Viajero From Mexico, joined Aug 2008, 119 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3875 times:
I've noticed most of the CRJ variants carry "ER" or "LR" designations based on component packages etc.. Does the -900 series also carry one or both of these designators? Also would they apply to the Next Gen aircraft? Thanks for any insight you can provide.
Regards,
The range numbers for the CRJ-900NextGen is as follows:
Maximum range at LRC
CRJ900 NextGen (88 pax) 1,304 NM 1,500 SM 2,414 km
CRJ900 NextGen ER (88 pax) 1,557 NM 1,792 SM 2,883 km
CRJ900 NextGen LR (88 pax) 1,804 NM 2,076 SM 3,341 km
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2080 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3399 times:
I think all new CRJ900 customers opt for the LR version, as it allows decent range with 80-90 pax onboard. Did they ever sell any "standard version" aircraft? I think Mesa's are all ER...?
The range numbers for the CRJ-900NextGen is as follows:
Maximum range at LRC
CRJ900 NextGen (88 pax) 1,304 NM 1,500 SM 2,414 km
CRJ900 NextGen ER (88 pax) 1,557 NM 1,792 SM 2,883 km
CRJ900 NextGen LR (88 pax) 1,804 NM 2,076 SM 3,341 km
I wonder what kind of market they are going to attract for these new 100 seat CRJ1000's. The CRJ900 is already a bear to handle depending on the destination - like MYR, CHS, ect where you have to leave bags behind because of the size of the bins. I can't help but wonder how many lower carry on bag holds they will have. I would suspect probably three....
Flyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1015 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3024 times:
Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 6): But doesn't the NextGen overhead bins take roller bags now, so that less have to go in the hold?
On the CRJ900's I've seen they certainly don't - and I am referring to the relatively new SkyWest ones. It looks like the drawings on the Bombardier website make the CRJ1000 look liked yet another stretched variant of what has already been streched twice. Considering how cramped these aircraft already are onboard - I don't see how they could manage to get big enough overhead bins in that a/c without obstructing something.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2577 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2858 times:
Quoting Flyibaby (Reply 7): It looks like the drawings on the Bombardier website make the CRJ1000 look liked yet another stretched variant of what has already been streched twice.
It is a stretched variant of something that is stretched twice. However the complete family have gotten larger windows, larger bins, better fuel economy and cost less to maintain.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2577 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2601 times:
Quoting Bomber996 (Reply 9): Three times. Remember, the CRJ-200 is a stretched Challenger. So that makes 5 aircraft... Challenger, CRJ-200, CRJ-700, CRJ-900, CRJ-1000.
So true, even tough the challenger was designed with a wide fuselage to make it easy to stretch. Are the wings on the CRJ-100 and 200 a new design compared to the original Challenger? It seems like there was allot done to the design between the Challanger and the CRJ.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
DurangoMac From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10): So true, even tough the challenger was designed with a wide fuselage to make it easy to stretch. Are the wings on the CRJ-100 and 200 a new design compared to the original Challenger? It seems like there was allot done to the design between the Challanger and the CRJ.
My understanding is the wing is similar but had a few things changed. They should really try putting the 700/900 wing on a 200 and see how it performs. I suspect the performance would jump considerably.
Flyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1015 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2453 times:
Quoting DurangoMac (Reply 11): My understanding is the wing is similar but had a few things changed. They should really try putting the 700/900 wing on a 200 and see how it performs. I suspect the performance would jump considerably.
I agree...the leading edge on the CRJ 200 wing really makes it a ground hog.
Sponsor Message: 
From Mexico, joined Aug 2008, 119 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2577 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1015 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
