Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2791225/

Topic: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Aeronut
Posted 2006-05-26 01:18:04 and read 9378 times.

Stretched CRJ-900 Likely To Appear Before Larger Turboprop
By Lori Ranson
05/24/2006 10:35:22 AM

Bombardier will likely debut its touted 900x before a stretched Q400 turboprop as the airframer firms up the necessary design changes and discussions with potential customers continue.

The company has put more emphasis on stretching current aircraft models since scaling back its plans for the new C-series aircraft family earlier this year. Previously, Bombardier said it's evaluating a 100-seat version of the 86-seat CRJ-900 and a 90-seat version of the Q400 turboprop that's currently offered in a 70- to 76-seat configuration (DAILY, March 15).

Bombardier VP-Marketing and Communications Trung Ngo told The DAILY this week at the Regional Airline Association (RAA) convention in Dallas, Texas, that specifications of the 900X would probably be firmed up before specs of the Q400.

"We're at the point [with the 900X] where we'd like to identify the launch and be in a position to firm up the available date for that aircraft," Ngo said but also noted no definitive date has been set.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: 2H4
Posted 2006-05-26 01:21:46 and read 9363 times.




Quoting Aeronut (Thread starter):
before a stretched Q400 turboprop

Dear god...how much longer can they extend the thing?  eek 

http://www.airshow.dk/images/q400.jpg





2H4


Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Nwa1978
Posted 2006-05-26 01:41:23 and read 9320 times.

Well, since I am one of the few who actually like the CRJ, I would love to see a larger version. It would obviously make sense for all the curent 700 operators assuming it would carry the same engines and share alot of the same peices. Anyone have any drawings of what the bird would look like? From where I have searched, info seems to be a little scarce at the moment. As large as regionals are getting, it wont be long before you see the 900x flying mainline flights since it will be close to the size of the 717. Just my $0.02

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Challenger300
Posted 2006-05-26 13:30:43 and read 8879 times.

To the brilliant one who doesn't think that the longer 900 will sell...wait a few weeks!...cheers!

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-05-26 16:34:36 and read 8748 times.

The CRJ900 is five fuselage frames longer than the CRJ700 which allowed 16 more seats plus an extra lav and extra galley, so an additional four frames will give 16 more seats, so 86 + 16 = 102 Y-seats @ 31 inch pitch... that's not too long.

A little more wing and more thrust and there you go, shouldn't be too expensive.

I wonder which airline will launch it... any hot guesses?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Lightsaber
Posted 2006-05-26 18:22:17 and read 8642 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 6):
A little more wing and more thrust and there you go, shouldn't be too expensive.

Yep... throw on the E190 engines... so that's cheap.

But the wing could be an issue. How much more wingspan would be required?

And what range would this airframe have? Since this gets back to the wing, the amount of money Bombardier is willing to put into the wing will entirely determine the CRJ900XXX's chances of success. (In my opinion)

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 1):
Dear god...how much longer can they extend the thing?

Did Branson express interest in a turboprop?  duck 

Serious question, what timeframe are we talking for EIS? Is Bombardier considering larger windows than the CR7/CR9? Any more headroom? larger bathroom? (Please, a larger bathroom). Seat changes? I'm curious.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: N766UA
Posted 2006-05-26 18:57:27 and read 8588 times.

I thought the CR9 and Q400 were ridiculously long as it is. They're honestly planning on stretching both?! These things are gunna look like the modified airliners photoshop photos.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: RentonView
Posted 2006-05-26 19:08:00 and read 8564 times.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 4):
For a short history, he is the guy that launch the Q400

And you are saying that was a mistake? It's one of the few turboprops doing reasonably well, and will probably continue to do well as oil stays high.

I second that... what's wrong with the Q400? It continues to receive substantial orders, and is actually making money for the airlines that fly it, such as QX.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Flying-Tiger
Posted 2006-05-26 20:00:00 and read 8478 times.

I would take a look towards Italy for a CRJ900X lauch customer IMO. Plus there is a big German line, which might be interested, too... Only guesses though.

The Q500 (my designation for the Q400X) could be a highly interesting plane, especially for Europe. Short segments to and from hubs in most countries where you are actually wasting an A319 or B737-500 - perfect terrain for a 90 seat turboprop. And likely with extremly low CASMs... FlyBE anyone?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: A342
Posted 2006-05-26 20:17:21 and read 8341 times.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 11):
And likely with extremly low CASMs... FlyBE anyone?

Nah, the Q400 and E-195 are a bit close. But MOL could get wet hands. With the Q400X, he could bring new life to thousands of airports ! But:  shhh   Wink

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Skymileman
Posted 2006-05-26 21:46:13 and read 7759 times.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
And what range would this airframe have?

My concern exactly. Remember back when they kept stretching the DC-9 and its range got less and less and less with each stretch. That wasn't quite as big a deal back then, but today, it's got to have range competitive with the E-Jets or it won't sell.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Scoljet
Posted 2006-05-26 22:52:41 and read 7369 times.

The line between RJ's and mainline equipment is getting ever so hazy! The CRJ200/700's are great looking jets but the 900 is quite gangly and unorthodox, I cannot imagine a stretched version of the 900?? Anyway, makes one wonder why Boeing killed the 717 when it would have solved all these problems whilst maintaining the "mainline" equipment we all love.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: NASCARAirforce
Posted 2006-05-27 06:22:45 and read 6623 times.

Stretching the CRJ-900 even more??? Ummm what about tail scrapes?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Voodoo
Posted 2006-05-27 11:36:45 and read 6559 times.

Maybe make it a double decker?  Silly

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-05-27 19:33:23 and read 6439 times.

Might NW and DL be interested in the 900X?

CRJ900s for 76-seat two-class regional ops and CRJ900X for mainline 92-100-seat one- or two-class concepts... Just like E is offering the E175 and E190...

I have read comments here on A.net from people who actually work with the CRJ900s and they are enthusiastic about the aircraft from an operational point of view, it flies well, is sturdy, economical and overall nice. It has a long take-off roll, but if the 900X has a larger wing with more lifting ability - will the 900X then be as sprightly as the CRJ701 or is length of fuselage the only factor coupled with low landing gear?

[Edited 2006-05-27 19:41:29]

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2006-05-27 20:12:52 and read 6405 times.

Stretching the CRJ900X is a good idea. Embraer needs the competition. It will keep everyone honest and spur more improvements to the E-Jets in the process.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Rheinbote
Posted 2006-05-27 20:31:10 and read 6390 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 14):
I have read comments here on A.net from people who actually work with the CRJ900s and they are enthusiastic about the aircraft from an operational point of view

How about CRJ900 mechanics - are they enthusiastic as well?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Saab2000
Posted 2006-05-27 20:38:08 and read 6379 times.

The CRJ is a concept that is past it's useful life, IMHO. It is narrow, cramped, has poor carry-on baggage capacity, etc. The EMB series of jets is great, and something like 8 inches wider, making for a vastly more comfortable ride.

That said, I don't know about fuel consumption of the CRJs compared to the EMB jets, or other direct operating costs. I have heard it is slightly lower.



Quoting Nwa1978 (Reply 2):
it wont be long before you see the 900x flying mainline flights since it will be close to the size of the 717.

The so-called 'regional' airlines have been flying so-called 'mainline' routes for a long time now. One of the main reasons that the 717 died is that the airlines now consider that size of airplane to be a 'regional' airplane and pay accordingly (read very poorly) for 'regional' crew members. But the unions don't allow the 717 to be flown by 'regional' airlines as it is considered their sacred territory.

You are 100% correct though that the larger CRJs and EMB jets are eating into the turf of the mainline pilots. This is too bad IMHO.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-05-27 21:06:32 and read 6335 times.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 17):
The CRJ is a concept that is past it's useful life, IMHO.

Then you won't be happy to read this quote: "BBD is also willing to consider any other changes to the plane to stay competitive during the next 20 years, Ngo explained."

I found the article on www.aviationnow.com, keyword CRJ 900X.

Apparently they are "considering changes in the wing size" of the current -900 to support a 900X and they are still planning on using the GE CF34-8C5 engine... how much thrust can they wring out of the CF34-8, actually? Considering changes in the wing size?? I thought that was an absolute necessity...?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Johnny
Posted 2006-05-28 16:47:07 and read 6114 times.

What a horrible imagination.A further stretched CRJ900... Sad

The dash 8-400 shouldn´t be stretched either.

Why not developing a 5 abreast fuselage instead of ?!?

Johnny  Smile

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Lightsaber
Posted 2006-05-28 18:53:54 and read 6050 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 18):

Apparently they are "considering changes in the wing size" of the current -900 to support a 900X and they are still planning on using the GE CF34-8C5 engine... how much thrust can they wring out of the CF34-8, actually? Considering changes in the wing size?? I thought that was an absolute necessity...?

First, thank you for the link, alas it wouldn't load this morning.  Sad

2nd, Stick with the -10?!? I'm a little dubious of this. Why?
1. The -900 already has a step climb issue, needs more range (in my opinion, to compete with the E-jets) and is about to be stretched

2. The CF24-10 already provides a nice boost in thrust. Yes, a new nacelle requires a new certification. But I find it difficult to believe that there is much margin left in the -8 or their nacelles to squeeze out enough thrust to be worth the effort. Oh, I could be wrong... but it seems unlikely.

As to the wing... that's an obvious required change. It will need more fuel capacity and better aerodynamics. If Bombardier pulls this off while keeping it mostly derived from their current wing, my hat will be off to them for that accomplishment. Its even possible they could get enough weight out of the wing to do the job... but that's a material switch on a lot of parts which is not trivial...

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2006-05-28 19:01:04 and read 6035 times.

I don't know if I am the only one that realizes that the topic statement is completely misleading.

The tread starter states that the "CRJ 900X Close To Launch" yet he posts...

Quoting Aeronut (Thread starter):
...that specifications of the 900X would probably be firmed up before specs of the Q400.


Just where in any of the statements posted is there any indication that the CRJ900X is "close" to launch? The specs are not even firmed up yet!!

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Boeing Nut
Posted 2006-05-28 19:02:46 and read 6035 times.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 19):
Why not developing a 5 abreast fuselage instead of ?!?

Fuselage stretch = R&D$ down 
Widen fuselage = R&D$ up 

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-05-29 19:41:13 and read 5842 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 21):
Just where in any of the statements posted is there any indication that the CRJ900X is "close" to launch? The specs are not even firmed up yet!!

You can be such a killjoy at times  Wink We who like the CRJ900 cheer every time we hear a piece of news regarding the plane, which is not too often  Smile Anyhow, BBD has been delivering CRJ900s to several customers lately without any big announcements, so perhaps the 900X specs are firmed up more than we think...?

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 8):
I would take a look towards Italy for a CRJ900X lauch customer IMO. Plus there is a big German line, which might be interested, too...

And what about IB Regional Air Nostrum? Might the CRJ900X be a suitable airplane now that the A318 was dropped by IB? If 70+ seat scope clauses are the reason why Air Nostrum haven't bought MORE CRJ900s, how/why are they allowed to operate ONE CRJ900? Does it have any special exceptions to the rules?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Aeronut
Posted 2006-05-30 00:38:17 and read 5814 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 23):
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 21):
Just where in any of the statements posted is there any indication that the CRJ900X is "close" to launch? The specs are not even firmed up yet!!



Quoting Aeronut (Thread starter):
"We're at the point [with the 900X] where we'd like to identify the launch and be in a position to firm up the available date for that aircraft," Ngo said but also noted no definitive date has been set.

Think that last line in here says it all.. That airshow in July sounds like good timing to me for a launch..

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: DLKAPA
Posted 2006-05-30 00:44:10 and read 5803 times.

Wow... if you're a wing designer at Bombardier you've gotta be makin money.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Flying-Tiger
Posted 2006-05-30 14:28:49 and read 5671 times.

For the streched Q400 it appears that momentum is building. Apparently Horizon Air and Island Air are looking at it according to Flight International.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-05-30 16:07:14 and read 5626 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 23):
And what about IB Regional Air Nostrum?

I can answer my own question, as the order sheet at BBD.com shows that Air Nostrum had 8 more CRJ900 on order as of April 30     

Also, the SkyWest order for 17 x CRJ900 is now official, converted from the CRJ701 order. The 8 undisclosed must be the 6 for Air One and 2 for Arik...?

There are now 95 x CRJ900 ordered and if you include the 15 x CRJ900 flying as -705s, the -900 frame has now picked up 110 orders... isn't the number "100" kind of like a "stamp of success" and thus convincing airlines and leasing companies that this aircraft type has potential?

For all you engine experts, could the PW6000 be an option on the CRJ900X or is it just too big and bulky with too much thrust (18,000-24,000 lbs)?

[Edited 2006-05-30 16:30:15]

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: A342
Posted 2006-05-30 21:24:25 and read 5536 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 27):
For all you engine experts, could the PW6000 be an option on the CRJ900X or is it just too big and bulky with too much thrust (18,000-24,000 lbs)?

Way too big. It can deliver up to 107 kN of thrust.

IIRC the current engines have 63.5 KN thrust. The RR BR-710 might be an alternative delivering up to 70 (or 68.4 ?) kN. The RR-715 can deliver up to 93.4 kN, but IMO that's already too much.


But as Lightsaber explained, a GE CF-34-10 series engine is the most likely candidate if a more powerful engine should be needed.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-05-30 22:06:53 and read 5501 times.

Quoting A342 (Reply 28):
But as Lightsaber explained, a GE CF-34-10 series engine is the most likely candidate if a more powerful engine should be needed.

Yes, I agree, but I read in another thread that the CF34-10 is a "mini-CFM56" and therefore more complicated than the CF34-8... with a huge certification process to match.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2006-05-30 23:57:09 and read 5433 times.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 26):
For the stretched Q400 it appears that momentum is building. Apparently Horizon Air and Island Air are looking at it according to Flight International.

Just read today that CO has issued a RFP for about 20 70 seat turbo-props. They seem willing to consider a stretched Q400. I don't understand why BBD doesn't offer a high-speed 6 blade turbo-prop version of the Q300? It would make for an interesting family of high-speed props,50,70 and 90 seats.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Aeronut
Posted 2006-05-31 01:04:40 and read 5391 times.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 30):

Whynot deplug the Q400? It would give you a Q300 with modern avionics and a new engine? Probably cheaper than integrating a new engine on the Q300 wing.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: ATWZW170
Posted 2006-05-31 02:07:52 and read 5348 times.

The only way that BBD should have a larger CRJ 900 is if they will increase the size of the cabin. Add 4 inches to each side and it might be a pretty cool plane. I don't mind the plane as long as it's more comfortable for the passengers and cabin crew. Right now we fly the 200, it's an ok plane but I hate the cabin. Redo the cabin and it just might be worth something.

Can they actualy add more room in the cabin?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Voodoo
Posted 2006-05-31 13:44:28 and read 5228 times.

Can they incorporate some C-series features....since some design money has already been sunk. ?
Whacky idea....Put an appropriately sized (length) C-series cabin on -900 empennage?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Boeing Nut
Posted 2006-05-31 15:43:01 and read 5167 times.

Quoting ATWZW170 (Reply 32):
Can they actualy add more room in the cabin?

Not without some extremely serious redesigning. The problem there is, that would increase the cost and complexity of the airplane. Stretching is much more economical and from what I understand, Bombarier has improved the interior of the -700 over the -200 anyway.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: DAYflyer
Posted 2006-05-31 15:50:49 and read 5161 times.

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 34):
Bombarier has improved the interior of the -700 over the -200 anyway.



Iv'e flown both on Comair and the differences are very minor in my opinion. Plus the 700 was plauged with mx problems and delayed flights.  mad 

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Lawgman
Posted 2006-05-31 16:21:48 and read 5118 times.

I was under the impression that they may be able to use and/or adapt the wing from the Global Express business jet. The wings on Global Express are significantly bigger than the 900 and the aircrafty is essentially a long range business version of the CRJ.

The big problem may actually be the strength of the Canadian dollar. It will make it difficult to compete with Embraer. I guess all the talk of BBD building planes in Mexico may be more of a reality.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2006-05-31 17:14:40 and read 5079 times.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 35):
Iv'e flown both on Comair and the differences are very minor in my opinion. Plus the 700 was plauged with mx problems and delayed flights.

While I don't disagree out of hand, as I've never flown the -200, my flights on the -700 at QX have been just fine, and the comfort level was good for an under-2 hour flight.

I've heard all the negatives of the -200's, but I think much of that was addressed when the -700 was done.

-Dave

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Lightsaber
Posted 2006-05-31 18:24:48 and read 5021 times.

Quoting Lawgman (Reply 36):
I was under the impression that they may be able to use and/or adapt the wing from the Global Express business jet. The wings on Global Express are significantly bigger than the 900 and the aircrafty is essentially a long range business version of the CRJ.

Really? I didn't know this! This would actually make for a really cheap upgrade. If the wings are basically ready as you note... then Bombardier would *need* a more powerfull engine quick.

Questions:
1. How much more fuel do the Global Express wings hold than the current 900 wings?
2. What is the true MTOW for this wing? 93,500lbm for the global express from a quick Google, but I don't claim that is definative. Compared to 84,500 of the current 900, thats and impressive increase. So there is merit to going with this wing. Thanks for point this out! (I didn't realize there was such a difference in MTOW.)
3. Could the 900X go with the BMR 710 engines of the Global express?

Ok, before you cart me off to the funny farm, give me a minute on this.
A. The 710 is much more fuel efficient than the CF34-8.
B. Bombardier already has a nacelle for this engine
C. Bombardier already has a supply contract for one airframe and this engine
D. RR would *do anything* to get this engine on one more airframe.  hyper 
E. The 710 provides the climb and cruise thrust increase that the -900 *needs*.

Personally, I like the BR 71x series. It seems to have developed a good reputation in the industry in the 717 version (I cannot speak for the 710, only the 715. ) Although, I would guess most customers would wish to stick with the -8. Any thoughts? I do not have a good feel on how much more the CF34-8 could be pushed... There is always some room for growth, but would it be enough? I've already been reading about the -900's need to step climb. That tells me the -8 doesn't have enough durability margin to +up the cruise thrust as would be required for the -900X. Thus... I speculate a new engine is required. This opens the field to two contenders. The CF34-10 and the BR710/715. However, due to the global express, the advantage for time to market now falls to the BR 710.  scratchchin  But customer loyalty would probably favor the CF34-10. Very interesting...

With the realization that there is another wing ready and a quick engine option...  scratchchin  My opinion on the new -900X has been elevated. Its much more technically feasable (quickly) than I realized. I love it when I learn something on a.net!  bigthumbsup 

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: OyKIE
Posted 2006-05-31 19:29:26 and read 4961 times.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 38):
With the realization that there is another wing ready and a quick engine option... My opinion on the new -900X has been elevated. Its much more technically feasable (quickly) than I realized. I love it when I learn something on a.net!

Lightsaber

I agree completely. After reading your and Lawgmans post this must be the most brilliant idea for Bombardier at this point. And of course this brings out some questions.

Will this stretched Global Express as the -900X have the same crew commonality as the CRJ family? IIRC There is a new six screen Honeywell fly-by-wire flight deck on the Global Express.

The Global Express has a high cruise speed of 0.88Mach, and between 0.8-0.85 Mach long range cruise speed. With this new wing will the CRJ-900X
match or even exceed the cruise speed and range of the Embraer E-Jets?

Will it match the Global Express high cruising altitude?

With this wing and the BR710 engined the -900X will look better than the current -900 even if it will be stretched further.

The wing area of the Global Express is 94,95m2 and this is more than the 93m2 of the Boeing 717. Now my question is. Will it be possible to strengthen this wing to accommodate the 20 Tonne higher take-off weight that the 717 enjoys.

Is the BR715 more fuel efficient than the BR710?

So many questions. But when I come to think about it. This might be the plane that gives Bombardier a better performing jet than Embraer. Had it only been wider.....

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Lightsaber
Posted 2006-05-31 21:47:00 and read 4905 times.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 39):
Will it match the Global Express high cruising altitude?

That will depend on MTOW and cruise engine thrust. If the engines are trimmed to supply the cruise thrust (e.g., correct amount of HPT cooling) there is no reason it couldn't cruise up high!

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 39):
The wing area of the Global Express is 94,95m2 and this is more than the 93m2 of the Boeing 717. Now my question is. Will it be possible to strengthen this wing to accommodate the 20 Tonne higher take-off weight that the 717 enjoys.

Nice numbers. Thanks.

I would think that Bombardier would want to keep the wing loading down to maximize range and minimize costs. But you have a good point... Adding 20 Tonne more of fuel, tanks, and payload would make the -900X an impressive economic machine *if its used gainfully*.  scratchchin 

Don't get me wrong, I like the E-jet layout. However, this industry must be driven by economics. Is customer preference strong enough to keep this plane from the market? In my opinion no. A 3 across F/J class product will more than make up for a little headroom for the premium passangers. Y passangers will go for the cheaper ticket anyway... And if the -900X has more range...  scratchchin 

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 39):
Is the BR715 more fuel efficient than the BR710?

Good question. I do not have good data on the BR710. What the BR715 has going for it is added thrust. Thrust that shouldn't be needed for the -900X. Now its my understanding is that the BR715 is run enough harder to get better TSFC. But all engines get better TSFC if they're run harder (if the turbine cooling can keep up).

Man... get a few more details and things really become interesting...  Smile

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: OyKIE
Posted 2006-05-31 23:41:58 and read 4849 times.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 40):
That will depend on MTOW and cruise engine thrust. If the engines are trimmed to supply the cruise thrust (e.g., correct amount of HPT cooling) there is no reason it couldn't cruise up high!

If the engines are trimmed that way would the be less efficient on short routes?

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 40):
I would think that Bombardier would want to keep the wing loading down to maximize range and minimize costs. But you have a good point... Adding 20 Tonne more of fuel, tanks, and payload would make the -900X an impressive economic machine *if its used gainfully*.

Maybe if they would do a super stretch? I guess there are a certain length where this fuselage will be most structural efficient.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 40):
Don't get me wrong, I like the E-jet layout. However, this industry must be driven by economics. Is customer preference strong enough to keep this plane from the market? In my opinion no. A 3 across F/J class product will more than make up for a little headroom for the premium passengers. Y passengers will go for the cheaper ticket anyway... And if the -900X has more range...

I agree with you completely. And beside the economic facts I personally have always enjoyed a variety of airplane design. If this Global-Express-900X mutation comes true it will be interesting to follow the approach.

By the way The Embraer E-190 (36.24m) and the CRJ-900 (36.40m) have about the same length, but the E-190 seats up to 106, while the CRJ-900 seats up to 90. This could affect the economy, if there will be a whole family of Global-Express based CRJ's

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 40):
Good question. I do not have good data on the BR710. What the BR715 has going for it is added thrust. Thrust that shouldn't be needed for the -900X. Now its my understanding is that the BR715 is run enough harder to get better TSFC. But all engines get better TSFC if they're run harder (if the turbine cooling can keep up).

Thank you very much for your informative and always positive post on Airlines.net. You are now one of my Respected Users on A.net.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: OyKIE
Posted 2006-05-31 23:52:24 and read 4838 times.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 40):
A 3 across F/J class product will more than make up for a little headroom for the premium passangers.

Picture from Bombardier.com interior config of CRJ-900 in Business. Underlines your thought about the 3 across making up for a little headroom for premium passengers.



Follow this link to see more interior pictures

http://www.crj.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/interior.jsp?langId=en&crjId=900

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Lightsaber
Posted 2006-06-01 01:27:37 and read 4807 times.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 41):
If the engines are trimmed that way would the be less efficient on short routes?

 checkmark  Its all in the trade studies...  spin 

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 41):
Thank you very much for your informative and always positive post on Airlines.net. You are now one of my Respected Users on A.net.

Thank you.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 42):
Picture from Bombardier.com interior config of CRJ-900 in Business.

Thanks for the pictures and link. Although I bet the lady standing up is 5' 7" or shorter.  Wink I have to say, its a well staged photo (how such a PR photo should be). The foreground ladies are each to one side of the seat to emphasize the seat width, etc.

Again, the more I think about this, the more I think Bombardier can make something of the -900X. And I say this as someone who *really* likes the E-jets and dislikes the lack of headroom in the CRJ's. But let's face reality, the economics matter more than a little seat width or headroom.  Sad As the F/J will get those nice cushy 3 across seats... they'll still be happy.  Smile

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Aeronut
Posted 2006-06-01 01:41:01 and read 4797 times.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 39):
I agree completely. After reading your and Lawgmans post this must be the most brilliant idea for Bombardier at this point. And of course this brings out some questions.

Will this stretched Global Express as the -900X have the same crew commonality as the CRJ family? IIRC There is a new six screen Honeywell fly-by-wire flight deck on the Global Express.

The Global Express has a high cruise speed of 0.88Mach, and between 0.8-0.85 Mach long range cruise speed. With this new wing will the CRJ-900X
match or even exceed the cruise speed and range of the Embraer E-Jets?

Will it match the Global Express high cruising altitude?

With this wing and the BR710 engined the -900X will look better than the current -900 even if it will be stretched further.

The wing area of the Global Express is 94,95m2 and this is more than the 93m2 of the Boeing 717. Now my question is. Will it be possible to strengthen this wing to accommodate the 20 Tonne higher take-off weight that the 717 enjoys.

Is the BR715 more fuel efficient than the BR710?

So many questions. But when I come to think about it. This might be the plane that gives Bombardier a better performing jet than Embraer. Had it only been wider.....

Great idea.. when Global Express first got assembled the wing was tagged as a candidate wing for a future 100 seater. Never quite happened though. Think the MTOW of GX is 98,000lbs actually. GX isn't fly-by-wire unless something is afoot. Turning a GX (in its present form) into a 100 seater would probably cost more that simply stretching the CRJ900.

Is that wing really optimized for regional applications anyways?

Personnaly, I believe that the 900X is a temporary stop-gap. Perhaps you'll see a new / upgraded platform spanning high end business applications and regional aircraft.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2006-06-01 09:08:10 and read 4691 times.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 31):
Whynot deplug the Q400? It would give you a Q300 with modern avionics and a new engine? Probably cheaper than integrating a new engine on the Q300 wing.

BTW, BBD had the Q500 (a shortened Q400) on the drawing board in 2000 and did talk to airlines about it but nothing came of it because not only were RJ's all the rage, but the Q500 would have cost the same as the ERJ-145.

Quoting Lawgman (Reply 36):
I was under the impression that they may be able to use and/or adapt the wing from the Global Express business jet. The wings on Global Express are significantly bigger than the 900 and the aircrafty is essentially a long range business version of the CRJ.

FYI, the GX is absolutely not "essentially a long range business version of the CRJ". The GX is a complete "clean-sheet" design and the wings could never be used on the CRJ900.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: OyKIE
Posted 2006-06-01 13:18:56 and read 4644 times.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 44):
GX isn't fly-by-wire unless something is afoot. Turning a GX (in its present form) into a 100 seater would probably cost more that simply stretching the CRJ900.

According to Gerard Frawley, The author of The International Directory og CIVIL Aircraft, states that the GX is a Fly-by-wire flight deck. I did a search on GX homepage, and could not find anything about the FBW flight deck, so you might be right in that regard.

It might cost more to make the GX a 100 seater, but if it was to perform much better than just a CRJ-900 stretch it might be worth the investment? The wing, engine and tail on the CRJ-900 makes it seem like the -900 is at the end of stretching capabilities. When you see the massive wing of the GC and the bigger engine, a stretch beyond the CRJ-900 would seem more probable IMO.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 44):
Personnaly, I believe that the 900X is a temporary stop-gap. Perhaps you'll see a new / upgraded platform spanning high end business applications and regional aircraft.

You might be right. Especially if it is only a stretch of the -900, and not much else, I would believe that the -900X is to little to late.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 44):
Is that wing really optimized for regional applications anyways?

I was thinking about the same thing. It has a super critical wing with a 35 degree sweep. Anyone here on A.net, might be able to answer this.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 45):
FYI, the GX is absolutely not "essentially a long range business version of the CRJ". The GX is a complete "clean-sheet" design and the wings could never be used on the CRJ900.

I think he meant this in a simplified way. The CRJ and GX features the same fuselage cross-section, and wouldn't it be possible to stretch the GX about 10 meters from it's current 30,3 meters and make that the proposed -900X. That way it will rather be a GX stretch rather than a -900 stretch.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Challengerdan
Posted 2006-06-01 19:27:12 and read 4552 times.

I don't see the GX wing and engines making it into the CRJ family. like Planemaker said, that wing doesn't fit on a CRJ, at least not readily. It could be made to though... But for the engines, having a CRJ with BR engines instead of CF34s would mean redesigning secondary systems such as hydraulics, airconditioning and such. From a spares/pilot commonalty stand point, it just wouldn't work.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: OyKIE
Posted 2006-06-01 19:48:57 and read 4532 times.

Quoting Challengerdan (Reply 47):
I don't see the GX wing and engines making it into the CRJ family. like Planemaker said, that wing doesn't fit on a CRJ, at least not readily. It could be made to though... But for the engines, having a CRJ with BR engines instead of CF34s would mean redesigning secondary systems such as hydraulics, airconditioning and such. From a spares/pilot commonalty stand point, it just wouldn't work.

But would it be possible to just stretch the GX and offer that as a RJ for airlines? That way I believe Bombardier would have a good competitor for the Embraer.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-06-02 01:06:36 and read 4453 times.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 46):
The CRJ and GX features the same fuselage cross-section, and wouldn't it be possible to stretch the GX about 10 meters from it's current 30,3 meters and make that the proposed -900X.

Does the GX fuselage have room for the baggage compartment under the cabin floor, like on the CRJ700 and -900? Otherwise the GX-stretch-900 will need a MASSIVE rear cargo hold, perhaps an extra 5 metres... making it a 45 metre long plane.

On a side note, the GX looks mighty fine... engines look really great too!

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Aeronut
Posted 2006-06-02 01:15:47 and read 4447 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 49):



Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 49):
Does the GX fuselage have room for the baggage compartment under the cabin floor, like on the CRJ700 and -900? Otherwise the GX-stretch-900 will need a MASSIVE rear cargo hold, perhaps an extra 5 metres... making it a 45 metre long plane.

On a side note, the GX looks mighty fine... engines look really great too!

Kick Ass plane... Underfloor filled completly with avionics... this is certified for ultralong rangem ETOPS, etc.. overkill from a systems perspective for regional applications...

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: Aeronut
Posted 2006-06-02 03:16:40 and read 4395 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 45):
BTW, BBD had the Q500 (a shortened Q400) on the drawing board in 2000 and did talk to airlines about it but nothing came of it because not only were RJ's all the rage, but the Q500 would have cost the same as the ERJ-145.

Absolutely true, and maybe this idea will be resurrected. What is the stretch Q400 gonna being called anyways?

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2006-06-02 04:00:54 and read 4368 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 45):
BTW, BBD had the Q500 (a shortened Q400) on the drawing board in 2000 and did talk to airlines about it but nothing came of it because not only were RJ's all the rage, but the Q500 would have cost the same as the ERJ-145.

This is the first time I've heard that BBD had seriously looked at offering the high-speed version of the Q300. The current high fuel costs must have BBD dusting off the drawings? I'm reasonably confident that this is an opportune period to launch the aircraft.

Topic: RE: CRJ 900X Close To Launch
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2006-06-03 10:22:21 and read 4267 times.

Interesting discussion about turning the GX into a 100-seater regional jet... but how feasible would that be? I hope that some BBD engineers are reading this thread and taking notes...  Smile

But if the CRJ900 is to be stretched the usual way, will they make it a just-about-100-seater - as in adding 3-4 fuselage frames so that 100 seats can be squeezed in but not much else OR will they stretch it so much (5-6 frames) that the aircraft can have 106-108 seats at most but normally 100 seats with extra room for auxiliary galleys, baggage, IFE cabinet etc - like the E190? I would recommend the latter option to make it more tempting for airlines...


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/