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.
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.
Comment