jetcareers - View Single Post

Matt777 · August 18th, 2005, 20:26

[ QUOTE ]

I jumpseated home from Berlin with a Bombardier design engineer. He explained that the big problem was not the engines but the wing. The CRJ has the same wing as the Challenger, which he called a "cruise wing" - good for long haul fuel economy. He said in afterthought that there is no way that should have been put on a "regional jet."

Supposedly the 700 and 900 were to have a "climb wing." I got out of the rat race before I found out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi everyone- I'm pretty new here and have only posted in the ATP forum since I plan to go there... I just got my PPL yesterday. I do enjoy flying jets on flightsim, but I have never flown anything bigger than a 172!

What the CRJ engineer said makes me wonder what Vfe is for the CRJ and what the first notch of flaps is on a CRJ.

Hard to believe that they used a wing that they shouldn't have but you would think that they could have made a "patch" for it by making the flaps strong enough that you could deploy them by 1 or 2 degrees for climb and in effect make it more of a climb wing without adding too much drag.

Several years back Singapore Airlines was not happy with the Airbus A340s they had because the high wing loading caused by having too little wing area reduced the climb rate so much.

While other airline's 777s were climbing above thunderstorms out of Singapore their A340s were stuck going under and burning more fuel.

I can't remember where I read that because it was several years ago... I think it is probably accurate since Singapore ended up trading A340s into Boeing for 777s.

As I mentioned earlier, in terms of real jet flying, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about!

Vfe for CRJ?
First detent of flaps?

thanks!

August 18th, 2005, 20:26	#12
Matt777 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Seattle, Washington, U.S. Posts: 125	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] I jumpseated home from Berlin with a Bombardier design engineer. He explained that the big problem was not the engines but the wing. The CRJ has the same wing as the Challenger, which he called a "cruise wing" - good for long haul fuel economy. He said in afterthought that there is no way that should have been put on a "regional jet." Supposedly the 700 and 900 were to have a "climb wing." I got out of the rat race before I found out. [/ QUOTE ] Hi everyone- I'm pretty new here and have only posted in the ATP forum since I plan to go there... I just got my PPL yesterday. I do enjoy flying jets on flightsim, but I have never flown anything bigger than a 172! What the CRJ engineer said makes me wonder what Vfe is for the CRJ and what the first notch of flaps is on a CRJ. Hard to believe that they used a wing that they shouldn't have but you would think that they could have made a "patch" for it by making the flaps strong enough that you could deploy them by 1 or 2 degrees for climb and in effect make it more of a climb wing without adding too much drag. Several years back Singapore Airlines was not happy with the Airbus A340s they had because the high wing loading caused by having too little wing area reduced the climb rate so much. While other airline's 777s were climbing above thunderstorms out of Singapore their A340s were stuck going under and burning more fuel. I can't remember where I read that because it was several years ago... I think it is probably accurate since Singapore ended up trading A340s into Boeing for 777s. As I mentioned earlier, in terms of real jet flying, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about! Vfe for CRJ? First detent of flaps? thanks!