Barbie Jet Freighter?

[CrimsonEclipse]

Freight Natzi has the right idea.

The Saab 340 is a great plane but not enough cargo.
IBC also flys them.

Jetstream? Too small.
EMB-120 Too small/old.
DHC-8-100/200 Too small. -300 would be great (expensive).
SAAB 2000, I would LOVE to see this one, too expensive!
F50 Would be PERFECT. Too bad the European companies won't
sell them (I sure wouldn't).

It is not relevent if the airplane is produced or not, cargo does NOT
use new planes (expecially feeders). What (suitable) turbo props
are presently ON THE MARKET.

Suitable, meaning 11,000-16,000 lbs of cargo and available parts.


CE

 

[AerroMatt]

Not gunna happen. Unless the price of the CRJ's is less than 2 mil a plane, nobody is going to buy them (auto part haulers). Besides, someone has to come up with a low cost STC for a freight door before anyone would even look at them.

Windsor, if you read the original post, the STC is EXACTLY what Bombardier is coming up with. Rather, some kind of upgrade to existing airframes.

Currently, CRJ200's that are parked out in the SoCal desert are for sale at around 7-8 million. I'm still waiting to hear whether there is movement on them.

 

[Windsor]

Windsor, if you read the original post, the STC is EXACTLY what Bombardier is coming up with. Rather, some kind of upgrade to existing airframes. quote]


Yeah I saw that, but notice I said "Cheap" STC. Factory STC's are never cheap. You gotta wait till the STC has some competition to see the price come down to a point where the box haulers will pay for the conversion. I'm betting the STC costs an additional couple of mil.

 

[PHXFLYR]

I aggree with the T-prop production increase, it's all about fuel.

Where (and what) are these T-props in the market you're talking about?
F-50? none, ATR? Fedex feeders can't find any. Do-328? you're kidding
right? Saab 340 Would be nice!

What other suggestions do you have?


CE

.................................


PHXFLYR

 

[belchfire]

While fuel is always a consideration there are alot of ex passenger 747's full of freight passing newer, slower and more fuel efficient twins full of passengers. Being the only thing in it's class the 74 has experienced success as both a passenger aircraft and a purpose built freighter as well as a convertion.

Freighthaulers typically use cast off passenger aircraft. Exceptions would be the Caravan and the Civilian varient of the Hercules-the carivan is fairly cheap and the herc is for niche markets, and of course the 74. The Barbie jets may have to sit in the desert for a while as the next generation of turboprops or more Q-400's come on line in passenger service. When that happens the olders 50 seat rj's will get cheaper and become viable for freight conversions-if they have enough cycles left on them.

The Js-32 is unsuitable-there is a freight conversion for it but it costs more to do the conversion than an old 1900 that already has a big door and they have already been used as freighters.

The Dash 8 would be great...big door, tough airframe.

IMHO airplanes that were built by a colusion of countries that traditionally hated each other should be avoided. That rules out the ATR's!!!

I always thought that the ARJ would be a great freighter-it just looks right for the job! Also thought that BAE needed to look at twin turboprop version of that airframe...

DC-9's are getting high on cycles - that can be overcome but it is really expensive and at this point there is no way to fit them with more efficient engines.

At one point the cheapest narrow body jet out there was a 737-300 QC. Good machine, efficient engines, some sitting in the desert.

All airframe prices have escalated in the last decade. This is something that the freight airlines will just have to come to terms with. And there are advantages to using new aircraft. Lower fuel costs and better reliability are at the top of that list. The increase in fuel costs, a shortage of suitable aircraft and continued pressure to maintain reliability may drive a change in the type of aircraft purchased by short haul freight companies.

 

[deadstick]

any new news on the CRJ200PF...?

 

[belchfire]

Nothing like hauling 14k worth of boxes while climbing at 500fpm all the way up to 290 for a two hour segment! What a performer!

How were the boxes packaged???

Hey You got a job!

Congrats!

 

[CopilotDoug]

What a performer!

This brings up a good point. While it is most likely out of the picture to re-engine the DC-9s as Belch pointed out, what are the possibilities of putting stronger CF-34's on the CRJ200F?

Sidenote: I bet the American Airlines bean counters who determined (As fuel prices were "plunging") fuel would be cheap enough to bypass re-engining the MD-80 fleets are slapping themselves in the head now!

 

[landlover]

i went to flight school with the guy that is captain on that dhl saab340 right now!

 

[cruxx@9]

What is the short field performance on the CRJ? I have heard they are land lovers for T/O with no leading edge devices. I've never flown one, but that is the problem for replacing jets like the Falcon. The Falcon can get in and out of short strips with a decent load. Then again there is the cost of the airframe without even cutting a door in the thing. When I was flying for USA Jet, they were looking to replace the Falcon, but all comes down to the bottom line...cost.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

If a trunk carrier like Fedex or ups used them for their feeder networks, then
the t/o performance is less important. They will be flying out of hub airports
that the carriers serve. The CRJ would be used for longer routes that would
be less economical for the turboprops. International flights would be a good
start where a country is served by one (usually large) airport.

CE

 

[cruxx@9]

I agree with Crimson, for FedEx or a scheduled carrier the CRJ would be great, the same as a commuter for the airlines. Even better actually, because the package haulers bulk out before they weight out. And they also fly out of bigger airports. I was comparing the CRJ to flying on demand, non sched freight doggin. Coming out of Toluca, Mex City, Jack Ass Flatts, what ever sh*!hole either high, hot and heavy or heavy with a short runway in a cornfield somewhere. I had the understanding that the CRJ would not perform in those situations. But as a Package hauler the CRJ would probably be great.

 

[mynameisjim]

What is the short field performance on the CRJ? I have heard they are land lovers for T/O with no leading edge devices.

At max weights you need about 7000 to launch and about 5000 to land. At the loads US Air sells in the winter you can launch off 5000 often.


Are freight aircraft like this would be usually load restricted of volume restricted?

 

[bustinmins]

How adaptable is the CRJ to freight? I read something a while ago about the ERJ-145 family being pretty unsuitable... something about the skin on the airframe being too thin to support some sort of freight mod, and the fuselage too small to install a firmer deck to support higher floor loading.

I cannot imagine how the CRJ could withstand the daily abuse of loading CAN's..... In my previous job, I was a CRJ Captain. On one fine day in ORD, we had a jet bridge pop us pretty hard. This shove we recieved dented the skin on the door frame and thus required non-destructive testing to verify the skin was still safe enough to go. (Five hour delay prior to a mx ferry to have the NDT completed.)

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

It's a tough call. Likely, they will be bulk loaded. Cans would be nice but would
likely take extra time and $ to design and install AND certify.

They like to put a set of industrial rollers in the center and be done with it.
Hell, it doesn't even need a freight door.

CE

 

[Buckeye]

Like Cruxx said the CRJ wouldn't be able to operate in and out of 5000' runways wet or 6500' runways with snow. A turboprop wouldn't make it from Detriot to Toronto down to Leon, Mexico and back to Laredo in 10 flight hours or 14 duty hours. There is a nich in on demand freight between 2500pds up to 5500pds that Falcon fills. Unfortunately the Falcons are getting old. A 10 series DC-9 is cheaper to operate than a Falcon IF you subtract out the cost of fuel. A CRJ will run in the neighborhood of 5 Mil after Cargo conversion. Thats two DC-9s with about 2 mil worth of gas, or 880,000 gallons of jet A, which is approximately 1125 hours worth of flying. I hate when bordem sets in.

 

[Rottweiller]

At max weights you need about 7000 to launch and about 5000 to land. At the loads US Air sells in the winter you can launch off 5000 often.


Are freight aircraft like this would be usually load restricted of volume restricted?

You can land the CRJ at 47K in a much shorter distance than 5000' no problemo.

 

[sega]

The 2 CRJ200 were originally bought by West Air Sweden when they took over the contract to fly the mail in Norway in October 06. It was intended to fly a daily mail route from mainland Norway to the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard in the Artic Ocean.

The mail had previously been flown by pax configured 737s by Scandinavian Airlines. The result of this was basically the mail running 4-6 weeks behind because SAS offloaded mail in order to get their pax on the plane. Usually this was due to being weight limited on short runways in northern Norway.

The route from Tromsø to Longyearbyen (78°13′N 15°33′E) is 517NM. The route is over open water and Svalbard only has one usable airport with no alternatives other than to go back to Tromsø as most other runways in northern Norway are only around 3000ft long.

Up until recently WAS fleet has consisted of BAe ATPs and HS748s none of which will fly the distance with the required payload in excess of 17000lbs and being able to return to the alternate.

But now it looks like the CRJ200PF will actually be to small for this mission as the volume isn’t great enough. Today the route is flown by our Bae 146-200QT. (SE-DRN)(with the large freight door))
The CRJs should be online mid April based at OSL, so we will see what work management can come up with for them. Anyways it will be cool to see if these machines can generate any money. West Air Sweden is also one of northern europes largest FedEx feeders, so Im sure they will keep em flying.

thats too bad, west air is one of the last operators of HS748's with the downfall of Emerald

on a side note, we only have one more 748 on line, and it will be gone by summer. Alaire in Spain looks like they are going to be operating a couple of them.

Freight Natzi has the right idea.

The Saab 340 is a great plane but not enough cargo.
IBC also flys them.

Jetstream? Too small.
EMB-120 Too small/old.
DHC-8-100/200 Too small. -300 would be great (expensive).
SAAB 2000, I would LOVE to see this one, too expensive!
F50 Would be PERFECT. Too bad the European companies won't
sell them (I sure wouldn't).

It is not relevent if the airplane is produced or not, cargo does NOT
use new planes (expecially feeders). What (suitable) turbo props
are presently ON THE MARKET.

Suitable, meaning 11,000-16,000 lbs of cargo and available parts.


CE

DC9, are a nogo over here in Europe mainly due to noise restrictions.
Saab340, bunch of em flying freight in Scandinavia, seems to work good for the operators.
Fokker50, a few companies in northern europe seem to do real good with them.
Bae ATP, we are getting close to 30 planes now and we cant really complain about em, good freightdog for what we do. 1-2hr legs 17500lbs of cargo all night long

 

[CopilotDoug]

Rekkof

What ever happened to the plans for the Rekkof (Fokker backwards)?

Wasn't some company going to re-engine the thing and put winglets on it and then remarket them?

 

[AvroGuy]

The CRJ 700 would make a better frieghter than the 200. Better overall performance, more wieght about the same t/o and ldg distance