CRJ 700/900 Drivers

[USAFftrplt]

Just curious if any of you guys out here fly the 700/900? How do you like it compared to the 200? Are the climb rates and speeds much better? Any overall comments are appreciated from a fan of these stretch CRJs

 

[homerjdispatch]

From a dispatchers' POV the CRJ7 has a much quicker climb and a faster cruise speed. At my airline we fiel the 200 at M.74 or.77. We file the 700 at M.77 or M.80.

I have seen the 700 reach FL370 and 390 with 70 pax many times. There is no way for the 200 to do that with a full boat.

 

[bvt1151]

1000 fpm up to 350 full at M .77. 800 fpm up to 370 or 390 depending on ISA. 410 only at ISA +10 or less and under max landing weight at altitude.
Burns around 1400 per side at 390 M .80 but will do .84-.85 if you bump it up to max cruise at 370 or less (but you'd better not stay at max cruise too long or it will keep accelerating).

About 5% slower ref than the -200 due to the slats, and lands much more like a 727 or mad dog than a -200. Double your chances at getting a hot FA, but also double your chances at getting an ugly one. Stairs offer flexibility so you don't have to wait for a jetbridge or portable stairs, but when the airplane gets light, the nose strut extends, making the stairs extremely steep.

Mechanically it seems like its always got something deferred, but nothing ever really breaks. Its almost always a matter of circuit breakers to reset a computer or over-zealous status messages. APU's tend to be deferred because some people don't realize it won't start very well with a 30-40 kt tailwind, or above 6000ft PA on the ground. So it gets written up and maintenence can't ever find anything. It seems to be more of a victim of FAA regs dissallowing pilots from pulling cb's than of actual mechanical issues.

Vibrates at idle on the ground, and if you drop flaps 20 above 210 knots (200 light) it'll shake you like crazy. There's a recirc fan, as well as 6th stage PRSOV that opens at idle always giving you more than enough air. Unfortunately no floor heating, and a nose-low attitude on the ground, the cockpit is freezing, and the aft cabin (3-4 feet above cockpit) is roasting. APU is only really needed to power up airplane and start engines.

Floor was lowered which provides more head room and more appropriate window height, but it does narrow the aisle a little bit. Frankly I'm more comfortable in the back of this thing than a 737, MD-80, or 757, but plenty of RJ-bashers will argue that one.

Apparently second only to the 757 in thrust to weight ratio. I'm biased, but I think its a hotrod, and if you've seen it on the ramp, you'll agree.

Picture

 

[Treme]

nothing to write home about

I dont have too much as a basis for comparison. The only other pure-jets i've flown have been the DC9, the 737-300/400, and the CRJ200.

My first impression is that it's still an RJ. It does have significantly more power (and more importantly better air conditioning) than its smaller sibling.

The airplane has relatively poor flying qualities. It still has rather large pitch excursions with flap/slat extension unless you slow to min maneuvering speeds prior to selection. (can't do the "slats and 5" trick like we did on the 9'). Selection of flaps 20 over 210 does seem to create a big rumble. In other airplanes i've flown you could avoid uncomfortable use of the speedbrakes by configuring with slats and a few degrees of flaps. In the CR7, unfortunately, that is every bit as uncomfortable as just using speedbrakes. Disapointing.

It is somewhat sloppy at slower speed. I dont know whether this is a problem with the artificial feel or the multifunction spoilers, but this isn't so large an aircraft that the lag time between control imput and aircraft response should be that significant (in roll). The DC9 -- with no hydraulics save the rudder -- had virtually instantaneous response.

The pitch attitude on final is certainly an improvement, but still lacks in the flying qualities in landing configuration that the 9 and the 737 had. Maybe it just takes a little getting used to. I havent been flying it all that long.

The FADEC is certainly a nice change but, sadly, the airplane still tuckers out in the mid-20s to around 1000 feet per minute. In order to manage energy and climb at .74 in the higher altitudes, you just cant let the thing get slow. As a result you lose a lot of climb performance. It's not as bad as the 9' and certainly is a thousand times better than the 50 seater, but it doesnt hold a candle to the 737 (and, I assume, the 727, 757 etc.) when it comes to mid-altitude climbs through the mid-20s and low 30s. The 737 would hold at least 1500 fpm through FL290 and maybe 1000 fpm above that. It was rare to see it fall below that (in VNAV climb) until you were passing FL350.

Bottom line? It's still an RJ. The customers dont like climbing the stairs, the overheads are too small, and they still use the cheap seats with very little padding. The product is not at all competitive with the E170 and certainly not with the larger mainline airframes. Its one saving grace is the lack of middle seats.

Companies that fly the CR7 and CR9 could make improvements which would MAKE it more competitive (jetways at EVERY station, XM radio at each seat, better seat quality, light snack service on flights in excess of 2 hrs) but I sincerely doubt they will spend the $$.

Just adding my opinion to the mix.

 

[On Your Six]

I dont have too much as a basis for comparison. The only other pure-jets i've flown have been the DC9, the 737-300/400, and the CRJ200.

My first impression is that it's still an RJ. It does have significantly more power (and more importantly better air conditioning) than its smaller sibling.

The airplane has relatively poor flying qualities. It still has rather large pitch excursions with flap/slat extension unless you slow to min maneuvering speeds prior to selection. (can't do the "slats and 5" trick like we did on the 9'). Selection of flaps 20 over 210 does seem to create a big rumble. In other airplanes i've flown you could avoid uncomfortable use of the speedbrakes by configuring with slats and a few degrees of flaps. In the CR7, unfortunately, that is every bit as uncomfortable as just using speedbrakes. Disapointing.

It is somewhat sloppy at slower speed. I dont know whether this is a problem with the artificial feel or the multifunction spoilers, but this isn't so large an aircraft that the lag time between control imput and aircraft response should be that significant (in roll). The DC9 -- with no hydraulics save the rudder -- had virtually instantaneous response.

The pitch attitude on final is certainly an improvement, but still lacks in the flying qualities in landing configuration that the 9 and the 737 had. Maybe it just takes a little getting used to. I havent been flying it all that long.

The FADEC is certainly a nice change but, sadly, the airplane still tuckers out in the mid-20s to around 1000 feet per minute. In order to manage energy and climb at .74 in the higher altitudes, you just cant let the thing get slow. As a result you lose a lot of climb performance. It's not as bad as the 9' and certainly is a thousand times better than the 50 seater, but it doesnt hold a candle to the 737 (and, I assume, the 727, 757 etc.) when it comes to mid-altitude climbs through the mid-20s and low 30s. The 737 would hold at least 1500 fpm through FL290 and maybe 1000 fpm above that. It was rare to see it fall below that (in VNAV climb) until you were passing FL350.

Bottom line? It's still an RJ. The customers dont like climbing the stairs, the overheads are too small, and they still use the cheap seats with very little padding. The product is not at all competitive with the E170 and certainly not with the larger mainline airframes. Its one saving grace is the lack of middle seats.

Companies that fly the CR7 and CR9 could make improvements which would MAKE it more competitive (jetways at EVERY station, XM radio at each seat, better seat quality, light snack service on flights in excess of 2 hrs) but I sincerely doubt they will spend the $$.

Just adding my opinion to the mix.

Having flown both the CR7 and the E170 as a pax I have to say there is no comparison. The E170 feels like a mini Airbus and it is far more comfortable from a pax standpoint - bigger bins, wider cabin with much more comfortable seats, huge windows that don't require you craning your neck down and bigger lavatories. Plus, the E170 flight deck is way more advanced (Primus EPIC).

The CR7/CR9 retain the "tubular" feel of the 200 and are disappointing when compared to the newer Embraer product.

 

[scudrunner]

Is it still same type rating as -200?

 

[bvt1151]

The FADEC is certainly a nice change but, sadly, the airplane still tuckers out in the mid-20s to around 1000 feet per minute. In order to manage energy and climb at .74 in the higher altitudes, you just cant let the thing get slow. As a result you lose a lot of climb performance.

1000 fpm @ mach .80, maybe. I climbed out at 250 knots to .74 once (bombardier's actual best climb speed) and we were at 1500 fpm, at 72000# (73000$ t/o weight) and FL290. Even the subscribed 290 yields better than 1000 fpm in the 20's, although it does tucker out a bit, but still above 1000fpm if you manage your engergy correctly (not hard to do). What it loses in the upper 20's it gains back in the lower 30's, fadec scheduling, I suppose. M .80 cruise is no problem from 310 to 350 unless ISA gets above +15. The 85.3 limitation is what kills your cruise in the upper 20's, but that's supposedly fixed and we're just awaiting the change in procedure.

Fuel flows compared to the EMB are destined to be lower dispite Embraer's projections. Higher weight EMB's and larger engines of the same type can not result in lower fuel burns. Even Bombardier's projections were off. The difference between the two is about 10 years of technology. Fortunately for Embraer, they receive those Airbus-like subsidies from the government to keep their aircraft prices rediculously low. I'd be interested in finding out the useful life of the EMB's since Embraer is notorious for typically coming in at half of Bombardier's comparable products, but maybe they figured something out.

 

[Habib]

I think the change in price has a ton to do with what you can pay for labor in San Jose De Campos vs. Canada.

 

[USAFftrplt]

guys this info is great! What kind of thrust rating are we looking at with the 700/900 models?

 

[propjockey]

Why get second-hand information when you can go right to the source?

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp

 

[328dude]

All three have the same type rating. Just have to go through 4-5 days of differences training.

 

[Flying Illini]

All three have the same type rating. Just have to go through 4-5 days of differences training.

What about compared to the Challenger 604? 601?

 

[328dude]

I asked Bombardier that same question. They have a program to go from the 601,604 to the CRJ, as well as the reverse.

It's a two week program, with a type ride. They are diffrent types.

 

[91100 100 set]

This IS a refreshing thread. Sometimes you just want to talk about airplanes!

 

[j41driver]

I asked Bombardier that same question. They have a program to go from the 601,604 to the CRJ, as well as the reverse.

It's a two week program, with a type ride. They are diffrent types.

I know it's been a while since this post...but do you have any info on who to contact about CRJ --> Challenger 601 / 604 training? Thanks!