So Long: CRJ-1000 Prototype Photo

I have a Pilot pen that looks strikingly similar to this plane!

Ooh sweet. I love those long CRJ's.

I just look at that and think that:

1. A thin and long fuselage like that must buckle during any type of hard landing.

and

2. Those tiny engines make it look like the most underpowered aircraft ever. Can they really support the plane at any real payload?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I just look at that and think that:

1. A thin and long fuselage like that must buckle during any type of hard landing.

and

2. Those tiny engines make it look like the most underpowered aircraft ever. Can they really support the plane at any real payload?

---

1. The pressures on landing are spread out through the fuselage to avoid such things from happening. The A346 and 773's fuselage is long and thin for their size, do they buckle on hard landings? No. While they are of course much large then this plane its relative in terms of weight. Has one CRJ-900 buckled on landing yet?

2. The size of the engines don't mean a thing you can squeeze alot of power out of small things these days. The engines on this plane produce 15,510 lbs of thrust similar to that of the E Jets.

this thing will be like a G-V on landing, you'll have to land it twice. seeing this picture only brings to mind mr. peel's "it's like flying in a tube" comment and coresponding visual aide...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

2. Those tiny engines make it look like the most underpowered aircraft ever. Can they really support the plane at any real payload?

---

I'm sure the thrust/weight compares to other jets in its class and probably way outperforms early jetliners like the classic 737. It's also the design of the wing that affects performance. No one calls the CRJ-200 underpowered, but it takes forever to get off the ground, thanks to the lack of slats. Once it's in the air, though, it rockets upwards.

[quote=T-Bird76]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Phil D.":3ra71xpf

I just look at that and think that:

1. A thin and long fuselage like that must buckle during any type of hard landing.

and

2. Those tiny engines make it look like the most underpowered aircraft ever. Can they really support the plane at any real payload?

---

1. The pressures on landing are spread out through the fuselage to avoid such things from happening. The A346 and 773's fuselage is long and thin for their size, do they buckle on hard landings? No. While they are of course much large then this plane its relative in terms of weight. Has one CRJ-900 buckled on landing yet?

2. The size of the engines don't mean a thing you can squeeze alot of power out of small things these days. The engines on this plane produce 15,510 lbs of thrust similar to that of the E Jets.[/quote:3ra71xpf]

I know. I'm Just saying that it looks funny. I don't actually expect the planes to snap in half on windy days.

Two things came to mind for me....

1. It looks like a tail strike waiting to happen

2. As others have said, and as it was reportedly said on a US Air flight by a flight attendant "The next time you'd like to fly through the sky on a thin tube..."