Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Jawed
Topic Author
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:47 am

CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:13 pm

Doesn't it look strange and underpowered?

Those engines are so tiny compared to the plane's fuselage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/USexCRJ-900.jpg
 
User avatar
rikkus67
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:19 pm

The size of the engines may be small, but what is more important is the thrust to weight ratio...more than adequate!
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:21 pm

Well, you should stand next to one one day. The engines actually look a lot bigger. BTW, think that drop from the rear cargo hatch is nothing, think again! I HATED loading the CR9.
What gets measured gets done.
 
flyingcat
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:33 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:23 pm

It's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it! Big grin
 
jasp25
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:44 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:25 pm

Is that normal for a CR-900 to look like it's inclined towards the nose?

-jasp
-peace and chicken grease!
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:26 pm



Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 3):
It's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it!

LOL!!! Your damn right!

v/r
What gets measured gets done.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:33 pm



Quoting Jasp25 (Reply 4):
Is that normal for a CR-900 to look like it's inclined towards the nose?

Yes. Although the main gear is taller on the CRJ-700 and -900 (and coming -1000) than on the CRJ-100/200, the nose gear is the same height. I think that was to avoid the need for an inflatable evacuation slide at the passenger door which would be required if the door was any further from the ground.
 
phelpsie87
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:41 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:36 pm



Quoting Jasp25 (Reply 4):
Is that normal for a CR-900 to look like it's inclined towards the nose?

Yes, the CR7 does this as well.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 2):
Well, you should stand next to one one day. The engines actually look a lot bigger. BTW, think that drop from the rear cargo hatch is nothing, think again! I HATED loading the CR9.

I don't mind loading CR7/9's, but your right about that drop. I jumped out of a CR7 pit one time...lets just say it wasn't the best decision I have ever made haha.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:40 pm

According to GE the max diameter of the CF34-8C is 52 inches (1.32 metres). That's not too bad.

Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 1):
The size of the engines may be small, but what is more important is the thrust to weight ratio...more than adequate!

The CRJ1000 will have the same engines, but with 2-5% more power. That doesn't sound much, does it?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14393
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:18 pm



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
I think that was to avoid the need for an inflatable evacuation slide at the passenger door which would be required if the door was any further from the ground.

That's exactly the reason. IIRC, they made it by three inches.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
UAL727NE
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:58 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:34 pm

HAHA yea looks tiny but they have a very good amount of power! i used to fly on these alot. and from TUS to PHX was real light and fast. also good and comfertable flying longer legs on. but yea plenty of power
Gotta love 3 holers!!! MD11,DC10,L-1011,B727 for life!!!!
 
N766UA
Posts: 8305
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:18 pm



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 2):
BTW, think that drop from the rear cargo hatch is nothing, think again! I HATED loading the CR9.

Yeah, -700s and -900s are a bitch to load. If you jumped out of the bin you'd easily break your legs.
 
pilotboi
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:16 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:13 pm



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
I think that was to avoid the need for an inflatable evacuation slide at the passenger door which would be required if the door was any further from the ground.

That, and they didn't have to redesign and create a whole new door. The doors on all CRJs are the same.
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:31 pm

Actually, after McDonnell-Douglas came out with the -70 series for their DC-8's, the -60 series looked ridiculously underpowered to me:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wim Houquet
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Yu



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Scott Morrison



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon



Oddly enough, the same is true with different versions of the new DC-8...err, excuse me...the A340  Wink :


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Florian Negele
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anthony Guerra



As for the -900 and -700, I agree that the engines look a bit "tubby" in comparison to the long thin fuselage, but the -200 always looks like a Detroit attempt at a small-car-becoming-a-hot-rod-by-putting-in-a-bigger-engine type thing:

-200:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marcel Schmidt
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Nickerson



-700:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anto Blazevic
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Tsagaris - CYOW Airport Watch



-900:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johannes Ossenberg
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruce Leibowitz



While the engine size/fuselage size matter might not be perfectly aesthetic, it gets the job done!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
multimark
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:41 pm

This might comes a surprise to those critiqueing the CRJ 900 and A340 here, but planemakers don't design a/c to satisfy their aesthetic tastes.  Yeah sure
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:50 pm



Quoting Jasp25 (Reply 4):
Is that normal for a CR-900 to look like it's inclined towards the nose?

Yep. I brought this up on here once about how the 700 and 900 slopes forward.

Quoting Phelpsie87 (Reply 7):
I don't mind loading CR7/9's, but your right about that drop. I jumped out of a CR7 pit one time...lets just say it wasn't the best decision I have ever made haha.

Well, for me, I was with ASA so it was pretty much all CRJ's and ATR for me. I've never been up in the bin of a mailine so it was always a bit scary for me when we my gate did get a 70 seater.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 13):
While the engine size/fuselage size matter might not be perfectly aesthetic, it gets the job done!!

Actually, I find the CR9 to be quite sexy. Especially in the America West and Delta Citgo livery.
What gets measured gets done.
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:03 am



Quoting Multimark (Reply 14):
This might comes a surprise to those critiqueing the CRJ 900 and A340 here, but planemakers don't design a/c to satisfy their aesthetic tastes.

The designers of the A380 will tell you that first hand.  duck 
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
avt007
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:51 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:27 am

I flew on 2 900s in the last couple days, and was very impressed with how quiet they were. I was in rows 2 nd 3, but still, on the takeoff roll and climbout, the engines were barely audible. In fact, 5-10 seconds after starting the roll, I couldn't hear them over the tire noise. In cruise, the airflow noise is certainly there, like any other aircraft, but overall I was impressed. Lots of power, too.
 
User avatar
SOBHI51
Posts: 3947
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:32 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:35 am



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 13):
Oddly enough, the same is true with different versions of the new DC-8...err, excuse me...the A340 :

And the 767 is new version of the A300,the 737 is a new version of the Mercure (remember that plane)? The DC9 series are a new version of the Caravelle.Should i continue????
I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
 
PiedmontINT
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:12 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:36 am



Quoting Avt007 (Reply 17):
I was in rows 2 nd 3, but still, on the takeoff roll and climbout, the engines were barely audible.

It's also quite a strange sensation when taxiing onto the active if you close your eyes and feel how much that nose swings out as opposed to the back of the plane. Probably could make some people motion sick if the pilot had to do a lot of > 90 degree turns!
 
User avatar
Acey559
Posts: 1383
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:32 am

I've only loaded the -200s, but even those are fairly high. The worst mistake I made was trying to jump up INTO the bin without a belt loader or stairs. Basically I ended up flat on my back, and of course we had one of EV's better looking F/As in that day. Oh well, I suppose I'm too young anyhow... Wink
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:45 am



Quoting Acey559 (Reply 20):
I've only loaded the -200s, but even those are fairly high. The worst mistake I made was trying to jump up INTO the bin without a belt loader or stairs. Basically I ended up flat on my back, and of course we had one of EV's better looking F/As in that day. Oh well, I suppose I'm too young anyhow...

LOL! Was very commom here in ATL. I turned juming into the bin an art. Heck, at times we were so strapped for belt loaders, we would have to do that. Ever been unfortunate to load a full CRJ without a beltloader? Did it on sever occasions in the HOT Atlanta summer heat, and I was in the bin on the recieving end. Very uncomfortable.
What gets measured gets done.
 
CL30
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:01 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:50 am



Quoting Jasp25 (Reply 4):

I believe the reason for "nose down" attitude on the ground, via a taller main landing gear was to allow higher rotation angles in order to meet take-off performance criteria...(shorter take-off rolls)...required by the airlines.
 
phelpsie87
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:41 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:00 am



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 15):

Well, for me, I was with ASA so it was pretty much all CRJ's and ATR for me. I've never been up in the bin of a mainline so it was always a bit scary for me when we my gate did get a 70 seater.

I can understand your fear. I went from Dash-8s to A319/320 and the occasional 752. But after working those, jumping in and out of CR2 pits is cake! Never again will I try jumping from the CR7 though...and I won't even think about doing it from a CR9.
 
Someone83
Posts: 4799
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:33 am



Quoting CL30 (Reply 22):
I believe the reason for "nose down" attitude on the ground, via a taller main landing gear was to allow higher rotation angles in order to meet take-off performance criteria...(shorter take-off rolls)...required by the airlines.

And with the door so close to the ground, no slides are needed which saves money.
 
WJ
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:14 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:18 pm

Actualy the CR9 engines are identicle to the CR7 which makes the CR9 engines somewhat underpowered. The CR9 takes a massive weight restrictions in some airports any time they cant take the longest runway, something that the CR7 has no problem dealing with. The issue always comes down to $$$, you have the same engines, nearly identicle fuel consuption, but can carry 20 more pax? That's why US/Mesa swapped all their CR7's to CR9's.
146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
 
xtoler
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:10 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:43 pm

All this time I thought they jacked the back up to make the aircraft look cool. Works in old muscle cars! I used to commute a lot on CRJ-7's on GoJet to go fly in our Trans States ERJ's. As much as I like the 145, those 700's were pretty comfy and quiet. I was almost tempted to go work for the dark side of Trans States Holdings, just to be an F/A on the 700's that, and the seniority, as GoJet was new. But, I just couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I did that.
EMB145 F/A, F/E, J41 F/A, F/E, because my wife clipped my wings, armchair captain
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5019
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:54 pm



Quoting Wj (Reply 25):
Actualy the CR9 engines are identicle to the CR7 which makes the CR9 engines somewhat underpowered.

Actually, when they were first delivered, they were different engines. The -900 engine was proven to be more reliable (despite the high reliability of the -700 engine) so now, they are both the same engine, but the -700's thrust is capped in the FADEC.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:55 pm



Quoting Jasp25 (Reply 4):
Is that normal for a CR-900 to look like it's inclined towards the nose?

If you look at all modern airliners, like the A340 and 777, there is a bit of a "nose down" appearance to them. I'm not sure why, but that seems the trend. It's very evident on the A340-600. Is there some aerodynamic aspect to this?

The only thing I can think of is that when the aircraft rotates, the nose down position allows the aircraft to spring off the runway faster when it noses up and gives more clearance for the longer tails.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
Acey559
Posts: 1383
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:57 pm



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 21):
Ever been unfortunate to load a full CRJ without a beltloader?

Actually, we have a beltloader here at MLI, but I think we only used it two or three times so we always loaded without one. I actually personally preferred to load without the beltloader, it was a little harder, but I can load faster without one.  Smile
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie.
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:59 pm



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 13):
Actually, after McDonnell-Douglas came out with the -70 series for their DC-8's, the -60 series looked ridiculously underpowered to me:

Actually, IIRC, ALL initial jets (707, DC8, 720, 747-100) were underpowered. It was due to the manufacturers wanting to crowd more on a plane, and the engine manufacturers were still trying to perfect the jets. Now you mostly have OVERpowered airplanes (717 comes to mind)... I doubt the 717 needs 37,000 lbf to get it off the ground...

In response to the thread, the CF34 on the 100/200 is not the same CF34 on the 700/900. The two may have the same name, but are VERY different in terms of mechanics. Isn't the -1000 going to have CF34-10E engines?
Puhdiddle
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:09 pm



Quoting CL30 (Reply 22):
I believe the reason for "nose down" attitude on the ground, via a taller main landing gear was to allow higher rotation angles in order to meet take-off performance criteria...(shorter take-off rolls)...required by the airlines.



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 28):
If you look at all modern airliners, like the A340 and 777, there is a bit of a "nose down" appearance to them. I'm not sure why, but that seems the trend. It's very evident on the A340-600. Is there some aerodynamic aspect to this?

The only thing I can think of is that when the aircraft rotates, the nose down position allows the aircraft to spring off the runway faster when it noses up and gives more clearance for the longer tails.

UAL

764/CR7 Sloping Forward (by FlyASAGuy2005 Oct 6 2007 in Tech Ops)

Here ya go. I always wondered why and a pretty good thread was started.
What gets measured gets done.
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:22 pm

Iv always thought the 321 looks underpowered with its stretched fuesalage and relative tiny engines.
 
stevAAN
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:11 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:03 pm

Small engines, but big thrust is what I felt with LH crj900 last time  bigthumbsup 
747
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:26 pm



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 30):
In response to the thread, the CF34 on the 100/200 is not the same CF34 on the 700/900. The two may have the same name, but are VERY different in terms of mechanics. Isn't the -1000 going to have CF34-10E engines?

The CRJ100 was fitted with the CF34-3A1, the CRJ200 were equipped with the CF34-3B1 which offered more thrust and 2,8% lower specific fuel consumption that the -3A1.

The CRJ700 was fitted with the CF34-8C1, which had 15% more power-to-weight ratio than the -3B1, 30% fewer parts and 8% lower specific fuel consumption.

The CRJ900 has the CF34-8C5, rated at 14,510 lbs. Since 2005, the CRJ700 also uses this engine, however it is derated to 13,790 lbs and its "name" is CF34-8C5B1.

The CRJ1000 will also use the CF34-8C5 engine, with 2-5% more thrust.


Source: Bombardier.com and Airliner World magazine Regional Special 2003
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
apollo13
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:38 pm

The BAC 111 looks underpowered as well with the small engine. I ma be wrong but ive neverflown on one and only seen photos of the aircraft
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:46 pm

Have there ever been any jet aircraft that never flew because the thrust was not adequate? I actually got a 744 off the ground on FS9 with 2 engines at full power... granted it took a LOT of runway, but I still did it. (1 and 4 engines running, 2 and 3 were shut down)
Puhdiddle
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:56 pm

...but it is a great aircraft and with a lot of power. I was positive surprised when I flew a LH CRJ 900 this year.  Smile
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:04 pm



Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 34):
The CRJ100 was fitted with the CF34-3A1, the CRJ200 were equipped with the CF34-3B1 which offered more thrust and 2,8% lower specific fuel consumption that the -3A1.

The CRJ700 was fitted with the CF34-8C1, which had 15% more power-to-weight ratio than the -3B1, 30% fewer parts and 8% lower specific fuel consumption.

The CRJ900 has the CF34-8C5, rated at 14,510 lbs. Since 2005, the CRJ700 also uses this engine, however it is derated to 13,790 lbs and its "name" is CF34-8C5B1.

The CRJ1000 will also use the CF34-8C5 engine, with 2-5% more thrust.

Thanks for the info! Your name says it all I guess.
What gets measured gets done.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:25 pm

Nice work, folks. Not one bit of flamage...what a nice break. Most civilized thread in ages. Thanks.
What the...?
 
xtoler
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:10 am

RE: CRJ-900: Long Fuselage, Tiny Engines!

Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:49 pm



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 28):
If you look at all modern airliners, like the A340 and 777, there is a bit of a "nose down" appearance to them. I'm not sure why, but that seems the trend. It's very evident on the A340-600. Is there some aerodynamic aspect to this?

The only thing I can think of is that when the aircraft rotates, the nose down position allows the aircraft to spring off the runway faster when it noses up and gives more clearance for the longer tails.

I'm tellin' ya'll, 'cause it looks cool! Especially when yore screamin' 'cross that dragstirp! Only thing we're missin' is the sidepipes (JATO would be awesome for effect) and flames painted along most of the side of the fuselage. Tail end of a checklist goes like this:

Fuzzy dice... Check
Pine tree air freshener... Check
Merle Haggard 8 track... No, but we have Metallica's "Give me Fuel"... Check


Seriously, I didn't think about longer tails. That makes sense. Of course so do all the other reasons, why the main gear is jacked up. Then again, with emergency exits, higher off the ground than the main cabin door, you can only go so high before you have no choice but to use an emergency slide. What is the height requirement before you have to use an emergency slide? The rear can only go so high, on say a nose gear collapse, and we have to evacuate from the rear. Then again, maybe I'm overthinking this and I'm assuming the CRJ1000 will have a rear plug door in the back like the J41.
EMB145 F/A, F/E, J41 F/A, F/E, because my wife clipped my wings, armchair captain

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos