User avatar
HAWK21M
Topic Author
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

CRJ-200 Question

Wed Jul 09, 2003 7:44 pm


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Richard Covington, Jr


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.
Anyone.
regds
HAWK
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
aaron atp
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:41 pm

It is true... there are none.

ASA flies the -700 from ATL to EYW (4800 ft) because the 200 can't takeoff from EYW on the way home (the 700 is still restricted)

As for the reason... The Challenger didn't have them.

 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Wed Jul 09, 2003 10:06 pm

LEDs = leading edge devices, like slats?
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Thu Jul 10, 2003 1:25 am

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.  Smile
Chicks dig winglets.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:47 am

hehe, I used to refer to the approaches of CRJs as "Canadian kamikaze attacks"  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:29 am

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
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:35 am

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.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Thu Jul 10, 2003 3:24 pm

I always wonderd why when I fly on the CR2s they take so long to get airborn, seems to me that the A320s get in the air faster then that darn CR2! AM I right?
 
miller22
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2000 4:48 am

RE: CRJ-200 Question

Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:37 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FlyBTV, Max Q and 11 guests