Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CRJ-200 Nose Down Attitude, Why?  
User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 825 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6837 times:

I was watching aircraft land at MSP yesterday and one thing that is really apparent is that CRJ-200's (the 50 seater) land with a really pronounced nose down attitude. They transition out of this attitude really close to the runway so the main gear touches before the nose wheel. Why is this?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2528 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6830 times:

They dont have any leading edge devices/slats

User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6812 times:

Thanks, that was my guess. Why does the lack of slats result in the nose down attitude? I guess I'm just curious about this.

User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6812 times:

The CRJ-200s do not have leading edge slats, the part of the flaps that extend on the front portion of the wing! Because of this, they have to fly an approach with the nose down attitude and I also believe they have a slightly higher approach speed then it's bigger cousins, but I'll let the RJ drivers comment on that!

I'll dig one up from the archives for ya!

Nose Up Vs. Nose Down On Approach (by Msp12r Jul 24 2004 in Tech Ops)

[Edited 2012-07-14 13:13:01]


ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4098 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6742 times:

Many times I've seen AA MDs do the same thing, anecdotally also at MSP, don't know if it's for the same reasons. They oftentimes come in with a nose-down attitude and then seconds before landing they flare the nose upward.

User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6696 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 4):
Many times I've seen AA MDs do the same thing, anecdotally also at MSP, don't know if it's for the same reasons. They oftentimes come in with a nose-down attitude and then seconds before landing they flare the nose upward.

Actually, their could be a good explanation for that! MSP has a good history of packing them in tight with the dual parallel operations. Many times, an aircraft will be on short final, while another aircraft is on it's t/o roll. Often times, pilots (myself included) will slow to the absolute minimum airspeed to allow more time for the departure to depart off of the runway and avoid a go around. Once the traffic is clear, the pilot might then lower the nose to get the airspeed just above the target airspeed for the approach and landing.

Note: Before some of the armchair pilots come out saying how dangerous this is, I assure you it is safe, and their are plenty of protection systems in place here in MSP!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10597 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6674 times:

I know it's not quite the same thing, but I recall watching C-141s, for quite a few years in the Air Force and it seems like their takeoff attitude was level or slightly nose down. Landing, I don't recall.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinefreeze3192 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6503 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 5):
Many times, an aircraft will be on short final, while another aircraft is on it's t/o roll. Often times, pilots (myself included) will slow to the absolute minimum airspeed to allow more time for the departure to depart off of the runway and avoid a go around. Once the traffic is clear, the pilot might then lower the nose to get the airspeed just above the target airspeed for the approach and landing.

Uh really? At my airline part of the conditions for a stabilized approach are Vref +10 to Vref -0. You should never go below Vref on approach in a transport category aircraft. If you do this, I'm really suprised that you haven't gotten a call from pro-stands yet.

I fly into a lot of busy airports and sure we'll slow early (& configure) if we see a situation developing but we absolutely never go below Vref for our current configuration. If tower can't get figure out how to get departures off without making you go around while you're flying inbound at approach speed, they're doing something wrong.

I call BS.



"A passenger bets his life that his pilot is a worthy heir to an ancient tradition of excellence and professionalism."
User currently offlineredtailsforever From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 5):

It is crazy how close they get sometimes. I was at MSP last week when a 757 was on the t/o roll with a 764 over the outer lights. I thought I was going to get whiplash looking back and forth between the 757, barely starting rotation, and the 764 over the numbers. I've been out there a few times, and heard pilots verifying land clearance at the last minute. It always seems to work out like a well orchestrated machine.


User currently offlinemy235 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6438 times:

Nothing beats the IL-76 (that has slats!) at nose down attitude landings. http://youtu.be/cclH8ZSDVOM

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10239 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6389 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 5):
Often times, pilots (myself included) will slow to the absolute minimum airspeed to allow more time for the departure to depart off of the runway and avoid a go around.

What's the "absolute minimum airspeed" you're referring to?



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6332 times:

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 7):
Uh really? At my airline part of the conditions for a stabilized approach are Vref +10 to Vref -0. You should never go below Vref on approach in a transport category aircraft. If you do this, I'm really suprised that you haven't gotten a call from pro-stands yet.

Ahh..I never said below Vref anywhere did I? Target airspeed, depending on your aircraft can be Vref +5 at 500 ft, or approach speed (Vref +10) inside the FAF. You are correct in saying we have a range from Vref +10 - Vref +0, so if you see it coming and you are Vref +10, you can slow down to Vref +5 or even Ref if you need too and still be considered stable. I have no idea where you even remotely got the idea I was referring to going below Vref???

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 7):
I call BS.

Real Professional, I am surprised you have not gotten a call from Pro-stands yet? I bet your a real joy to fly with on a trip, with an attitude like that and all!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 10):
What's the "absolute minimum airspeed" you're referring to?

In this example, Vref in extreme cases, with Vref+5 in most of others!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently onlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 3):
I also believe they have a slightly higher approach speed then it's bigger cousins, but I'll let the RJ drivers comment on that!

Correct. At max landing weight Vref is about 10 knots higher on the CRJ-200 when compared to the CRJ-700 at max landing weight.

[Edited 2012-07-15 16:48:38]


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5920 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 11):
Ahh..I never said below Vref anywhere did I? Target airspeed, depending on your aircraft can be Vref +5 at 500 ft, or approach speed (Vref +10) inside the FAF. You are correct in saying we have a range from Vref +10 - Vref +0, so if you see it coming and you are Vref +10, you can slow down to Vref +5 or even Ref if you need too and still be considered stable. I have no idea where you even remotely got the idea I was referring to going below Vref???

To be fair, it really did read like that was what you were saying.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5641 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 4):
Many times I've seen AA MDs do the same thing

If an MD80 is really light this happens too.

KD


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5620 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 11):
Ahh..I never said below Vref anywhere did I? Target airspeed, depending on your aircraft can be Vref 5 at 500 ft, or approach speed (Vref 10) inside the FAF. You are correct in saying we have a range from Vref 10 - Vref 0, so if you see it coming and you are Vref 10, you can slow down to Vref 5 or even Ref if you need too and still be considered stable. I have no idea where you even remotely got the idea I was referring to going below Vref???

The term "absolute minimum airspeed", that's why! Might be interpreted as just above stalling speed! We would have understood Vref +n better.

If you've reduced to Vref +5 for separation, you hardly have to worry about lowering the nose to get back to approach speed ... since you're alreday there... or within 5 knots.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinethepinnaclekid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 731 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 4814 times:

Just as an aside... it's not just the fact it is leading edge device-less... for reference I'll point you to my beloved ERJ-145 series.. she does not carry a nose low profile in general on approach and like the Climb Restricted Jet... the Excellent Regional Jet is leadin' edge device-less.


"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 4644 times:

Quoting thepinnaclekid (Reply 16):
Just as an aside... it's not just the fact it is leading edge device-less... for reference I'll point you to my beloved ERJ-145 series.. she does not carry a nose low profile in general on approach and like the Climb Restricted Jet... the Excellent Regional Jet is leadin' edge device-less.

It's all about wing loading. Higher wing loading gives a better ride as well.


User currently offlinecomairguycvg From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 337 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4610 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 3):

"At max landing weight Vref is about 10 knots higher on the CRJ-200 when compared to the CRJ-700 at max landing weight."

I have always thought why do people often compare the CRJ-200 and CRJ-700 like that. They are different size and weight aircraft, so can they really be compared that way? I say, put slats on one CR2 and then do a comparison. That should even it up a little.  


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic CRJ-200 Nose Down Attitude, Why?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why (OH) CRJ Have Flaps Down All The Time? posted Sat Jan 20 2007 21:37:04 by KLM672
Comar CRJ-200...Why Not Retracting Flaps? posted Thu Aug 12 2004 00:54:44 by Ngr
Why Is The CRJ-200 Such A Runway Hog? posted Thu Feb 14 2002 18:17:23 by Beechbarron
CRJ-200 Weather Radar posted Wed May 5 2010 17:50:01 by rampboy77
ERJ 170 / 190 Nose Up Attitude posted Thu Feb 11 2010 20:57:30 by sandyb123
CRJ 200 Flap Fails posted Sat Jan 17 2009 04:13:28 by UAL Bagsmasher
CRJ-200 ER And LR Differences posted Sun Nov 16 2008 22:33:40 by Bruce
CRJ-200, Does It Handle Turbulence Well? posted Tue Jan 15 2008 02:34:22 by A318
CRJ 200 Hydraulics posted Thu Nov 1 2007 14:20:05 by Tuhlhorn
Nose Down Vs Nose Up Approaches posted Thu Jan 18 2007 07:22:19 by Aaden
CRJ-200, Does It Handle Turbulence Well? posted Tue Jan 15 2008 02:34:22 by A318
CRJ 200 Hydraulics posted Thu Nov 1 2007 14:20:05 by Tuhlhorn

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format