CRJ200 Aircraft

[jd2601]

CRJ 900 is not bad. Was in first today on this plane. Nice that it is one and two seats. If traveling with someone you can sit together or by yourself if traveling alone.

This is in contrast to a flight earlier in the week on a CRJ 200. Yes, I was seated next to a gentleman that was about 400 lbs and needed the seatbelt extender. The CRJ has barely enough room for a normal size person and no room for carryon of any size.

To complete that trip I had a layover and went to the Delta Club. I had a mouse run across my foot. Scared the %6&*&^ and I was not expecting this. I told the front desk and they replied yes they come in every night. I saw a mouse 4 times that night and the desk folks asked if it was the same mouse. No idea

 

[Ken555]

Ken, those 900 series are pretty nice (by comparison)

Yeah, it's going to be a fun day...not. My first 4.5 hr flight is on a 767, then another 1.75 hr on a CRJ900... In a weird way I'm glad the prices were such that I felt compelled to upgrade, so I'm not concerned about the space on the flights, as I normally would for those small planes.


Sent from my iPad

 

[gnorth16]

CRJs actually do technically fly a bit faster than say a 737...they take off faster, accellerate faster (ie reach cruising speed faster) climb faster and can land faster..all shaving time off the overall flight.

I dont believe the top speed is significantly different between airliners...all somewhere around 500mph.

It depends on the series...

The 200 series can either climb at a good rate or fly at a good rate but not both. So generally it is very slow until cruising altitude (which comparatively adds 4 minutes), then it will fly at the same speed as a 737.

The 700 and 900 series have no issues with climb rates and it does not factor into flying time.

All CRJ's will keep their speed up until lower to the ground/closer to the airport that a Boeing 737 or Airbus 319/320/321. This only shaves about 4 minutes off the flying time for a typical CRJ flight, so if it's a 200, the time difference is nothing, but if it's a 700 or 900, then you actually save some time.

My favorite plane for short haul flights is the Embraer 170 or 190 (just a larger version). It has the 2/2 configuration, with more leg room, head room and overhead storage than an RJ 200. The last Air Canada I flew to Montreal also had in seat entertainment.

Not very often to I get to talk about work on TUG!

 

[TUGBrian]

haha...id always assumed that the crj's also had much lower cruising altitudes given they were more likely to be flying (generally) shorter distances?

 

[Ken555]

haha...id always assumed that the crj's also had much lower cruising altitudes given they were more likely to be flying (generally) shorter distances?

I think that's a great point, re shorter distances. But it's relative. It seems to me that most of the flights I'm on regional planes are at least an hour, and many are longer. That seems reasonable to me for "shorter distances" but then there are some airlines (cough cough AA) that continually tries to get me to have a ~2.75 hr in the air flight (which means well over 3 hrs on board), and which I did once and never again. I don't consider that short haul.


Sent from my iPad

 

[gnorth16]

Just about every jet usually flies above FL290 (29,000 ft), but what they cruise at depends (mostly) on the winds. Planes are more efficient and burn less fuel at higher altitudes, IF, winds don't factor into it. If the winds are head on at 37,000 ft versus a tail wind at 31,000 ft, a plane may be better off flying lower and picking up favorable winds to save fuel and get to destination faster.

Other factors such as air temperature, weather (thunderstorms - never want to fly through one), active military airspace and maximum ceiling height also determine what planes cruise at.

Some altitudes today at work

Embraer 170/190 - 33,000 to 39,000 ft
Airbus 319/320/321 26,000 to 36,000 ft
CRJ 200 26,000 ft to 35,000 ft
CRJ 900 26,000 ft to 39,000 ft
Boeing 737 - 32,000 ft to 41,000 ft

Lots of planes were flying at 26,000 - 30,000 ft to avoid turbulence as they cut across the Jet stream, where others flew at 35,000 ft to pick up the Jet stream and get a 120 knot tail wind.

So it really depends what day it is, where they are flying and how far they are into their flight since the longer they are in the air, the more fuel is burnt off and the lighter the plane becomes. That's why everyday is different!

 

[Ken555]

If the winds are head on at 37,000 ft versus a tail wind at 31,000 ft, a plane may be better off flying lower and picking up favorable winds to save fuel and get to destination faster.

Favorable winds are great! This week my OGG-LAX flight time was just 4:20, fastest by about 10 minutes I've experienced. Unfortunately, we didn't get to our gate until 45 minutes later.


Sent from my iPad

 

[x3 skier]

Favorable winds are great! This week my OGG-LAX flight time was just 4:20, fastest by about 10 minutes I've experienced. Unfortunately, we didn't get to our gate until 45 minutes later.

I just go with the flow. So you get on the ground 15 minutes early, which is wonderful for the airline's stats, BUT you sit in the que for 15 minutes because the gate/ramper/gate agent schedule is planned on your scheduled arrival and there's nowhere to get off or Marshall the bleeding aircraft.

Unless it's transcontinental to a major Airport where they can accommodate irreg ops routinely like Heathrow, it's all lost in the wash.

One reason I fly myself to/from a local GA airport if the weather is good.

Cheers

 

[Carl D]

The only problem I have with a CJ, or any regional airliners, are the pilots. These companies BEG for barely qualified Pilots, then start them off on a salary that qualifies for food stamps.
Not to out down the pilots... Many are some of the brightest. The problem is they just haven't done it long enough to have lots of experience. The captain, yes maybe. The FO, basically out of diapers.

 

[Carl D]

It depends on the series...

The 200 series can either climb at a good rate or fly at a good rate but not both. So generally it is very slow until cruising altitude (which comparatively adds 4 minutes), then it will fly at the same speed as a 737.

The 700 and 900 series have no issues with climb rates and it does not factor into flying time.

All CRJ's will keep their speed up until lower to the ground/closer to the airport that a Boeing 737 or Airbus 319/320/321. This only shaves about 4 minutes off the flying time for a typical CRJ flight, so if it's a 200, the time difference is nothing, but if it's a 700 or 900, then you actually save some time.

My favorite plane for short haul flights is the Embraer 170 or 190 (just a larger version). It has the 2/2 configuration, with more leg room, head room and overhead storage than an RJ 200. The last Air Canada I flew to Montreal also had in seat entertainment.

Not very often to I get to talk about work on TUG!

Hi g.... Just curious what the CRJ cruises at ? Flown on them a number of times, but never flew one. I currently fly the A319/320/321 so just curious. Of course, in my former life I flew the C750 so I'm familiar with speed!