Envoy CRJ700 climb airspeed

mshunter said:
Yeah, you're right, I'm not pulling this out from my own personal experience, just pulling it straight out of my ass. Just curious, how many hours do YOU have in a CRJ? Have you been "through the mill" at an airlines training department in, oh, say the last 6 months? Do you have access to speed cards that show you the ref speeds of a typical -200, or a -700, or even a -900? I do, and I'm actually looking at my company data.

And best rate of climb, as you should know, is NOT just a function of available wing. It's ALSO a function of available thrust. And as speed increases, so does the amount of thrust available.

An excerpt from one of the Navy pieces I read to wrap my head around a turbine engine better.



Source: http://www.netc.navy.mil/nascweb/api/student_guides/Eng_studentguide_18Jun2014 Change 1.pdf

I had a much longer reply posted, but decided to delete it. With your attitude, well, with your crass attitude, I decided not to post it. I'd be more than willing to discuss this, and why I believe the airplane that I fly, from my personal experience, climbs at a faster rate when going at a faster airspeed with someone who doesn't post things like "Does the CRJ have magic wings that cause best rate of climb to go UP (ref IAS) with altitude?"

Edit to add: If you can get ahold of some speed cards for the -200, have a peek at them. The approach speeds are higher than a lot of other equipment out there, at typical weights. I commute on 73's, 75's, 76's and 77's. They are slower on nearly every approach, by just about 10kts.
Click to expand...
The underlying point is a statement like "it likes to go fast" isn't true. It likes to go the speeds that are in the book, and climbing at .8 is not it. I've got a bit over 500 hours in the 700. Getting much slower than .74 and you were behind the curve, but climbing at .77 did not product a faster climb as one would expect because the best climb speed is not .77 nor .80 or .84. The people that flew it with the "it likes to go fast" burned a lot of extra gas spending a stupid amount of time getting to altitude instead of flying the numbers bombardier spent millions figuring out.
@CamYZ125 made a good point, the 200 doesn't have slats, so I would assume it does have a somewhat higher approach speed. Unless you were super light, speeds on the 700 are almost always in the 130s. On a ferry flight you'll see 125. Maybe a 73 driver can chime in, but I seem to remember those being pretty in line with the vast majority of domestic airliners.
 
Joepilot84 said:
The GIIIs I fly will do 2000+ fpm up to 410 if you hold 300 indicated and transition to Mach .80 in the climb. Gotta love those old straight jet engines!
Click to expand...
Are you going to be allowed to fly that thing after the new noise reduction requirements?
 
No, haha. We've got hush kits on most of them, but without the hush kits they'll only be legal down south.
 
z987k said:
The underlying point is a statement like "it likes to go fast" isn't true. It likes to go the speeds that are in the book, and climbing at .8 is not it. I've got a bit over 500 hours in the 700. Getting much slower than .74 and you were behind the curve, but climbing at .77 did not product a faster climb as one would expect because the best climb speed is not .77 nor .80 or .84. The people that flew it with the "it likes to go fast" burned a lot of extra gas spending a stupid amount of time getting to altitude instead of flying the numbers bombardier spent millions figuring out.
@CamYZ125 made a good point, the 200 doesn't have slats, so I would assume it does have a somewhat higher approach speed. Unless you were super light, speeds on the 700 are almost always in the 130s. On a ferry flight you'll see 125. Maybe a 73 driver can chime in, but I seem to remember those being pretty in line with the vast majority of domestic airliners.
Click to expand...


And exactly what speed is that? Where is it posted? Because all the info I have access to, including the manufacturer info, it isn't posted. The only info I have EVER found is SE climb speeds. It's not an arbitrary number. It fluctuates with weight, temp and so on.

I've seen what I've seen. And .84, sorry, but here in the states, there is no where that you can get away with flying a 700 at that speed. .83 is all it's good for legally. If you sat there and let a captain get away with it while you were sitting in the seat next to him, that's on you too.

I've seen the thing go up hill at .80 through 30-35k, with good rates of climb pretty regularly. I set pitch mode at about 2.5 nose up, and let it accelerate. It usually starts out at about 7-800 fpm, accelerates, I bring it up slightly through about 310 to maybe 3-3.5, it climbs at about 2400-2600 fpm, slowly decelerates to about .78-.79, and about 1600-1800 fpm, then I put it back in speed mode (because the damn thing hunts for speed so bad down low and gives a crappy ride), and let it ride out usually at .80 all the way up, usually getting between 1200 and 1500 to level off, unless the weather is crappy, or we took of REALLY heavy.

What I have also noticed, is that guys who call "Auto pilot on" at 600 ft, select 250 kts, then 290 through 10, the thing climbs like a dog, usually getting around 800-1000 fpm through the mid to upper 20's.

Simply put, I've seen what I've seen. You can call it blasphemy all you like. I'll snap a pic next time.
 
z987k said:
The underlying point is a statement like "it likes to go fast" isn't true. It likes to go the speeds that are in the book, and climbing at .8 is not it. I've got a bit over 500 hours in the 700. Getting much slower than .74 and you were behind the curve, but climbing at .77 did not product a faster climb as one would expect because the best climb speed is not .77 nor .80 or .84. The people that flew it with the "it likes to go fast" burned a lot of extra gas spending a stupid amount of time getting to altitude instead of flying the numbers bombardier spent millions figuring out.
@CamYZ125 made a good point, the 200 doesn't have slats, so I would assume it does have a somewhat higher approach speed. Unless you were super light, speeds on the 700 are almost always in the 130s. On a ferry flight you'll see 125. Maybe a 73 driver can chime in, but I seem to remember those being pretty in line with the vast majority of domestic airliners.
Click to expand...
May I ask who you fly it for? Because the data at my company is very different than what you posted. When I get home I will post what our AOM says.
 
The CRJ-200 has higher speeds than the 7/9 on approach and tops out at 147 at MLW.

737-800s on the other hand will be around 155 at MLW and similar with 767s. Then let's get @seagull in here to tell us about the MD-11 approach speeds. :p

There is nothing particularly special or extraneous about CRJ landing speeds, particularly the jumbo CRJs.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
The CRJ-200 has higher speeds than the 7/9 on approach and tops out at 147 at MLW.


There is nothing particularly special or extraneous about CRJ landing speeds, particularly the jumbo CRJs.
Click to expand...

I was just looking at our speed cards, and I thought at MLW, they were 150. I don't remember though, I memory dumped it quickly because I don't fly the 200.

I don't think they (landing speeds) are particularly high either. But the school house did tell us that because of the speed they were flying, their was an unusual amount of go arounds when it was first introduced.
 
mshunter said:
And exactly what speed is that? Where is it posted? Because all the info I have access to, including the manufacturer info, it isn't posted. The only info I have EVER found is SE climb speeds. It's not an arbitrary number. It fluctuates with weight, temp and so on.

I've seen what I've seen. And .84, sorry, but here in the states, there is no where that you can get away with flying a 700 at that speed. .83 is all it's good for legally. If you sat there and let a captain get away with it while you were sitting in the seat next to him, that's on you too.

I've seen the thing go up hill at .80 through 30-35k, with good rates of climb pretty regularly. I set pitch mode at about 2.5 nose up, and let it accelerate. It usually starts out at about 7-800 fpm, accelerates, I bring it up slightly through about 310 to maybe 3-3.5, it climbs at about 2400-2600 fpm, slowly decelerates to about .78-.79, and about 1600-1800 fpm, then I put it back in speed mode (because the damn thing hunts for speed so bad down low and gives a crappy ride), and let it ride out usually at .80 all the way up, usually getting between 1200 and 1500 to level off, unless the weather is crappy, or we took of REALLY heavy.

What I have also noticed, is that guys who call "Auto pilot on" at 600 ft, select 250 kts, then 290 through 10, the thing climbs like a dog, usually getting around 800-1000 fpm through the mid to upper 20's.

Simply put, I've seen what I've seen. You can call it blasphemy all you like. I'll snap a pic next time.
Click to expand...

Hooray, let's go really fast so we can burn a crap ton more gas and get there three mins early!
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Hooray, let's go really fast so we can burn a crap ton more gas and get there three mins early!
Click to expand...

I didn't say I did it any more. Every since Smart CI came about, I pretty much follow it. But getting to altitude the most expeditious way will save fuel. And climbing at 250kts, isn't the fastest way to get there.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I'm good. I think I'll just keep doing it as we are taught.
Click to expand...

It's not a definite. Smart CI is a recommendation, as was the previous "290 kts to .74" and the previos "250 kts" before that.

Edit to add: I fly the airplane within the limitations they give me.
 
mshunter said:
Just curious, how many hours do YOU have in a CRJ?
Click to expand...

I've got thousands, and I agree with him. Pilots love to say "it likes to climb fast" because pilots prefer to climb fast, but it just ain't so. Your anecdotal data after relatively few hours in the airplane are not giving you proper perspective. You tell someone to climb at 250 one flight and 310 the next, but what are the weights and atmospheric conditions? How are you controlling these variables to get proper comparisons? If I climb out at 310 leaving MSP in winter at a GTOW of 39,000 lbs, yes, I'm probably going to get better climb performance than climbing out of CUN at 55,000 lbs at 280 knots. Not because "it likes to climb fast," but because the variables have changed. I promise you, the plane does not "like to climb fast."
 
Gonzo said:
May I ask who you fly it for? Because the data at my company is very different than what you posted. When I get home I will post what our AOM says.
Click to expand...
I don't anymore, and I don't have access to the speed cards or I'd look this up, but there isn't a airplane in existence that climbs better when faster than the best rate of climb speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top