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.