Cl-65

[Booker]

Just wondering where Bombardier got the CL-65 designation for the CRJ-200. Any light shed would be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[skydiverdriver]

I believe CL is the designation for the Challenger, as many ATC folks have called them a "Challenger Jet." And, 65 was just the next number they wanted to use. Hope this helps you.

 

[Looking4Traffic]

CL-65 vs. CRJ

Booker:

Here's the short answer to your question: "Just wondering where Bombardier got the CL-65 designation for the CRJ-200?"

It is the difference between the FAA's pilot-type designation for the aircraft versus the manufacturer's designation for the model.

The "CL" comes from "Canadair, Ltd.", the original manufacturer, before the aircraft, and its design, were bought by Bombardier. The regional jet began its history at Canadair in the early 1980s with the advent of the CL-600, the Challenger Jet. The FAA pilot-type designation for this aircraft is also CL-600, shortened on my type rating to "CL-60". With improvements in engines, fuselage and wings came model designations CL-601, CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R but the FAA's type rating remains "CL-600" for all of those aircraft. Further improvements in the aircraft (particularly in flight instrumentation) during the late 80's and early 90's lead to new models: CL-600-21316 and CL-604. The FAA considered these new models sufficiently different to require another type rating to act as PIC: the CL-604 type designation.

In 1992, Bombardier introduced the CRJ200, the 50-seat Canadair Regional Jet. Someone else will have to translate why the model number "200" for the 50- seater. The CRJ700 (70-seater) came next and the CRJ900 (86-seater) will, according to Bombardier's website, be introduced yet in 2003. True to their history, Bombardier designated the CRJ's model number to be the CL-600-21319. The FAA's pilot-type designation for the aircraft is CL-65. Why the number "65" escapes me. I suppose it's similar to the logic for designating one Citation Type the "500" and another the "550". (They're different but with similar origins?) I'll let someone else answer that one.

Hope that helps.

 

[Booker]

Thanks for the info guys. I figured the "CL" referenced the Challenger line, but I couldn't figure out the 65, either. I've been asked before, and it seeems some pax who don't know better assume it refers to the seating capacity. And so ensues a lengthy discussion about scope clauses.

Thanks again.

 

[Beechnut]

65 is the total persons the aircraft can legally carry. 3 crew, 50 passengers, plus 12 lap children.

S.

 

[EOpilot]

So by your logic the Challenger is certified to carry 60. Where would they sit?

And you forgot about the jumpseat. Our CRJs are certified to carry 54 persons. Lap children do not count in this number, and as far as I know, every pax could have one making for a total of 104 souls on board allowed.

Plus I'm sure you could fit a few midgets in the lav.

(edited to remove an extraneous comma)

 

[sabreliner]

To my knowledge, you can only carry as many lap children as you have infant life vests. At least, that is the deal on the Brasilia at my airline. We have 2, so we carry 2 lap kids only.

 

[Beechnut]

Laps don't need Oxygen? The Cl-65 has three drop down masks on the cabin right side and two on the left. I'm thinking laps had to sit on cabin right.

You're right about the jumpseat. I should have thought of that when I heard the explination for the 65.

S.

 

[EOpilot]

OXYGEN! Right! I figured there was a reason behing the 12 that you stated.

Sorry, but some of the groundschool stuff that I deemed more appropriate for Captain's knowledge got dumped in favor of flap speeds and stuff.

One thing I do remember, though, is that some aircraft were equipped with three O2 masks on both sides, so that number would still go up by 13.

Anyway, I think we owe each other a beer now.

 

[CRJ puppy]

Yup, "EO" is correct. You can order your CL-65 with 3 O2 masks on both sides if you like. Hell you can even get 2 FMS's if you like AND an additional FA jumpseat in the rear. So that really screws up the numbers theory on the 65.

There is no limitation at my airline regarding the number of <2 yrs olds (nor anything in the 121 regs) and we don't have to seat them on the left side where there are 3 masks...but then on the old Midway CRJ's that we have, we've got 3 masks on both sides...oh sh*t, which side does the baby sit on??? You see, that arguement doesn't wash. You could legally have 50 <2yr olds seated. (Oh, and there are 13 rows on the left side and 12 on the right side, so that throws that 65 # theory way off!)

Sorry.

I wanna share beer now too!

(My apologies for the sarcasm...it's far too late to be awake!)