Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Questions About The CRJ 900X And The Q400 Stretch  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10100 times:

Since the ongoing debate is about Bombardier dropping the C-Series for now Bombardier says it is working on a stretch CRJ codenamed CRJ-900X and a Q400 stretch

i thought it might be interesting to start a new thread about these two airplanes, since the other thread about the Bombardier to jilt the C-series is about the C-series, and not these to planes.

Now for some reason my first thread about the two new airplanes Studies were removed. Don't know why.

My question about these two new airplanes is if anyone have any information at all regarding what the modifications would be to the 900X and Q400 Stretch? I remember reading about a wing redesign and a stretch. Any comments thoughts would be appreciated.

This is the article and information I have about the 2 planes for now.


Http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=3883


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10086 times:

I am pretty sure, that those "streches" will not really face a bright future. It will probably have an outcome as the MD90, which was a nice aircraft but never really able to compete with it's competitors.

So comparing an E195 and a A318 with a CRJ900X? I don't even like the imagination.

Cheers
Legacy135 Wink


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10078 times:

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 1):
am pretty sure, that those "streches" will not really face a bright future. It will probably have an outcome as the MD90, which was a nice aircraft but never really able to compete with it's competitors.

In my opinion the MD-90 could have been a success if MDD had developed a larger wing giving the plane a better range.

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 1):
So comparing an E195 and a A318 with a CRJ900X? I don't even like the imagination.

I do agree with that. Especially if they don't upgrade the plane more than just stretching it.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10066 times:

The MD-90 really did need a new wing, for better range and efficiency. You could easily argue that Douglas lost their way after McDonnell bought them out.

And I don't see how you could stretch the Q400 to seat 100 like the article says without extensive design work that would basically constitute a new plane anyway.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10061 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 3):
And I don't see how you could stretch the Q400 to seat 100 like the article says without extensive design work that would basically constitute a new plane anyway.

Does the CRJ and the Q400 share some fuselage parts? They have the same fuselage diameter IIRC.

One should believe that it would require a massive rework on the both planes to stretch it even further.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 3):
The MD-90 really did need a new wing, for better range and efficiency. You could easily argue that Douglas lost their way after McDonnell bought them out.

It seems that when Donald Douglas left there was not to much left originality in the company left.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting, I thought I was the only one here who asks questions about that long and lanky bird (the CR9) from Canada...  Smile

Anyhoo, the CRJ and Dash8 have different fuselages, the D8 is a little wider - according to the Q400.com info page - due to the high wing, I assume...

If and when pilot scope clauses are renegotiated to allow 90 seats instead of the current 70, the CRJ900X (CRJ905???) may have some success. The 9X stretch is 1 row (4 seats) with a wing-root insert. I guess that means a little more wing material too to increase performance and fuel capacity...? Engines will be uprated, according to FI.

If the -9X can perform as sprightly as the CRJ701 it will be a great airplane, I'm sure.

Stretching the Q400 will not be easy - it's pretty long already... but what do I know...  Smile



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 5):
Interesting, I thought I was the only one here who asks questions about that long and lanky bird (the CR9) from Canada...

PS: I meant that in a positive and encouraging way, y'all... keep askin'  Smile



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9890 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 5):
Interesting, I thought I was the only one here who asks questions about that long and lanky bird (the CR9) from Canada...

I find that very interesting as there is no CRJ900 in Norway  Smile I like Bombardier and would like them to stand a chance, but it seems like they are falling behind right now.

Thanks for info on the CRJ-900X I get the feeling, that this extension is not so huge as I first thought. Still it will be interesting to see how it performs.

Does anybody have Cargo capacity in the CRJ jets compared to the EJets from Embraer?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6114 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9868 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):
Does the CRJ and the Q400 share some fuselage parts? They have the same fuselage diameter IIRC.



Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 5):
Anyhoo, the CRJ and Dash8 have different fuselages, the D8 is a little wider - according to the Q400.com info page - due to the high wing, I assume...

The two aircraft do not share any fusleage parts. As well, the shape of the fuselages are different - the CRJ is circular while the Q400 is ovoid which leads to only an arc of the fuselage being slightly wider (the wing has nothing to do with fusleage shape/diameter.) You might find it interesting that the CRJ700/900 fusleage is built by Shorts in N. Ireland and the Q400 by MHI in Japan.

BTW, cargo space comparison between the CRJ900 and the E-Jets is relative due to the rear cabin/cargo bulkhead placement on the CRJ that depends upon customer pax/lav/door configurations. BTW, the Q400 also has a moveable rear cabin/cargo bulkhead.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9748 times:

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 1):
I am pretty sure, that those "streches" will not really face a bright future. It will probably have an outcome as the MD90, which was a nice aircraft but never really able to compete with it's competitors

With respect to the Stretch RJ900X I agree although it will gather some sales.

I am not sure what the competitor would be for a 100 seat Dash 8, is there one out there? I don't think so, and I am not sure ATR is willing to develop one to compete. I have to wonder though if the great economics of the Dash Q400 apply when adding another 20 PAX.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9651 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 8):
BTW, cargo space comparison between the CRJ900 and the E-Jets is relative due to the rear cabin/cargo bulkhead placement on the CRJ that depends upon customer pax/lav/door configurations. BTW, the Q400 also has a moveable rear cabin/cargo bulkhead.

I see. I would assume that the E-Jets have more capacity due to a wider fuselage.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 9):
With respect to the Stretch RJ900X I agree although it will gather some sales.

I hope so. I hope it will offer airlines close to E190 economics.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 9):
I am not sure what the competitor would be for a 100 seat Dash 8, is there one out there? I don't think so, and I am not sure ATR is willing to develop one to compete. I have to wonder though if the great economics of the Dash Q400 apply when adding another 20 PAX.

It does require higher thrust engines. It will be interesting to see if airlines are more interested with the high fuel price.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3499 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9643 times:

Stretch the CR9/Q400?

OK, I dare them. Wienerprop anyone?

[Edited 2006-02-02 09:20:52]


Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9574 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Jung




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP



The cockpit windows seems to look very much the same. How is that?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
My question about these two new airplanes is if anyone have any information at all regarding what the modifications would be to the 900X and Q400 Stretch?

This is another (somewhat quirky, perhaps  Smile) observation and following suggestion that I hope some BBD person reads and find useful:

I have noticed that the CRJ seem to be designed so that the window frames and seat rows match up at 31" seat pitch, so that the 7 windows on the CR2 between the main exit and o/w exit has room for 7 rows of seats, and the CR7 has 13 windows between the main exit and o/w exit allowing 13 rows of seats. So far so good...

The CR9 has room for 16 windows between the main exit and aft pair of o/w exits, but because windows number 15 and 16 are replaced with the forward pair of o/w exits, the total rows of seating becomes 15 instead of 16 (the 15th row - exit row - needs 5-8 (?) inches extra legroom) + a small closet up front. Source: seat map in RU March or April 2000, BBD.com

So my suggestion is that on the CR9X, when adding that extra row mentioned in Flight International the other day, the new extra fuselage frame (31" long) should be extended the extra inches lost on the current CR9 (5-8") so the total stretch is 35-40", giving 16 full seat rows + the new 1 row. The "previously lost" row will then offer 2 extra seats on the LH side (and 2 more on the RH side if the lav is removed), giving the CR9X potentially 6-8 more seats instead of 4 compared to the current CR9... That's 2-4 extra paying bums on seats from an 8" extension.

Possible or am I off my rocker (again  Wink)?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9447 times:

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 9):


I am not sure what the competitor would be for a 100 seat Dash 8, is there one out there? I don't think so, and I am not sure ATR is willing to develop one to compete. I have to wonder though if the great economics of the Dash Q400 apply when adding another 20 PAX.

The competition would be jets of airlines who are forced into using jets on very short hops due to capacity needs. Northeast Shuttles would be one (though the biz pax would likely stick their nose up), stuff like GSO-CLT on US is one, DTW-Chicago, ALOT of NW's DC9 routes, etc.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 12):


The cockpit windows seems to look very much the same. How is that?

Trust me, they're two different fuselages. More than once I've flown a CRJ then gotten on a Dash with US. The Dash has a more vertically-stretched fuse than the CRJ does.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9384 times:

I'm think about rotation. The landing gear for a -500 90-100 seat Dash-8 would be pretty long, requiring big nacelles. Plus it would look strange.

User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9366 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 13):
So my suggestion is that on the CR9X, when adding that extra row mentioned in Flight International the other day, the new extra fuselage frame (31" long) should be extended the extra inches lost on the current CR9 (5-8") so the total stretch is 35-40", giving 16 full seat rows + the new 1 row. The "previously lost" row will then offer 2 extra seats on the LH side (and 2 more on the RH side if the lav is removed), giving the CR9X potentially 6-8 more seats instead of 4 compared to the current CR9... That's 2-4 extra paying bums on seats from an 8" extension.

Just guessing, but if they could add more PAX they would for sure rather than leave it to the next project. This platform has got to be stretched to the max and I don't think they can afford the weight of more PAX and structure or else they'll be trading PAX for fuel. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the performance on the 900X.


User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9220 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Next week's issue of Flight International has another article about the CR9X and Q4X, sounds like there really is something happening... I wonder if NWA's Newco is one of the companies asking for the 100-seat CR9X...?


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9210 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 17):
Next week's issue of Flight International has another article about the CR9X and Q4X, sounds like there really is something happening... I wonder if NWA's Newco is one of the companies asking for the 100-seat CR9X...?

Do you have a link to thihs article?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9200 times:

Man, these aircraft would be 20ft longer than they already are! It might look something like this monstrosity!!  laughing 


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Johan Adolfsson
Template © Johan Adolfsson



User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hahaha, good one, BoeingNut  laughing 

But, seriously, the current CR9 can pack in 92 seats at 31" pitch plus two lavs when pushing the rear cabin wall as far back as you can into the rear cargo hold (source: BBD.com). Hold space is reduced obviously, but if most pax only pack light anyway, then it is enough. So the -9X only needs about 90-100 inches more in length to get 100 seats. I assume the underfloor baggage hold will be extended accordingly... (these are my conclusions, mind you).

I'm unsure about copyright rules as it is "future" news, but check out the magazine's website.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8983 times:

CRJ900,

Hey thanks for that. I was unaware of the capability to move the rear cabin walls. Do you know if the same be done for the Q400? Also, sorry for the dumb question but is BBD.com the Bombardier site?

Regards

[Edited 2006-02-07 17:53:36]

User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8963 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

BoeingNut: BBD.com is www.bombardier.com  Smile Read through their Regional Updates, lots of aircraft info there.

Yes, LH CityLine has pushed the cabin wall to the max on their CRJ701, as they have 70 seats, 2 lavs and 3 galleys vs most US regionals having only 1 lav and 1 galley in their 70-seat CRJ701s... I read this in a magazine some years ago, don't remember which, though.

The image of the Q4X look like the cabin is simply stretched...



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
LF Questions About Flights To ARN And GOT posted Fri Jun 9 2006 12:54:21 by Koper
Questions About LHR T4 - KLM And BA posted Fri Mar 10 2006 22:24:14 by Jaumett
A Couple Questions About UA, QF, ANZ, And Ansett posted Mon Mar 4 2002 03:08:52 by Alitalia777
In Vientiane - 2 Questions About The Airport posted Tue Nov 21 2006 10:52:48 by Pe@rson
Some Questions About DL For The Gurus posted Mon May 22 2006 03:17:12 by EI A330-200
DL Flight 198 (ATL-SEA), Questions About The 757.. posted Wed Mar 8 2006 03:07:28 by DixieDawg
Two Questions About The A-300 posted Mon Jan 9 2006 05:58:51 by Fvyfireman
Serious Questions About The A340 Program posted Thu Jan 5 2006 23:49:26 by BoomBoom
A Few Questions About The 787! posted Thu Oct 20 2005 21:31:06 by RootsAir
Questions About The American Airlines A300 Fleet posted Sat Jul 16 2005 01:42:03 by Sabena332