CRJ200 Performance

USAirwaysCLT · Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:25 am

I've heard all kinds of different information regarding the climb and cruise performance for the CRJ-series aircraft.

What I was wanting to know is what is the climb rate below 10,000ft (standard, or expected with an average payload and fuel)?

What's the descent rate by the same means as well?

Finally, what is typical cruise speed for the CRJ1 and CRJ2. I've heard and read everything from Mach 0.78 - Mach 0.82. I know this depends on a lot of factors but I'm looking for just typical numbers for say maybe an average. payload and weight configuration.

Thanks so much Smile

Future CRJ1/CRJ2 driver for Delta Connection - ASA (FS9 that is Big grin

Fletcher

lowrider · Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:02 am

Typically (and that word is covering a huge range of weights, temps, and density altitudes), I see climb rates of about 2000 to 2500 fpm below 10000 at 250 kias. With a "B" engine on a cold day with a l might see 3500+ fpm. On the way down I have had descent rates as high as 6000 fpm, but typically use 1500 to 2000 fpm for a constant airspeed descent. As for cruise in the summer .74 for an "A" engine and a few points better for a "B". In the winter we plan on .77 and can usually do better than that.

saab2000 · Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:45 pm

Mr. Lowrider is right. The numbers he gives are pretty typical.

In the winter I have seen cruise speeds in excess of mach .80, but we file for .74 so sometimes we pull the power back and save some fuel.

The plane is certified for either mach .84 or .85 depending on where you read, but I have only seen speeds like that in descent at fairly high altitude. The plane is also certified to FL410, but we have now seen what can happen if we really try to fly that high.

The performance, especially in climb, leaves a lot to be desired. Frequently in summer we peter out at 500 fpm above about 18000 and struggle on hot days with a heavy load to make FL280. In the winter FL310 or FL330 is less of a problem, but the CRJ-200 is not a great performer.

From what I understand the CRJ-700 has greatly improved climb and cruise performance.

Goldenshield · Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:58 pm

There are two B engines. Plain ol' B, and B hot and high, with the latter giving better performance at lower altitudes.

beechcraft · Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:59 pm

It´s a standard 0.74 for us, 0.77 for the 700 series.
Our 100/200 series is also limited to FL370, which is basically impossible to reach at max weight on a normal summer day.

It does pretty good below FL100, climb rates up to 3000´, i normally reduce
to around 1500fpm up to FL150-180, then continue with 1000fpm for roundabout FL 250.
If you have quite some load in the back you would start reducing from that point on to 500fpm all the way up, which will probably take you half an hour or so.
As said before B engine perform quite well and the CRJ 700 really has some impressive performance.
On a ferry flight with the big one, you will hear the tower say: Wow, thanks for the show..... Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Denis

IL76TD · Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:11 pm

"The plane is also certified to FL410, but we have now seen what can happen if we really try to fly that high. "

can someone inform me what that would be?

beechcraft · Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:30 pm

IL76:

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=10142004®=N8396A&airline=Pinnacle+Airlines+(Northwest+Airlink)

hope that helps,

Denis

airplay · Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:33 pm

The plane is also certified to FL410, but we have now seen what can happen if we really try to fly that high.

There is no problem flying to an airplanes maximum certified altitude. Unless of course the flightcrew is incompetent.

The CRJ is not a fighter jet. Its performance is a compromise between aquisition costs, operating efficiency and performance.

saab2000 · Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:47 am

I badly worded my statement about FL410. The airplane can fly that high safely. But the crew needs to be aware of the limitations of high altitude aerodynamics.

Also, my statements about poor performance were not so misstated. When a plane is barely able to climb at 500 fpm in the mid '200s it is, IMHO, a poor performer. Occasionally ATC will ask for a minimum climb rate and we have had to be vectored off course because we were unable to maintain a decent climb rate and keep our forward speed from deteriorating.

From the runway to 10,000 feet, it climbs great, but the climb rate drops off quickly above about 15,000 feet.

The CRJ is not a bad airplane because of this, but it often cannot reach the most efficient altitude for cruise because often we hardly reach cruise. Then we need to start down already.

Anyway, all this is calculated in the cost analysis by people who are much smarter than I am. I do not claim to be a performance expert, but from my perspective as a pilot, the plane is lacking in climb performance. Other factors play into the larger picture of course.

IL76TD · Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:51 am

Thanks for the info

what was the exact reason for the engine failure?

Arrow · Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:17 am

"The CRJ is not a bad airplane because of this, but it often cannot reach the most efficient altitude for cruise because often we hardly reach cruise. Then we need to start down already."

I'm guessing that the real problem here is that the CRJ is now being used on trip lengths it was never really designed for. On a two-to-three-hour trip, an altitude in the high 30s is efficient and useful, but on a 1 hour or less does it really need to get up that high? Wouldn't the 20s be more efficient? If so, why give it a performance capability it would hardly ever use (and at greater capital cost, presumably).

My understanding of the efficiency advantage of the Q400 is that for one-hour trips it climbs like a rocket to about 20,000 feet, cruises at a reasonable rate, and gets back on the ground as quickly as it got up there -- beating comparable jets in the process. I bet the CRJ was initially designed with that kind of envelope in mind, never mind it is certified to FL41.

saab2000 · Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:14 am

Arrow,

Like I said, I do not know all of the economics of the airplane and the benefit of better climb performance vs the lower fuel burn at higher altitude. I do know that fuel flow drops considerably at higher altitudes.

But you are totally correct that a modern turbo prop would be a better airplane for many routes which are now being flown by the CRJ.

I used to fly the Saab 2000 (big surprise, huh?) and will say that for many, many routes that I now fly on the CRJ the Saab 2000 was a better plane. It cruised at a high pretty high speed (365 KTAS) and for legs of less than 90 minutes that translates into not much total time difference in the air.

The fuel consumption was lower on the Saab. The same is probably true as well for the Q400.

It is too bad that perfectly good airplanes are not being used correctly. The CRJ is pretty cramped for pax and is being, IMHO, misused by placing it on routes of 2-3 hours in place of "mainline" planes.

I hope that efficient and comfortable turboprops (read quiet and smooth, like the Saab 2000 and Q400) will make a comeback someday.

lowrider · Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:46 am

I would agree that an advanced turboprop would be a more econimical aircraft to operate on routes of 250 miles or less. In the US at least, turboprops have been equated to shady operators, rickety aircraft, noise, discomfort, and death. That would be a tough stigma to overcome. The value of the RJ lies in two area. One; in marketing the "jet image" you have a large stick to beat your turboprop competitors over the head. Two, the RJ does have the flexibility to do a 100 mile leg, then turn around and do a 700 mile leg, both profitably and in a timely manner.

CRJ200 Performance

CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

RE: CRJ200 Performance

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net