day result in leaving passengers on the ground with a CRJ, but not an ERJ???

              Are we talking rough numbers that are less than 1000 FPM when "heavy" and above 25,000 feet while an EMBRJ maintains 2500 FPM at gross weight to the mid 30s???

              Screamo Emo did say that the CRJ-200 and the CRJ-900 "suck hardcore" relative to the CRJ 700, but wish we could convert "suck hardcore" to some rough numbers.

              Was just hoping for some comparrisons to EMB-1X0s or some common "real" airliners.

              Thanx all.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 3WE

                Screamo Emo did say that the CRJ-200 and the CRJ-900 "suck hardcore" relative to the CRJ 700, but wish we could convert "suck hardcore" to some rough numbers.
                Here's what I was getting at. The CRJ 700 generates 12,670 lbs of thrust at takeoff but the 900 only 13,123. Take into account the difference in size/weight and I believe that is what accounts for the difference in performance. My initial comment was based upon what I've heard from people who have experience with all the CRJs. In the sim we hardly ever got above 10,000ft so my experience with that is limited.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re:

                  Originally posted by 3WE
                  Question #3 is what is next for folks who don't live at mega-hubs?. Ten years ago, folks in medium-sized cities rode "big-iron-genuine" airliners to other medium-sized cities. Now, "mini-jets" are how we get to most places.

                  In another thread someone suggested that mini-jets go to the scrap yards, but for the time being, I repeat, they are HOW a lot of folks get from A to B, and converting to other types of aircraft is going to take some time.

                  I that same thread some folks were implying that these "non-regional" routes were going to be taken over by newer turboprops??? (Of course a "non-regional route" is kind of an obsolete concept).
                  Living in suburban Oklahoma City, I can confirm everything that you posted above.

                  Take out all RJs, and OKC's daily departures get slashed in more than half. (We only have about 92 daily departures and more than half the nonstop destinations are connected to OKC with RJs). That being said, OKC does have a fair number of mainliners flying in and out even then, but I have seen the number of mainliners decreasing in the past 5 years alone. A great example is DL/DL Conn. Back in the late 90s, DL had two dailies to CVG with 732s. Those got replaced by DL Conn CRJs. Then about 4 years ago after dropping the DFW hub, DL eliminated all mainliner service to SLC (including a daily 738 it had at one point) and DL Conn replaced it with CRJs as well. The only mainliner service DL had until recently was a daily M88 between here and Atlanta, guess what-that too has been replaced by ASA with five CRJs/CR7s (at least temporarily).

                  And about the turboprops coming back-Frontier Jet Express had three daily CR7s between OKC and DEN-now it's four daily Lynx DH8Q400s. Albeit the good thing is I've heard these are more comfortable and less noisy than the CR7s. But this was a surprise because Lynx hadn't announced they would be used for cities other than in CO and Neb. The again the RJ is the most popular choice of aircraft for any carrier starting new service to/from Oklahoma City, unless it's WN which is starting new service but we all know what type of plane WN uses.

                  Almost all the new nonstop service announced by carriers here in the past 4-5 years is flown with RJs-MSP, DTW, EWR, IAD, LAX, ONT, ABQ, AUS, SAT (AUS and SAT will be eliminated), SAN, etc etc. I could go on and on. And now of course DEN with Lynx turboprops, though there are three other choices there-United, United Express and Southwest.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X