Is it true that there are no LEDs on the CRJ -200s.
If so would it imply that these aircrafts would require a longer Runway length for T/O,compared to if they were manufactured with LEDs.
Also what was the reason.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4300 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3584 times:
Hey ya'll... LED's = leading edge devices like slats or Krueger flaps. The CRJ-700 does have them...the 200 and 440 don't. This is also the reason why the CRJ looks like its diving for the runway at a faster speed...because it is.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3537 times:
I thought the decision on whether or not to put LEDs on the aircraft's wings was more a function of size and weight than anything else. I don't think the Fokkers have them either, and I'm not sure about the Embraers. I also recall a story sometime ago about Bombardier offering a retro-fit for the 200s, but the airlines balked due to the cost.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4503 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
The Challenger and the CRJ (emphasis on the latter) don't really have a need for the slower speeds that leading-edge high-lift devices would produce. Most airfields that the CRJ utilizes have sufficient runway length for most all operations.
Miller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 741 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
Comair used to operate CRJ-200's out of EYW. Did it a few times myself. Made it no problem, especially with 20 degrees of flaps. Hell, Eastern used to take 727's in and out of EYW. Short-field performance in the CRJ is at least average, however you can't land in EYW with a wet runway. The reason you get the perception that CRJ's spend so much time on the runway is because of reduced thrust. GE and Bombardier have calculated the minimum thrust setting required to safely depart the pavement while saving the engines. If there's 10000 ft of runway, no sense in aging an engine prematurely. Trust me, a CRJ can operate short field.