Hi Folks,
Now that I am fully checked out and have about 50 hours on the CRJ-200 I must say that I am unimpressed with the performance we get!
Yesterday I flew from MKE-DEN with a full house. We were about 500 lbs under maximum T/O weight. I will confess that we were heavy and it was ISA +13, but still, we REALLY struggled to achieve FL310! For the last 10,000 feet we were climbing at 300-500 fpm and we had to level off for 5 minutes or so at FL290 just to get back some forward speed. This is a plane which does not like to fly slowly and so we did not want to let the IAS come down too far.
Well, I am just making an observation, not really complaining. But I am surprised. I hope the CRJ-700 is better!
The plane is certified to FL410 and a speed of Mach .84, but I have never seen anything close to those numbers, but I guess I will have to wait until winter. Well, I did get to FL390 on a ferry flight, but that really doesn't count because we were so light.
Anyway, it is a nice plane to fly and a lot of fun!
Any other CRJ drivers here?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Not a pilot here but I flew on my first CRJ two night ago and I must say, it took us much longer than other flights on 737s or even ERJ-145s to get to our flight level. Plus, that plane is terrible in turbulence. I've never felt bumps that big. It was pretty scary. 
-Justin
-Justin
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
I don't fly them, or dispatch them, but a buddy of mine at another airline who does advises me that the CRJ -really- stands for "climb-restricted jet" 
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
-
- XFSUgimpLB41X
- Posts: 3961
- Joined:
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Yeah if you're really heavy...its beneficial if the temps are warm to do a step climb...start out at about 270-290 and burn off the fuel..then mosey on up to your desired altitude. We always seem to start huffing and puffing around 220 or so.
Youll be able to get 390 and 410 in the wintertime..its just about not and option during the summer with passengers on board.
We typically cruise anywhere between .71-.78....depending on a number of situations. Profile is .74...so we're usually right around that.
We climb at 290 to "capture" .74 mach, and then follow .74 up... Usually what I do is hold 290 (using vertical speed mode though) and hit .74..but whenever the climb rate decays to 500.. i leave it there. The speed decay is minimal then and ATC doesnt get ticked. If your climb profile is much faster than 290..youre going to be having a very very slow climb rate to keep that speed. Anywhere from 270-290 seems to be fairly "efficient."
I had a captain that tried to hold like 700-800fpm all the way almost every flight...of course he had to level off because his speed decayed too much. Took him forever to accelerate back up too. But I'm just a lowly FO, what do I know.
I am told that the CRJ 700 climbs very well all the way up. Who do you fly for? Sounds like Mesa?
Youll be able to get 390 and 410 in the wintertime..its just about not and option during the summer with passengers on board.
We typically cruise anywhere between .71-.78....depending on a number of situations. Profile is .74...so we're usually right around that.
We climb at 290 to "capture" .74 mach, and then follow .74 up... Usually what I do is hold 290 (using vertical speed mode though) and hit .74..but whenever the climb rate decays to 500.. i leave it there. The speed decay is minimal then and ATC doesnt get ticked. If your climb profile is much faster than 290..youre going to be having a very very slow climb rate to keep that speed. Anywhere from 270-290 seems to be fairly "efficient."
I had a captain that tried to hold like 700-800fpm all the way almost every flight...of course he had to level off because his speed decayed too much. Took him forever to accelerate back up too. But I'm just a lowly FO, what do I know.
I am told that the CRJ 700 climbs very well all the way up. Who do you fly for? Sounds like Mesa?
Chicks dig winglets.
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Plus, that plane is terrible in turbulence.
Compared to what? I don't find it any worse that comparably sized aircraft. The CRJ is a compromise airplane. It wasn't designed to have corporate aircraft performance, and it traded simplicity (such as forgoing leading edge slats) for performance, so it is a bit of a ground hugger. Typical though for an airplane that was made to make money in scheduled service.
Compared to what? I don't find it any worse that comparably sized aircraft. The CRJ is a compromise airplane. It wasn't designed to have corporate aircraft performance, and it traded simplicity (such as forgoing leading edge slats) for performance, so it is a bit of a ground hugger. Typical though for an airplane that was made to make money in scheduled service.
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
It seems there´s a dire need for "standardized turbulence" to put the different aircraft models through so the passengers can judge how "bad" each model really is under the same circumstances... 
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
I'm comparing it to an ERJ-145 I took through equal severity of storm systems.
-
- crjdispatchkid
- Posts: 97
- Joined:
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Summertime definitely makes dispatching a CRJ a challenge. Don't expect to get performance numbers that allow you to climb to altitude right away, step climbs are a must for this aircraft (and I know XFSUgimpLB41X has seen some of my releases with those profiles). I've dispatched flight that are over 1000NM and 2 1/2 hours long in which FL290 is unattainable. Winter is a whole different scenario though, the plane climbs a lot better.
Thanks...C-Ya...Bye
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Hmmm,
I see the new junior jet pilots here are finding out about rather poor performance at higher ambient temps.
The answer is of course...do as the senior guys did in years past with some of the more climb restricted older transport jets...fly lower for awhile.
In the end, this is much more cost effective for several reasons, not the least of which is eliminating climb power for longer periods, trying to get that last 4000 feet.
This will show up later in higher engine maintenance charges during hot section inspections...as was found out many years ago, on early Boeing transports.
Sometimes (many times) higher is not always better.
I see the new junior jet pilots here are finding out about rather poor performance at higher ambient temps.
The answer is of course...do as the senior guys did in years past with some of the more climb restricted older transport jets...fly lower for awhile.
In the end, this is much more cost effective for several reasons, not the least of which is eliminating climb power for longer periods, trying to get that last 4000 feet.
This will show up later in higher engine maintenance charges during hot section inspections...as was found out many years ago, on early Boeing transports.
Sometimes (many times) higher is not always better.
-
- XFSUgimpLB41X
- Posts: 3961
- Joined:
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Hey Scott-
Right on for the step climbs. I defintiely appreciate those being put into the release. You're one of the best ones down there in MEM. Theres certainly a few around there that don't seem to understand what is going on outside of the fishbowl, haha.
Speaking of...ive got DTW-SHV first thing in the morning (can't sleep)...I forsee a step climb.
Right on for the step climbs.
I defintiely appreciate those being put into the release. You're one of the best ones down there in MEM. Theres certainly a few around there that don't seem to understand what is going on outside of the fishbowl, haha.
Speaking of...ive got DTW-SHV first thing in the morning (can't sleep)...I forsee a step climb.
Chicks dig winglets.
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
I'm comparing it to an ERJ-145 I took through equal severity of storm systems.
And you were able to establish the severity was equal? What would make one similiarly sized airplane with similar performance more or less probable to provide a rough ride?
And you were able to establish the severity was equal? What would make one similiarly sized airplane with similar performance more or less probable to provide a rough ride?
-
- beechcraft
- Posts: 731
- Joined:
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Hey Saab2000,
you´re right, performance is not the best on the 100/200 series. however it is possible to bring it up to FL370 even in summertime. As said before, step climb is a keyword there.
Anyway the CRJ700 is performing a lot better, i really like it.
regards,
Denis
you´re right, performance is not the best on the 100/200 series. however it is possible to bring it up to FL370 even in summertime. As said before, step climb is a keyword there.
Anyway the CRJ700 is performing a lot better, i really like it.
regards,
Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
I did a little more research into this. It may be a matter of the degree of wing loading. Anyone have any comments in this regard?
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
I definitely noticed how slowly we climbed on my last segment, a CVG-DFW leg on DL. The odd thing was, it wasn't that warm outside, only about 80 degrees. We were full and we took a 45 minute delay for the pilots to wait for dispatch (the captain announced this). Maybe it was for a step climb! Regardless, the climb was the slowest I have experienced in a commercial jet (no, I have not flown on an A343). The takeoff roll seemed VERY long as well.
Ironically, when we got to DFW we had to go around because we were too heavy, the captain came over the intercom and said we were over max landing weight despite his best attempts to burn fuel. So we did another loop and then came in.
Of course, when we got to the gate they weren't ready for us, so we sat at the parking area waiting to get off the plane for another 30 mintes. I had originated at AMS, so I was getting impatent by then! Ah well.
Ironically, when we got to DFW we had to go around because we were too heavy, the captain came over the intercom and said we were over max landing weight despite his best attempts to burn fuel. So we did another loop and then came in.
Of course, when we got to the gate they weren't ready for us, so we sat at the parking area waiting to get off the plane for another 30 mintes. I had originated at AMS, so I was getting impatent by then! Ah well.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
Thanks for all the comments!
I fly now for Air Wisconsin. As some of you know, I used to fly for SWISS.... But alas, those days are probably gone now.
Anyway, I have to say a couple things. The ride in turbulence is different than in other planes I have ridden in or flown. The jolts seem to be sharper. Don't know why.
Regarding FL370, there is now way we are getting that high in summer. We are usually full and the temps have been between ISA+10 and ISA+15. Our charts have us topping out at FL310 or maximum FL330.
Above about FL200 we have been climbing in "Vertical Speed" mode at 500 fpm trying not to let the forward speed drop below 290 or Mach .70, depending on altitude.
The plane will not accelarate well at all if the speed is allowed to drop too low.
I would love the fly the CRJ700! Not that it matters, but that is a much nicer looking plane and looks more like a "real" airliner! Also, I know that there has been some simplification of the systems, notably there is now FADEC, simplified fire protection and detection testing and the bleed air is somewhat simplified.
I sort of hope we get some of these to replace our BAE-146s, but we really need a 100 seat plane for that task, so the Embraer 190 probably makes more sense.
I fly now for Air Wisconsin. As some of you know, I used to fly for SWISS.... But alas, those days are probably gone now.
Anyway, I have to say a couple things. The ride in turbulence is different than in other planes I have ridden in or flown. The jolts seem to be sharper. Don't know why.
Regarding FL370, there is now way we are getting that high in summer. We are usually full and the temps have been between ISA+10 and ISA+15. Our charts have us topping out at FL310 or maximum FL330.
Above about FL200 we have been climbing in "Vertical Speed" mode at 500 fpm trying not to let the forward speed drop below 290 or Mach .70, depending on altitude.
The plane will not accelarate well at all if the speed is allowed to drop too low.
I would love the fly the CRJ700! Not that it matters, but that is a much nicer looking plane and looks more like a "real" airliner! Also, I know that there has been some simplification of the systems, notably there is now FADEC, simplified fire protection and detection testing and the bleed air is somewhat simplified.
I sort of hope we get some of these to replace our BAE-146s, but we really need a 100 seat plane for that task, so the Embraer 190 probably makes more sense.
smrtrthnu
RE: CRJ Performance... Not So Great!
How rigidly were you sticking with the 250/290/.70 profile? It is not always the most efficient way to climb. I used 270/.68 recently on an ISA +11 day and got to 310 with little problem using old 3A1 engines. We later stepped up to 350. The acceleration to cruise took a little longer, but that is to be expected.
Proud OOTSK member
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests