CRJ Freighter

[Freight Dawg]

I hear that there will soon be a CRJ freighter available, anyone know of anyone getting them or looked at them? From what I read seems to be aimed at the scheduled service operators.

 

[mesaserf]

You can lease one for about 40K a month so why not?

 

[pilotyip]

I hear that there will soon be a CRJ freighter available, anyone know of anyone getting them or looked at them? From what I read seems to be aimed at the scheduled service operators.

A couple companies are looking at making CRJ cargo conversions. The company in Miami AEI (?) who did our MD-80 cargo conversion is supposed to be ready to build one. First they want enough orders to make it worth while, the conversion is supposed to run over $1M.

A lot of cargo operators are looking at this bird, so we may here something soon. It will have to operate under 121 due to its payload. I understand the older ones with the smaller engines will suffer performce problems conmpared to the DA-20's and DC-9's that go into smaller fields.

 

[hawkerflyer]

Looks like a PF model already exists

http://www.airliners.net/photo/West...1986069/&sid=5810742c7de06e397ed728812565e4c4

 

[pilotyip]

Good looking bird, but I don't see a cargo door on it. You can be a cargo plane without a cargo door. ABX ran DC-9's with passenger doors, a lot LJ operators fly with just the passenger door. I don't think anyone has built a carg door version of the bird yet.

 

[BayBum37ft]

Will someone please convert ALL the CRJ's to freighters. I hate flying on those things.
Thank you in advance

BayBum

 

[Windsor]

The problem with the CRJ is its a runway hog. At least the DA-20 can still do short runways. Anything less than 5500ft is almost un-doable with any kind of load with the barbie jet. Besides, that plane throws a lot of fault codes. Unless you equip the pilots with the circuit breaker cheat sheet that the mechanics have, mx on the road in Mexico during the middle of the night could be problematic. In my 5 years of flying the -200, I had more apu faults than just about any problem. No apu = no start without a huffer. Again, problematic for on-demand freight. At least the DA-20 is dependable. Lot easier to do a battery cart start than a huffer.

 

[pilotyip]

The problem with the CRJ is its a runway hog. At least the DA-20 can still do short runways. Anything less than 5500ft is almost un-doable with any kind of load with the barbie jet. Besides, that plane throws a lot of fault codes. Unless you equip the pilots with the circuit breaker cheat sheet that the mechanics have, mx on the road in Mexico during the middle of the night could be problematic. In my 5 years of flying the -200, I had more apu faults than just about any problem. No apu = no start without a huffer. Again, problematic for on-demand freight. At least the DA-20 is dependable. Lot easier to do a battery cart start than a huffer.

But the CRJ bird can haul about 75% of the DC-9-10 loads at half the cost. It won't be competing for DA-20 loads, but much bigger loads at a much lower cost per mile. Won't be able to match the CV-5800 for pay load and cost per mile, but then it is a lot cheaper.

 

[Windsor]

I dunno what the -9 max takeoff is, but the -200 is only 53,000lbs with typical bow's of >30,000lbs give or take in an airline configuration. Also, the -200 is extremely nose heavy, might limit how much freight it can actually carry. While they are certainly more fuel efficient than the -9's, I dont think they are going to make good freighters. Now the -700's and -900's are a much better plane and would make a better replacement for the -9's

 

[fokkerjet]

I believe the conversions are all PF (package freighter) models, similar to FedEx's aborted CL600's. I bet there's no reinforced floor, so only light, bulky freight only.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

I dunno what the -9 max takeoff is, but the -200 is only 53,000lbs with typical bow's of >30,000lbs give or take in an airline configuration. Also, the -200 is extremely nose heavy, might limit how much freight it can actually carry. While they are certainly more fuel efficient than the -9's, I dont think they are going to make good freighters. Now the -700's and -900's are a much better plane and would make a better replacement for the -9's

I would like to see if they are still nose heavy after a cargo conversion.
I would also like to see if ballast is required when flying a cargo converted version while empty.

 

[pilotyip]

I dunno what the -9 max takeoff is, but the -200 is only 53,000lbs with typical bow's of >30,000lbs give or take in an airline configuration. Also, the -200 is extremely nose heavy, might limit how much freight it can actually carry. While they are certainly more fuel efficient than the -9's, I dont think they are going to make good freighters. Now the -700's and -900's are a much better plane and would make a better replacement for the -9's

Much of this was also said about the MD-80 cargo conversion, it has worked out to be a pretty good bird for moving lots of heavy stuff.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

Good looking bird, but I don't see a cargo door on it. You can be a cargo plane without a cargo door. ABX ran DC-9's with passenger doors, a lot LJ operators fly with just the passenger door. I don't think anyone has built a carg door version of the bird yet.

If there is a cargo door, it's probably on the port side.....like most any cargo birds.

 

[pilotyip]

If there is a cargo door, it's probably on the port side.....like most any cargo birds.

Yes that could be, but no one has verified the exsisitnce of CRJ cargo door bird yet.

 

[propsarebest]

http://www.cascadeaerospace.com/images/stories/2012_CRJ100200-PF_brochure_LOW_RES_DEC_9_2013.pdf

 

[pilotyip]

http://www.cascadeaerospace.com/images/stories/2012_CRJ100200-PF_brochure_LOW_RES_DEC_9_2013.pdf

just an Airborne DC-9, no cargo door on the port a side.

 

[jmreii]

A couple companies are looking at making CRJ cargo conversions. The company in Miami AEI (?) who did our MD-80 cargo conversion is supposed to be ready to build one. First they want enough orders to make it worth while, the conversion is supposed to run over $1M.

A lot of cargo operators are looking at this bird, so we may here something soon. It will have to operate under 121 due to its payload. I understand the older ones with the smaller engines will suffer performce problems conmpared to the DA-20's and DC-9's that go into smaller fields.

The operators considering such an aircraft are probably overseas and not in the US because of the many regulations cutting into profits.