RAH "Chautauqua" New Base, St. Thomas

Reply Subscribe

Page 5 of 9

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

12-08-2008 | 09:27 PM

#41

ExperimentalAB

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 3,847

Likes: 10

Quote:

Originally Posted by PILOTGUY

Well, the ERJs and the CRJ700s are EYW capable, but BOTH leave weight restricted on every flight. I have been there when the CRJ700 could only take 46 people due to performance.

That is inconceivable! I've never found myself weight-restricted in the -700 even out of the shorter (relative, of course) mountain strips we fly into, even in the summer.

What would the typical fuel-load be that you are talking about?

12-09-2008 | 03:44 AM

#42

dojetdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 3,732

Likes: 0

From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB

That is inconceivable! I've never found myself weight-restricted in the -700 even out of the shorter (relative, of course) mountain strips we fly into, even in the summer.

Does t take a hit going in and out of ASE?

12-09-2008 | 05:30 AM

#43

Killer51883

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2007

Posts: 842

Likes: 0

From: E-170

i only did one key west turn on the 145 and from key west to mco (about an hour flight time) i think we were limited to 45 people or so. and that was a flaps 22 take off. I cant wait to do it in the 170 to clt. the restrictions will be crazy. Of course the 145 out of EIS (beef island) wouldnt need much gas and could possibly get out with a 45-48 pax restriction. The ATR on the other hand would leave at max gross with out any issues.

12-09-2008 | 06:34 AM

#44

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck

Have you flown the ERJ? Take a look at Key West 4,801ft and I seem to remember an RJ operator going in there on a regular basis.

Static TO without a large fuel load is very doable.

Yes I have, and I guarantee it's weight restricted. If not, there must not be a lot of bags, or someone is LYING about the weight and balance.

Don't argue with me on this one. I flew the ERJ for 3 years with the BEST W&B program in the industry. We had the lightest pax and bag weights, and I'm very familiar with the performance. It can't do a strip that short, full of pax, bags, and gas. Won't happen.

12-09-2008 | 08:43 AM

#45

ToiletDuck

Che Guevara

Joined: Aug 2005

Posts: 6,408

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

It can't do a strip that short, full of pax, bags, and gas. Won't happen.

No one ever said it would. Quite the opposite. Most of those hops would be short legs where very little gas is needed. You're statement about having a hard time on strips of 6,000ft or less is inaccurate when they can takeoff almost full from strips under 5k depending on distance of trip. I'm not arguing with you on it. It's a fact. Looks at Embraer's stats on the plane if you don't believe me. Available on their website.

135(pax@200)

Quote:

Take Off Field Length, ISA, SL, TOW for 400nm 4,364ft 1,330m

145(pax@200)

Quote:

Take Off Field Length, ISA, SL, TOW for 400nm 4,528ft 1,380m

170(pax@220)

Quote:

Take Off Field Length, ISA, SL, TOW for 500nm 3,763ft 1,147m

175(pax@220)

Quote:

Take Off Field Length, ISA, SL, TOW for 500nm 4,137ft 1,261m

190(pax@220)

Quote:

Take Off Field Length, ISA, SL, TOW for 500nm 4,157ft 1,267m

Now if only there was a 170 operator for DAL

12-09-2008 | 08:48 AM

#46

IQuitEagle

Line Holder

Joined: Dec 2007

Posts: 413

Likes: 2

From: B757F CA

[quote=ToiletDuck;514463]

As far as EYW goes there have been ERJ-135s/145s, you mentioned CRJ-700 which I haven't seen, there have even been E-jets.

Anguilla is 5,462ft long.
Beef Island is 4,642ft.
quote]

Wow. I guess they really extended those runways. It has been a while since I was down there. Long runways though would take a lot of the fun out of the flying there.

Regardless, no jet can operate there with the efficiency, high loads, and range of the ATR.

12-09-2008 | 09:06 AM

#47

Oskeewowow

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 324

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer51883

Did EYW-CLT about a month ago in a 175. If I remember correctly, we didn't have to kick anyone off and flexed to ~40. It reminded me a lot of flying out of MDW, except that there weren't houses at the end of the runway.

Really the only issues I have with EYW in the 170/5 are the tiny taxiways and the poor drainage system on the field.

12-09-2008 | 09:12 AM

#48

ToiletDuck

Che Guevara

Joined: Aug 2005

Posts: 6,408

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by IQuitEagle

Wow. I guess they really extended those runways. It has been a while since I was down there. Long runways though would take a lot of the fun out of the flying there.

Regardless, no jet can operate there with the efficiency, high loads, and range of the ATR.

No doubt but neither could a lot of the routes being flown by DAL. Take a look at how we fly out of CVG it's crazy. Some flights are only 7min. There's no way the jet is as efficient or as capable as the props in that atmosphere but they are still capable of getting in and out. I know we talk a lot about CASM and how that factors but we have no idea what overhead DAL is making off getting those people there through their mainline connections(If this ends up being for real and not just a rumor).

Dal doesn't have to compete directly with ARM there. Different hubs full of people that want to make one less connection. ATL and others are big enough to supply the pax to fill up those little birds.

12-09-2008 | 09:29 AM

#49

Lighteningspeed

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2007

Posts: 1,206

Likes: 0

From: G550 Captain

I have no stake in this issue but based on previous reports by aviation analysts, I do not see E145s flying these routes. More likely cadidates will be turboprops like Saab 340s or Q400s. E175s and CRJ900s maybe able to do larger airports like Nassau from ATL non stop. This possibility has been floating around since 2007.

12-09-2008 | 09:37 AM

#50

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck

No one ever said it would. Quite the opposite. Most of those hops would be short legs where very little gas is needed. You're statement about having a hard time on strips of 6,000ft or less is inaccurate when they can takeoff almost full from strips under 5k depending on distance of trip. I'm not arguing with you on it. It's a fact. Looks at Embraer's stats on the plane if you don't believe me. Available on their website.

121 rules won't really allow that. You can't go bouncing around in an RJ with very little gas, and pax on board. I never said that the RJ couldn't do it(only when very light), I said it wasn't feasible. You can't put a lot on it, it doesn't make sense.