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, 791 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6597 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, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6590 times:

They dont have any leading edge devices/slats

User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 791 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6572 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, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6572 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, 4036 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6502 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, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6456 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, 10342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6434 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, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6263 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 1 week 1 day ago) and read 6223 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 1 week 1 day ago) and read 6198 times:

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

User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9761 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6149 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?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6092 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 offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2743 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5789 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 onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21488 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5680 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, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5401 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 onlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5380 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, 723 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4574 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, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4404 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 (1 year 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4370 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...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format