Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CRJ 900X Close To Launch  
User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9296 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.

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9281 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




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





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineNwa1978 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9238 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

User currently offlineChallenger300 From Canada, joined May 2006, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8797 times:

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

User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13265 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8560 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8310 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8506 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.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineRentonView From United States of America, joined May 2005, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8482 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.


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4165 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8396 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?



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8259 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



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineSkymileman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7677 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.


User currently offlineScoljet From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days ago) and read 7287 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.

User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6541 times:

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

User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2091 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Maybe make it a double decker?  Silly


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6357 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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]


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineODwyerPW From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6323 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.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6308 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?


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1612 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6297 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.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6253 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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...?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6032 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


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13265 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6246 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5953 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!!



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5953 times:

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

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


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 5760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5732 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..


25 DLKAPA : Wow... if you're a wing designer at Bombardier you've gotta be makin money.
26 Flying-Tiger : For the streched Q400 it appears that momentum is building. Apparently Horizon Air and Island Air are looking at it according to Flight International.
27 Post contains images CRJ900 : 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 SkyWes
28 A342 : 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
29 CRJ900 : 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 certifica
30 9252fly : 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
31 Aeronut : 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 wi
32 ATWZW170 : 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
33 Voodoo : Can they incorporate some C-series features....since some design money has already been sunk. ? Whacky idea....Put an appropriately sized (length) C-s
34 Boeing Nut : Not without some extremely serious redesigning. The problem there is, that would increase the cost and complexity of the airplane. Stretching is much
35 Post contains images DAYflyer : 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.
36 Lawgman : 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 si
37 PlanesNTrains : 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 fo
38 Post contains images Lightsaber : 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 woul
39 OyKIE : 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
40 Post contains images Lightsaber : 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
41 OyKIE : If the engines are trimmed that way would the be less efficient on short routes? Maybe if they would do a super stretch? I guess there are a certain
42 Post contains links and images OyKIE : 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 pr
43 Post contains images Lightsaber : Its all in the trade studies... Thank you. Thanks for the pictures and link. Although I bet the lady standing up is 5' 7" or shorter. I have to say,
44 Aeronut : 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. Th
45 Planemaker : 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
46 OyKIE : 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 se
47 Challengerdan : 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 coul
48 OyKIE : 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 t
49 CRJ900 : 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
50 Aeronut : Kick Ass plane... Underfloor filled completly with avionics... this is certified for ultralong rangem ETOPS, etc.. overkill from a systems perspectiv
51 Aeronut : Absolutely true, and maybe this idea will be resurrected. What is the stretch Q400 gonna being called anyways?
52 9252fly : 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
53 Post contains images CRJ900 : 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 readi
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...
CRJ 900X Close To Launch posted Fri May 26 2006 01:18:04 by Aeronut
FAT 757 Fly Too Close To TG Plane: Hit Turbulence posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:56:37 by Jimyvr
JetStar To Launch Nagoya Flight posted Fri Nov 10 2006 05:33:39 by Jimyvr
HK Air Firm 30 737/787; To Launch London Flight posted Thu Nov 2 2006 06:45:24 by Jimyvr
Aeromexico To Launch MEX-YYZ Service posted Wed Nov 1 2006 23:50:35 by RicardoFG
Air China Close To Signing For 10 B777's posted Mon Oct 30 2006 13:54:13 by UA777300ER
Iceland Express To Launch 6 New Flights posted Tue Oct 24 2006 10:17:08 by Joost
I Came Close To A Jet Today! posted Tue Oct 17 2006 15:16:50 by Newagebird
NWA - How Close To BK Exit? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 22:01:09 by DeltaDAWG
Northwest Gets Dot Approval To Launch Compass posted Fri Sep 29 2006 16:09:56 by KarlB737