What's it like to fly the CRJ?

Snuggle said:
I've been told if you really want to fly a rocketship, fly a learjet. I hear the older ones had even better climb performance.

I'd say Zap and mikecweb probably outclimb most other jets.
Click to expand...

Or just fly any airliner empty.....even an empty RJ can push 6000-8000 fpm below 10k.
 
coa787 said:
Weird huh? But the -700's and -900's do.
Click to expand...

One time at flight camp...

Anyway SkyW was doing some tinkering in CDC in the 700 a few years back. They let some of us instructors from the local flight school ride up front. The check airman were getting checked out in the 700. Needless to say all I can remember is "follow the snowflake" and "don't bounce my plane" being barked from the pilot in the right seat.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I'm gonna have to raise the BS flag on that one. Source?
Click to expand...


No "source," just personal experience from flying the Canadian-replacement-jet for nearly 4000 hours. A flaps-8 takeoff at normal T/O power will easily get you 5-6000 fpm with a light airplane.

I find it hard to believe that your new non-ALPA (sorry had to throw that in there) Boeing 717 doesn't outclimb the Fischer Price Jet.
Click to expand...

Nope, not even close. Even at full rated T/O power with the bigger C engines and a light airplane, the best you'll ever see is around 4-5,000 fpm, and it also takes it longer to accelerate to 250 kts than the barbie-jet. We also usually de-rate the takeoffs and climbs, and the CRJ never de-rates climb power, so no real comparison.
 
I only flew the CRJ for a little less than 2000 hours, but I was never terribly impressed with it in any flight regime. The Learjet outclimbs every airplane i've ever flown even single engine (in the sim anyway).

I have to admit though, i've been flying this thing for 3 years now and I'm sure that my memory of CRJs, Boeings, and Douglas have all faded with time. Much like when we reflect fondly on that high-school girlfriend, the mind tends to construct memories in the way we viewed them at the time, and not always as they actually were.
 
Touche'. Like I said, I don't remember the Boeing or Douglas well enough to compare them to my fading memory of the CRJ. Since you essentially fly a DC9 with 28,000 lbs of thrust per side (far more power than the original DC9-30), I'll have to take your word for it that the CRJ is better in initial climb...

...But I still think it's a piece of crap. :)
 
AngelFuree said:
Every time I ride as a passenger on the CRJ, I enjoy it. I guess I haven't been exposed to much, but that thing pulls on takeoff! I'm surprised to hear it's underpowered because it feels like it accelerates pretty nicely. The truth is there were only about 6 people in the airplane the day I flew so it must've been due to the lower weight on the short hop from PHL-LGA.

The beast is definitely the 757 though. Textbook short field takeoffs out of Toncontin Int'l (Tegucigalpa, Honduras) are just simply amazing. That plane CLIMBS.
Click to expand...

757 has one of the highest weight to thrust ratios among civil aircraft
 
I hope noone minds a technical question, but why does it lose it's power above 10,000? Ok, obviously any engine is going to lose performance when air pressure decreases, but what makes this effect so drastic in the CRJ as opposed to the mighty 75? Oooh another question...does the fuel economy also take a big hit at altitude?
 
Kevin.Held said:
I hope noone minds a technical question, but why does it lose it's power above 10,000? Ok, obviously any engine is going to lose performance when air pressure decreases, but what makes this effect so drastic in the CRJ as opposed to the mighty 75? Oooh another question...does the fuel economy also take a big hit at altitude?
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is the tiny wing, but most of the problem is the high-bypass engine with a very small hot section. Over 80% of the CF-34's thrust is produced by the bypass air, and when the air starts getting thin up high, then the efficiency of the bypass air drops off quick and you're left with the thrust produced from the tiny hot section.

Fuel economy gets much better up at altitude. When we used to be able to take it up to FL410, you could get M.74 at less than 1000 lbs a side. It was rare to be light enough to get up that high, but even at FL350 you could do M.74 at 1150 a side or so.
 
PCL_128 said:
The CRJ is only underpowered up at altitude. Down low, the thing is a rocket ship and will outclimb pretty much anything except a 757 up through 10,000 ft.
Click to expand...

Now THAT was a good one! :) You had me going there for a second! :)
 
Thing climbs like a pig down low in the summer, too. Lately, I've routinely seen good climb performance right off the takeoff roll, though. Once it starts warming up, that'll stop....
 
Realizing this question has nothing to do with aviation careers...

If the CRJ is such a weak performer, how come there are so many of them compared to similar aircraft like the ERJ and well, the ERJ? Is it the Innitial cost? Been around longer? Opperating Cost? Canadian Mob?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top