Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
Future of the 50-seater? Cargo? >

Future of the 50-seater? Cargo?

Search
Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Future of the 50-seater? Cargo?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-16-2007, 04:45 AM
  #21  
The NeverEnding Story
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,549
Default

Originally Posted by ghilis101 View Post
but who cares if the pilots get autothrottles or not? sure the pilots care, but nobody is really asking them. as for CatIII approaches in a CRJ, that sounds scary. with a x-wind the autopilot will land in a crab on a true zero zero coupled approach. thats nuts with as low as the wings are to the ground and how weak that gear is.
Cat IIIa is not zero/zero.

UPS 727-QFs with the HGS could shoot hand-flown Cat IIIb down to 600 RVR, and you can bet they didn't have autothrottles! The HGS provided a flare and thrust idle cue for the PF, though I'm not sure how that'd work while coupled. With a coupled approach and ATs I'm sure the system would automatically retard the thrust at the appropriate time to land mains first.

The CRJ2 has weak landing gear???? Compared to what, a carrier-borne aircraft?
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 04:49 AM
  #22  
La Familia Delta
 
ghilis101's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Posts: 2,467
Default

oh ok i was thinking catIII autoland my mistake. and side loading on most airplanes makes any gear weak with the exception of airplanes that have more than 2 main gear trucks
ghilis101 is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 04:55 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
saab2000's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,750
Default

We had CatIIIa approach capabilities on the SAAB2000 with a HUD when I was in Europe. Hand-flown. Any real business jet going to Europe needs at the very least Cat II approach capability, which is not hard to get with the CRJ. Cat IIIa is also pretty nice to have and I can think of at least one time when Cat II would not have been adequate. Landing at CDG and called the RWY in sight very near the 50 foot DH.

Anyway, there might be some conversions to biz jet status, but probably not too many.

Also, yes, the system we had gave aural "Idle" and "Flare" cues.

One more thing... The SAAB2000 was vastly more stable and speed control was easier than on the CRJ. It is hard for me to imagine a Cat III approach in the CRJ hand flown. And another thing! They were serious about keeping planes and vehicles out of the ILS sensitive area there. The CatII/III line was much further back than the ILS sensitive line in the US. I once almost had to go around here in ORD because something cross the ILS and we lost the GS. Had we been lower I would have had to go missed. Anyway....

Last edited by saab2000; 11-16-2007 at 05:02 AM.
saab2000 is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 05:03 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Aviatormar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: CH2T Worst plane ever
Posts: 665
Default

Umm, guys to put an end on this, the CRJ into the business jet idea is already taking affect. I have a friend who's company is already buying one and making it into an unreal transcon business bird that is really, really sweet. 20 something seats, aux tanks, new engines and I'm not sure about the autothrottles things, but I'll ask about it. What he said was the company likes it because of the size vs cost. As far as not being able to go up higher then FL410, they get around that by adding huge aux tanks. I'll be you'll start seeing alot, ALOT of birds like this soon, as it just makes sense.
Aviatormar is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 05:27 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
saab2000's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,750
Default

Originally Posted by Aviatormar View Post
Umm, guys to put an end on this, the CRJ into the business jet idea is already taking affect. I have a friend who's company is already buying one and making it into an unreal transcon business bird that is really, really sweet. 20 something seats, aux tanks, new engines and I'm not sure about the autothrottles things, but I'll ask about it. What he said was the company likes it because of the size vs cost. As far as not being able to go up higher then FL410, they get around that by adding huge aux tanks. I'll be you'll start seeing alot, ALOT of birds like this soon, as it just makes sense.
Well, you might be right. After all, the cabin would be pretty spacious for 20 folks or so and the weight issues would be much less. Certainly for some types of ops, including domestic sports charters for smaller teams like basketball teams it might be a good option. East-to-West coast capabilities would help. As would a larger lav!
saab2000 is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 05:45 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Aviatormar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: CH2T Worst plane ever
Posts: 665
Default

Yeah what he said was the lav would be the cross section of the cabin. The galley is behind the lav (I"m guessing accessed through some door, I don't know how it'd work out) but the front was 20 or so pretty plush seats. I"m going to try to find some pictures for something.
Aviatormar is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 09:29 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
captchris's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Who Cares
Posts: 318
Default

I agree with the earlier poster about corp. shuttles. Some companies are already doing this. The Limited (Columbus, OH) I think has two CRJ-200's that run all over the east cost (CMH-TEB-CMH for sure). Take out the overhead bins.... and it'd be a nice corp. a/c...somewhere in the middle of the Challenger and Global.

These things won't ever haul freight.... I would guess it's cheaper to send 5 Caravans on a route than it would be 1 CRJ-100/200. This is probably the same conversation they were having about the B-1900/Dash-8 when the CL-65 came onto the market.
captchris is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 09:40 AM
  #28  
Che Guevara
 
ToiletDuck's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Default

Originally Posted by freezingflyboy View Post
Ive always wondered the same thing. If Cherry air and a few others can make money flying freight in those old DA-20s I'm sure theres money to be made with a larger, more efficient RJ.
Cherry air and companies of the like don't make they money off volume they make their money off "on demand". Mostly car parts. When I worked in Del Rio several companies including Cherry air would come in almost daily. Several times a few of us would go across the river into Acuna, grab some lunch on them, then bring parts back to put on the planes. It cost the factories millions to go down for a day so when they need a specific part they need speed not size. I've seen them fly all the way out there, pick up a small bag of about 15 o-rings, then jump back into the jet and smoke it up to Detroit. No telling what those o-rings ran a piece.
ToiletDuck is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 09:46 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 149
Default

The windows are so low because they were designed for little kids and midgets -- duh.
N618FT is offline  
Old 11-16-2007, 09:47 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
exp96's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 294
Default

[quote=BoilerUP;263870]
You could probably buy a used 200, C-check it, install the big aux fuel tank, hang new engines on the pylons, add HGS and autothrottles up front and totally refurbish the interior to a luxurious 8-12 pax cabin with full-sized lav and galley for well under $20 million.

quote]

And call it a poor mans Global Express!
exp96 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
flyinboxes
Cargo
24
10-10-2007 05:52 AM
Freight Dog
Cargo
1
05-21-2006 09:27 AM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
0
09-14-2005 10:35 PM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
0
07-09-2005 09:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices