Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Geez Brett.... Not sure we needed that. Most people die in bed, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I wasn't the one who called the 146 "a piece of junk" then went on to say the 319 (320) was so much better, I was just pointing out, to anyone who might not realize that his/her statement was a personal opinion, and had no basis in fact. Personally I don't like any prefexed with DC, MD or F Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I was not talking about safety, there has not been an airliner in more than a generation that one could say was actually unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Well gosh, I am a married man. But heck, I'd love to meet you too. :$ Forgive me for that, but you're gettin' me excited with that "on your request" stuff. Re: Pilots and Pictures... Every once in a while we used to get DC-10 snags in the book with little hand drawn pictures of what the guages and switches looked like when something happened. I loved it! Wayyyy better than the "it don't work" kind of snag! Anyway, yep, I think I know what you mean... Airbus introduced ECAM with simple schematic representations of various selectable and auto-displayed if faulted systems, and it was an awesome improvement to the "on' light, or fault light. The latest I've seen from Boeing seems to combine their earlier (somewhat dumber) EICAS with ECAM and it's pretty darned good.... I saw what the Global Express had and was impressed. I'd guess the newer RJ's are fairly similar. Cheers to you. Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Mitch, What often gets lost in some of the hangar talk is the fact that the CRJ (as opposed to ERJ, BRJ, ARJ, etc., etc.,) is what it IS. It IS a Regional Jet. (sounds like something with limited range to me) It serves the Regional Airline remarkably well. Look at the stand-alone regional airlines existing today simply because of the RJs success. The term Regional Jet (and I stand to be corrected on this point) was ‘reborn’ at British Aerospace in the late 80s, when they decided to re-invent the BAe146 with the latest Glass Cockpit Technology by calling it the RJ80 or the RJ70, and NOT Bomb-a-Deer, as some would have us believe. My experience with the CRJ “Sky-Doo” is that it is an exceptional aircraft, very well suited for its’ role in life and regardless of its corporate beginnings, fun to fly. I’ve also heard complaints about the RJ that it lacks this or that. (which is true) For example, IF they'd only put an auto-throttle in it.... IF it only had slats (100 & 200)…. I know the list is longer than that, but I think we have to keep things in perspective. It's a 20 Million dollar aeroplane! That’s dollars, not dollarettes! I think Bombardier would be shooting themselves in the foot if they loaded the thing up with readily available 'options'. All of a sudden they'd end up with a $37 Million dollar aeroplane. Not practical. Not competitive. I'd be curious to know if the F28 can do M.76 at FL330? Can the F28 make FL330? (Honestly, I dunno!) What about the Fisher-Price Starlifter? (couldn't resist) Can the 146 do M.74 at FL330? Can it make Three Three Zero??? It has it’s quirks but overall it’s nice to hand fly. (Haven’t flown an airliner yet that wasn’t nice to hand fly) It’s at its best with full use of the AFCS Auto-flight, as is any Glass Aeroplane. I simply don’t like the Collins Avionics package in the 100/200. Who ever designed it AND the guy who approved it both need to be shot. But, in defense of Bombardier, they weren’t exactly as experienced in the making of airliners as Megajets OR Blunderbus when they started the RJ project so I’m not sure how they organized the flight deck. Let’s just say getting set-up for an approach is an exhaustive ritual and coulda-shoulda been much easier for the crew than it is. I don’t like the Runway Performance of the 100/200 for takeoff and landing. It uses up far too much runway. (Slats would have helped) Most Blunderbuses have slower approach speeds than the CRJ. I do like the leather seats. Nice touch and the PAX seem to like them. Pity about the PAX windows. On a nominal Regional Sector (by Bombardier’s definition at least) using whatever ticket price they’ve came up with for that sector, (I have the figures somewhere around this place) the 50-seater breaks even with only 11 seats sold. Having switched from analog to glass and back to analog, I’d say IMHO the switch from Glass back to analog was by far the tougher transition. Those analog flight decks are far too busy and cumbersome than they need be for two man crews. So, the RJ is a refreshing switch. I’m not sure why some out there would prefer the old DC-9-30 or B-737-200 over the CRJ but I also have an opinion on that. After flying a Megajets glass narrowbody and a coupla Blunderbus glass widebodies, the CRJ was sorta-like a sports car in comparison. Nice comparison too, I’d say. As for the fate of Air Canada, I’ve got my fingers crossed. We don’t need any more airlines to fail in this country. Period. Personally, I’d like to see them or Jazz with any version of the CRJ simply because it’s a Canadian aircraft. We’ve all seen tax money doled out to BBD, and rightly so, but I wouldn’t like to see an airline-led, Avro Arrow saga, torpedo the Aerospace Industry along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 What about the Fisher-Price Starlifter? (couldn't resist) Can the 146 do M.74 at FL330? Can it make Three Three Zero??? The Quadrapuff (my favorite name) can not do M.74 at any altitude. However it can do M.72 at 310 given enough time and cold enough OAT's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Thanks GU... Interesting perspective. Slats sure do make sense. I suppose the Canadair Challenger (which, I think, was the beginnings of the CRJ?) didn't really need them, so the child just never had them in it's genes. I agree with your last paragraph. It'd be really nice if we could avoid any more Canadian aviation extinctions. I'm not sure I'd completely share your opinion of analog displays...For the ND and PFD I guess crt's have it all over analog, but the nice real round dials for engine instrumentation (in a twin anyway) sure are clear to read. And in the '37's, I don't think anything is too busy. ...'cept maybe the FA's at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Then what do you base your statement on???? Why is the 146 a piece of junk in your opinion?? Your personal preferrence may run to buses or MDs and that is fine, but why call down the 146 just because you don't like it. Even though I haven't worked on them for a little over a year, I'm still somewhat offended by your comment, now had you called it the Tonkajet,Fischer price airplane or even one of the cute little names Mitch comes up with I wouldn't have responded the way I did. Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest the boy Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 "AC's intention is for these new small jets to be opperated by Jazz" Is this the case or speculation? This is the Million Dollar question isn't it? If you belong to "Jets are us" you have one point of view on where those shiny new jets should go. But if your like me, you believe those jazzy regional jets belong at the regional carrier who has a business plan to make money. I find it hard to believe that mainline flying the rj has only to fill 11 seats to make money. With their cost structure they'd need to fill all the seats (including the lav and jumpseats ) to make any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 The new RJ's 700 and 900 have slats,that should help getting the landing speeds down. Mitch... If you miss giving the loving required to keep the old dc10 serviceable maybe you should be asking for a ski-doo license!!In yul they are the most demanding airplane we have,routinely breaking down(even when planning doesn't load them with work calls). I was transfered to the line over a year ago because of licence requirements(a320 they told me)but have since been working 80% of the time on the skidoo....it needs so much loving its not funny!!! Lupin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airway Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Anything I have seen in print does not specify- "Maximum certified seating" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JazzMTC Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Don't forget a good pair of knee pads. This airplane demands that AME's be on their knees all the time. Come to think of it, AME's are always on their knees( contract time, schedule changes,etc..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blizzard Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Look at the Type Certificate - it specifies maximum number of passengers. For the 1-46 (at least in Canada) maximum passengers is listed at 94. (not 100 or 112 as John S. posted - You wouldn't be able to register it in Canada with that number of seats.) The Bombardier max certified passengers are 68 for the 700, 70 for the 701, and 90 for the 900. No Canadian Type Certificate exists for the other types, but per the FAA, maximum passengers for the 717 is 134 and for the A318 is 136. I don't believe the Embraers have been type certified yet, so no official numbers exist yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Sowsun Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 "all aircraft with a maximum certified seating capacity between 76 and 110 seats" The wording is part of the new 6 year ACPA contract. It has to do with the payscales negotiated for the 76-110 seat aircraft. Mike Sowsun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 By any metric one might evaluate a modern airliner the -146 fares very poorly. I think even those who love them wouldn't disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Perhaps a little heavy on the fuel burn side but, in it's intended role, what's out there that's any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 You see now that I can live with, but that being said, the 146 was designed in the 60s or early 70s by Hawker-Sidley and then selved, only to be resurrected by BAe, in the early 80s, so yes by "Modern" standards she's a bit lacking, but definitely not a piece of junk Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.