Challenger 850
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Challenger 850
Anyone with any experiences of flying and operating it? It's basically a CRJ converted to a corporate jet. Cabin and cockpit look spacious compared to what I currently fly!
Have been tentatively approached for a captain's position.
Any info gratefully received!
Have been tentatively approached for a captain's position.
Any info gratefully received!
Last edited by KyleRB; 27th Nov 2010 at 11:27.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on.tour
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello
hello Kyle
there are various types of CL850 on the market:
CL850 / green conversion by Lufthansa (until 2008) and Midcoast, deliverd with PATS tanks, fuel capacity 8200kgs,
CL850: conversion of used CRJ 200 or 100, incl PATS tanks
CL850: conversion of used CRJ, no PATS tanks
many customers like the 850 due to the very big cabin and large cargo capacity, also there are many drivers around with the applicable rating. many maint. facilities plus cheap simulators (compared to other biz-jets) also available.
unfortunately bombardier wrote 3000nm on the price tag, not stating thats only a ferry range for most aircrafts, due to the heavy cabin (e.g. 2 pilots one fa plus 1 pax plus full fuel possible....) 2600 seems to be max range incl 6 pax for me.
its a great ship for flights within europe, up to 5 hours..
from a pilotīs side I like it very much, although i would appreciate some more horses come out of the cf34īs - compared to other biz-jets the performance is somehow poor - one the other side thats just numbers, and i am happy to fly at level 360 instead of 450...
if you have some more qīs, feel free to ask or pm.
fly safe
welle
there are various types of CL850 on the market:
CL850 / green conversion by Lufthansa (until 2008) and Midcoast, deliverd with PATS tanks, fuel capacity 8200kgs,
CL850: conversion of used CRJ 200 or 100, incl PATS tanks
CL850: conversion of used CRJ, no PATS tanks
many customers like the 850 due to the very big cabin and large cargo capacity, also there are many drivers around with the applicable rating. many maint. facilities plus cheap simulators (compared to other biz-jets) also available.
unfortunately bombardier wrote 3000nm on the price tag, not stating thats only a ferry range for most aircrafts, due to the heavy cabin (e.g. 2 pilots one fa plus 1 pax plus full fuel possible....) 2600 seems to be max range incl 6 pax for me.
its a great ship for flights within europe, up to 5 hours..
from a pilotīs side I like it very much, although i would appreciate some more horses come out of the cf34īs - compared to other biz-jets the performance is somehow poor - one the other side thats just numbers, and i am happy to fly at level 360 instead of 450...
if you have some more qīs, feel free to ask or pm.
fly safe
welle
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welle
That's brilliant!
What is its slow speed handling like during the take off and landing phases? I know a couple of guys who have flown the CL604 and they didn't like its handling. Does it have the same vices as the 600 series re hard wing issues in icing?
I agree it is a heavy plane which could do with more power. Take off performance looks sluggish - looks like it needs plenty of runway. Shame it can't manage 3000nm, perhaps they could fit yet another fuel tank and/or re-engine it!
It most definitely is a 4-5 hour plane. Apparently popular with the Russians. London - the near Middle East would appear to be its niche as well as quite deep into Russia.
Thanks!
That's brilliant!
What is its slow speed handling like during the take off and landing phases? I know a couple of guys who have flown the CL604 and they didn't like its handling. Does it have the same vices as the 600 series re hard wing issues in icing?
I agree it is a heavy plane which could do with more power. Take off performance looks sluggish - looks like it needs plenty of runway. Shame it can't manage 3000nm, perhaps they could fit yet another fuel tank and/or re-engine it!
It most definitely is a 4-5 hour plane. Apparently popular with the Russians. London - the near Middle East would appear to be its niche as well as quite deep into Russia.
Thanks!
Last edited by KyleRB; 27th Nov 2010 at 19:10.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on.tour
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Kyle
I find acft-handling in slow landing and t/o speedis very good - its a pilots aircraft - if you adopt to the nose down attitude during landing...
CL850 is delivered by bombadier as a CAT D (instrument appr.) aircraft with MLM of 21319 kgs (VREF 141kts) if you manage to "downgrade" to 21205 (VREF 140) with your CAA you might benefit from CAT C and hence lower minimums.
Also some 850īs are capable of CAT II
Wing issues:
YES definitely be careful in your winter ops - those wings have to be treated carefully
Performance:
Landing Perf. is not an issue with proper landing technique - T/O with Mtom requires at least 2200m (donīt have my books with me now..)
Extra fuel tanks: NO
no need to fix another tank - example:
typical ZFW with two pilots and FA: 15800kg (1000kg more than airliner CRJ)
MAX Fuel: 8200kg
1 PAX: 100kg incl Baggage
MTOM: 24040kg
Range:
needed fuel stop for LTN-DXB
rgds
Welle
edit for figures..
I find acft-handling in slow landing and t/o speedis very good - its a pilots aircraft - if you adopt to the nose down attitude during landing...
CL850 is delivered by bombadier as a CAT D (instrument appr.) aircraft with MLM of 21319 kgs (VREF 141kts) if you manage to "downgrade" to 21205 (VREF 140) with your CAA you might benefit from CAT C and hence lower minimums.
Also some 850īs are capable of CAT II
Wing issues:
YES definitely be careful in your winter ops - those wings have to be treated carefully
Performance:
Landing Perf. is not an issue with proper landing technique - T/O with Mtom requires at least 2200m (donīt have my books with me now..)
Extra fuel tanks: NO
no need to fix another tank - example:
typical ZFW with two pilots and FA: 15800kg (1000kg more than airliner CRJ)
MAX Fuel: 8200kg
1 PAX: 100kg incl Baggage
MTOM: 24040kg
Range:
needed fuel stop for LTN-DXB
rgds
Welle
edit for figures..
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast Canada
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Challenger series does NOT have an issue with icing, it has an issue with pilots not keeping the wings clean! There are switches in the cockpit labelled WING ANTI-ICE and COWL ANTI-ICE - turn them on before takeoff and be amazed how well the Challenger (ilk) flies! Same as ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT!
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
Bombardier Free Icing Awareness Course!!
BOMBARDIER - Icing Awareness
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
Bombardier Free Icing Awareness Course!!
BOMBARDIER - Icing Awareness
Last edited by xsbank; 29th Nov 2010 at 16:23.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on.tour
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmmm...
hi xsbank...
I do not fully agree with you in all points:
first of all - there have been a number of incididents with CRJ200s and 850s ( or 604s.. with simular wing) related to deicing - and yes pilots must keep the wing clean as to the book - 100% correct.
but:
your post sounds like all aircrafts react the same way on a contaminated wing... - I guess it is not true, that all wings are so critical to ice on surface as the CL65 ? e.g. A300 AFM allows a few mm/layer of ice on the upper wing surface for t/o... Some wings will "forgive more, some less pilotīs mistakes"
but of course, i am neither an aerodynamics engineer nor an aircraft wing designer, just a pilot wo wants to meet his family after duty.
safe winter ops to all
welle
I do not fully agree with you in all points:
first of all - there have been a number of incididents with CRJ200s and 850s ( or 604s.. with simular wing) related to deicing - and yes pilots must keep the wing clean as to the book - 100% correct.
but:
your post sounds like all aircrafts react the same way on a contaminated wing... - I guess it is not true, that all wings are so critical to ice on surface as the CL65 ? e.g. A300 AFM allows a few mm/layer of ice on the upper wing surface for t/o... Some wings will "forgive more, some less pilotīs mistakes"
but of course, i am neither an aerodynamics engineer nor an aircraft wing designer, just a pilot wo wants to meet his family after duty.
safe winter ops to all
welle
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A300 has leading edge devices and gigantic flaps; the Challenger Regional Jet has neither.
The CL850 swept, "hard" wing jet - you can't get away with a contaminated wing on any CL600-series like you can a King Air or Citation. Deice if you need to, use the AI switches if its cold in visible moisture or departing a contaminated runway and the airplane flies just fine.
I loved flying the CRJ - it was fun to land at its MLW of 47,000lb after a target approach speed of 147kias and get the thing stopped in 2500' of runway. For all the compromises of the CRJ (takeoff/climb performance, cruise speed & altitude, etc), stopping isn't ever an issue.
It'd be nice if it had 3000nm+, but don't ever forget - its a converted regional jet and given its cabin size & price point there are going to be some compromises...
The CL850 swept, "hard" wing jet - you can't get away with a contaminated wing on any CL600-series like you can a King Air or Citation. Deice if you need to, use the AI switches if its cold in visible moisture or departing a contaminated runway and the airplane flies just fine.
I loved flying the CRJ - it was fun to land at its MLW of 47,000lb after a target approach speed of 147kias and get the thing stopped in 2500' of runway. For all the compromises of the CRJ (takeoff/climb performance, cruise speed & altitude, etc), stopping isn't ever an issue.
It'd be nice if it had 3000nm+, but don't ever forget - its a converted regional jet and given its cabin size & price point there are going to be some compromises...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast Canada
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been 4 accidents with Challenger/RJ aircraft due to icing, and NOT ONE OF THE ACCIDENT AIRCRAFT HAD WING AND COWL DE-ICE SELECTED 'ON!'
You cannot say that Challengers (etc) have a wing-ice problem, you CAN say that Challengers in those instances were flown by pilots who did not know their Limitations.
Do you know yours? Time to get out the books if you don't!
Saying that these a/c have "wing problems" is as specious as saying that Boeings have a bad wing because they crash if they are configured wrong.
You cannot say that Challengers (etc) have a wing-ice problem, you CAN say that Challengers in those instances were flown by pilots who did not know their Limitations.
Do you know yours? Time to get out the books if you don't!
Saying that these a/c have "wing problems" is as specious as saying that Boeings have a bad wing because they crash if they are configured wrong.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRJ100/200 has been flown in North America for the last 15 years or so and with all the very severe winters they have, I believe not one CRJ has been lost due to icing. For me that speaks volumes about good training, knowledge and SOP's.
There are also many Challenger 600 series planes flying about all over the world with some very professional corporate operators who have no problems operating this popular type.
It all comes back to good training, knowledge and SOP's!
There are also many Challenger 600 series planes flying about all over the world with some very professional corporate operators who have no problems operating this popular type.
It all comes back to good training, knowledge and SOP's!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: LSGG
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by liftman
What about it's competitor Embraer Legacy 600? it's better or not?
Which to prefere?
Which to prefere?
Legacy 600 is much better. you can plan without problems 5-6 hrs flight at .78 and FL410.
Planning speaking is really better.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on.tour
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ice an so on...
hello xsbank:
so please let me quote your statement (you repeated three times)
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
so in my opinion the wings of all challenger types are more restrictive to icing on the upper wing surface than wings of other aircrafts, eg. a300 as mentioned above; you can simply not compare a challenger wing to e.g. a dash8/300 wing, which can carry an awful load of contamination??
@ icing related accidents
off course i have been following these accidents (and some not widespread published ice related incidents or near accidents) with interest.
Additionally to not selecting your Wing and Cowl anti ice on upon take off: - some of those accidents are also caused by NOT deicing the upper wing, or deicing with inappropriate fluids (do I remember the UAAA cl604 correctly), 850 crash at vnukowo(hold over time exceeded) belavia (not deiced afaik)
(not to mention overrotation)
You can switch you De/Anti Icing on as much as you want, as long as the wing has not been deiced, you will end up side down as those accidents showed to us.
rgds from coooold moscow
welle
so please let me quote your statement (you repeated three times)
Challengers do not have issues with icing any different than any other aircraft.
so in my opinion the wings of all challenger types are more restrictive to icing on the upper wing surface than wings of other aircrafts, eg. a300 as mentioned above; you can simply not compare a challenger wing to e.g. a dash8/300 wing, which can carry an awful load of contamination??
@ icing related accidents
off course i have been following these accidents (and some not widespread published ice related incidents or near accidents) with interest.
Additionally to not selecting your Wing and Cowl anti ice on upon take off: - some of those accidents are also caused by NOT deicing the upper wing, or deicing with inappropriate fluids (do I remember the UAAA cl604 correctly), 850 crash at vnukowo(hold over time exceeded) belavia (not deiced afaik)
(not to mention overrotation)
You can switch you De/Anti Icing on as much as you want, as long as the wing has not been deiced, you will end up side down as those accidents showed to us.
rgds from coooold moscow
welle
Welle
The CL600 series are NOT more restrictive than those other types. NO airplane is certified to take-off with contaminated wings, no regulatory authority allows, approves or has approved operations with anything else than properly de-iced wings using correct fluids and procedures. CL-series icing-related accidents have all been the result of improper de-icing and failure to follow the approved procedures. The -8 cannot take off with contaminated wings.
GF
The CL600 series are NOT more restrictive than those other types. NO airplane is certified to take-off with contaminated wings, no regulatory authority allows, approves or has approved operations with anything else than properly de-iced wings using correct fluids and procedures. CL-series icing-related accidents have all been the result of improper de-icing and failure to follow the approved procedures. The -8 cannot take off with contaminated wings.
GF
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on.tour
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stand to be corrected
good morning GF,
i stand to be corrected: i had the same discussion about deicing some time ago with a good friend flying on the old A300 steam boat and he showed me a copy of the AFM stating that the A300 was allowed for take off with a certain amount of contamination/frost on the UPPER side of the wing. I will search my computer, if i can find this doc somewhere (maybe some A300 driver can correct me)
however, i off course agree with all of you: proper de-iced wings are a must in aviation - i did so all my career, and I will continue to do so.
regarding chally accidents:
yes, you are correct, and I did not state anything opposite, did I? I just wrote, that selecting W and C on, is not enough - you need to properly deice the wing before take off - I just did not want to write harsh words against dead pilots.
regarding wings in generall:ī
you are right, the dhc8 is not allowed to take off with contaminated wings, but I did not state this, did I?? I just wrote that "the dhc8 can carry an awful load of contamination" - I did NOT say that it can take off with an awful load of contamination.
Wasnīt there a boot failure with a dhc8 in the US some years ago, when authorities measured ca 1ton of ice on the wings after landing??
I do fly this wing now for more than 10 years, did 100s of deicings on it and will continue to do so - and i still call it a critical wing: in my humble opinion this wing will not regret pilotīs mistakes on the ground as another wing-design would do - regardless if an authority/manufactures approves operations or not. (unfortunately those hull losses are the evidence)
rgds
welle
i stand to be corrected: i had the same discussion about deicing some time ago with a good friend flying on the old A300 steam boat and he showed me a copy of the AFM stating that the A300 was allowed for take off with a certain amount of contamination/frost on the UPPER side of the wing. I will search my computer, if i can find this doc somewhere (maybe some A300 driver can correct me)
however, i off course agree with all of you: proper de-iced wings are a must in aviation - i did so all my career, and I will continue to do so.
regarding chally accidents:
yes, you are correct, and I did not state anything opposite, did I? I just wrote, that selecting W and C on, is not enough - you need to properly deice the wing before take off - I just did not want to write harsh words against dead pilots.
regarding wings in generall:ī
you are right, the dhc8 is not allowed to take off with contaminated wings, but I did not state this, did I?? I just wrote that "the dhc8 can carry an awful load of contamination" - I did NOT say that it can take off with an awful load of contamination.
Wasnīt there a boot failure with a dhc8 in the US some years ago, when authorities measured ca 1ton of ice on the wings after landing??
I do fly this wing now for more than 10 years, did 100s of deicings on it and will continue to do so - and i still call it a critical wing: in my humble opinion this wing will not regret pilotīs mistakes on the ground as another wing-design would do - regardless if an authority/manufactures approves operations or not. (unfortunately those hull losses are the evidence)
rgds
welle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both AB and Boeing used to allow upper surface frost on various products. However, it's in direct violation of Part 121 which states that alleviation may be provided only for the undersurface. This was pointed out to them.
So AB, being good corporate citizens, withdrew the upper surface frost alleviation in their books.
And duly got flak from all kinds of airlines because "Boeing still allows it". I've seen at least one rather annoyed presentation from AB on the topic basically bemoaning FAA's failure to enforce its own rules on Boeing.
AB was (a couple of years ago) endeavouring to do various studies to permit them to reintroduce the upper surface frost allowance; I don't know if they have completed that work yet, or if it would be enough to get around the rather black and white wording of 121.629.
So AB, being good corporate citizens, withdrew the upper surface frost alleviation in their books.
And duly got flak from all kinds of airlines because "Boeing still allows it". I've seen at least one rather annoyed presentation from AB on the topic basically bemoaning FAA's failure to enforce its own rules on Boeing.
AB was (a couple of years ago) endeavouring to do various studies to permit them to reintroduce the upper surface frost allowance; I don't know if they have completed that work yet, or if it would be enough to get around the rather black and white wording of 121.629.
14CFR121.629 (b) No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice, or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section. Takeoffs with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks may be authorized by the Administrator.
