Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

AWAC flying for united again

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Beechnut said:
What does bigger engines have to do with a single engine departure procedure and the maneuvering of a 700 on one engine?

Seriously, does a bigger allow a 700 to fly slower on one engine? Isn't that what the benefit of the 146 is?

A White pilot.

I can't answer your question completely. This is what I was told by an ex AWI pilot. G0jets went with the CRJ9's engines of the CRJ7 so they could pick up the ASE route and other High Altitude airport flying. Maybe they produce a lot more power. I really don't know.

A Black Pilot :)
 
SkyWest is getting the 900 engines on the rest of the 700 orders and starting to retrofit previous 700's with the new 900 engine......hmm........makes you wonder......

PS. I like Beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow.
 
HockleyPilot said:
SkyWest is getting the 900 engines on the rest of the 700 orders and starting to retrofit previous 700's with the new 900 engine......hmm........makes you wonder......

I was under the impression that all 700s were being retrofitted with 900 engines due to defects found on the 700 model. I could be wrong, though.
 
sweptback said:
I was under the impression that all 700s were being retrofitted with 900 engines due to defects found on the 700 model. I could be wrong, though.

That's what I heard too. The -900 engines are de-rated to -700 levels
 
Oops! I was beat to the punch

The CF34-8C1 engine is no longer going to be supported. This is the reason for the change. While it is true that all future 700s are going to have the 900 engine (sorry - can't remember the model number), it is derated to the same thrust output as the CF34-8C1. There are no performance improvement benefits, so any rumors that say otherwise can be discounted.
 
Last edited:
Why would higher thrust engines make a difference on circling approach?
For you nubbies that have not flown into ASE, do you really think a CL700 can circle on one engine 30deg bank at no more than 130kts, and do a balked. :rolleyes:
 
I heard they are retrofitting them with mountain deflectors.
 
propjockey said:
While it is true that all future 700s are going to have the 900 engine (sorry - can't remember the model number), it is derated to the same thrust output as the CF34-8C1. There are no performance improvement benefits, so any rumors that say otherwise can be discounted.

{OPPS Sorry, In my JIMMY BEAM state I failed to mention that, so, in turn it would have NO affect on performance.}

DISCLAIMER: Excessive drinking can lead to FlightInfo Ramblings and conclusion jumping........cheers
 
Last edited:
labbats said:
I heard they are retrofitting them with mountain deflectors.

Thats f'en hilarious.

RUMOR ALERT: Had a maintenance guy tell me yesterday that UAL bit on the 10 146s as of 2 days ago. No other details though.
 
propjockey said:
The CF34-8C1 engine is no longer going to be supported. This is the reason for the change. While it is true that all future 700s are going to have the 900 engine (sorry - can't remember the model number), it is derated to the same thrust output as the CF34-8C1. There are no performance improvement benefits, so any rumors that say otherwise can be discounted.

Good Info. Thanks
 

Latest resources

Back
Top