User avatar
OA940
Topic Author
Posts: 1179
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 3:43 pm

I was wondering how feasible would it be to have a Global 7000 (with shorter range to help get its MTOW closer to the CRJ-700 and its takeoff distance around there too) as a replacement for the CRJ-700? Could it theoretically work? The two planes have about the same dimensions so in terms of capacity the and clause the Global is pretty similar.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5704
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pm

2 totally different airplanes designed for 2 totally different missions. It wpuld be like trying to replace the Space Shuttle with the F15.
You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
drdisque
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pm

A CRJ-700/900 NEO with a variant of the GE Passport engine makes a lot more sense from a practical standpoint. Perhaps they would build a single optimized version for 76 seats in a 2-class arrangement (the scope limit of most North American regionals) and call it the CRJ-800.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 14109
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 3:58 pm

Different missions. The Global 7000 has engines and wing optimized for speed, not cost for distance. The planes are somewhat lighter as no business jet needs the cycles of an RJ. You couldn't fly the 7000 at the same intensity as an RJ. The things are optimized for once a year service of (going from memory, so dangerous) under 1200 cycles.

They have the same cross section, but each is optimized differently. The Global 7000 gives up a lot needed in RJ duty for the fuel volume/weight.

They are already very related aircraft. But a RJ needs a different wing, engines, and tail.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 14109
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 4:37 pm

drdisque wrote:
A CRJ-700/900 NEO with a variant of the GE Passport engine makes a lot more sense from a practical standpoint. Perhaps they would build a single optimized version for 76 seats in a 2-class arrangement (the scope limit of most North American regionals) and call it the CRJ-800.

Yeah... Or PW1200. New wingtip treatment.

Shrink the plane for maximum range at 76 pax below 86,000lb.

There is an opportunity due to the MRJ and E2-175 exceeding scope clause limits.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
rikkus67
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 4:42 pm

...I'd just be happy to see the larger 7000 windows used in the 700/900!
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2791
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 4:48 pm

I don't think any major will purchase a RJ that isn't a 76 capable airplane again. Even if you have a segment that is relegated to 70 seats or less (like Delta), or 65 or less (like AA), it makes more sense to buy a 900/175, and certify it at the limit, so should scope change (unlikely) in the future, you can bump it up to 76 seats, like the recently purchased and delivered 175SCs at OO for DL.
From my cold, dead hands
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4301
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 9:56 pm

With an MTOW of over 100,000lbs, the Global 7000 is too heavy to make scope in the US.

Basically, the under scope market in the US is down to the E-175 and the CRJ-900. As far as I can tell, the E wins on range and seat width and the -900 wins on its longer fuse, which gives more seat pitch, economy+/business class, and maybe better economics.

I don't think either are dead yet. Heck, ERJ-145's and CRJ-200's are still littering the airways, despite myriad predictions of their impending demise.

Those are the only two options that meet the scope clauses. (As a side note, I'm not sure how the -175 does with a published MTOW of 89,000lbs, and the scope limit is 86,000lbs, unless it's a paper MTOW and they limit payload and/or fuel to meet it).

With an MTOW of 84,500lbs, the -900 does have some room to play with if BBD wants to NEO the CRJ. As I understand it, the Passport engines are about 1500lbs heavier than the CF-34's. I can't seem to find any info on the weight of the PW1200G used on the MRJ but I think they are also heavier than the CF-34's.
What the...?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 730
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Wed May 16, 2018 11:34 pm

The new higher compression engines are, by their nature, heavier than older jets. The CF-34 is actually fairly light for its thrust. The G7000 had some balance problems early on as the Passport came in heavier than original specs. Since worked out.

To correct an earlier post, the CRJ was a derivative of the CL601, but it’s not really correct to say it started out as a business jet. By the time it was certified, the CRJ had new avionics, new landing gear and brakes, the wing was modestly stretched in span, fuel system redesigned, doors changed, baggage expanded with the new fuselage based on the original barrel size. It would be more accurate to say the CL604 Business was based on the CRJ.

gf
 
ninspeed
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 5:31 am

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Thu May 17, 2018 3:31 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
I don't think any major will purchase a RJ that isn't a 76 capable airplane again. Even if you have a segment that is relegated to 70 seats or less (like Delta), or 65 or less (like AA), it makes more sense to buy a 900/175, and certify it at the limit, so should scope change (unlikely) in the future, you can bump it up to 76 seats, like the recently purchased and delivered 175SCs at OO for DL.

Like the CRJ 705 for Air Canada/ Jazz... Basicaly a CRJ 900 but designed for 75 pax, and once the scope changed now being converted to a 900.
Was actually a great plane to fly on for a 2.5hr flight. I would perfer to fly that from CYXE to CYVR then to EWR than a ERJ145 straight east via YYZ
 
iceberg210
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Thu May 17, 2018 4:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
drdisque wrote:
A CRJ-700/900 NEO with a variant of the GE Passport engine makes a lot more sense from a practical standpoint. Perhaps they would build a single optimized version for 76 seats in a 2-class arrangement (the scope limit of most North American regionals) and call it the CRJ-800.

Yeah... Or PW1200. New wingtip treatment.

Shrink the plane for maximum range at 76 pax below 86,000lb.

There is an opportunity due to the MRJ and E2-175 exceeding scope clause limits.

Lightsaber

Can you put a PW1200 on the back of a CRJ or is it too much weight?


I keep wondering if the reason why there isn't a NEO CRJ, MRJ and E2 175 under the weight limit for scope is because you can't build a 2 class 76 seater under that weight limit with the latest technology. Maybe I'm wrong but otherwise I don't understand how two manufactures have missed the mark (MRJ E2) and didn't even seem to design to the limit, and the other manufacture (granted the C Series didn't help) hasn't really moved on a NEO option even though they at least at the moment would be the only game out there, and their current model is getting beaten badly in the market.
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 730
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Global 7000 as CRJ-700 replacement?

Thu May 17, 2018 4:32 pm

Too much weight I suspect. Regional jet sales are t that robust, I suspect a business case can’t be made for a new design 76-seat RJ. T-mounted engine designs are very restricted by weight/balance and systems integration. The new engines are considerably heavier and a couple hundred pounds added is too much weight aft.

The current designs are almost certainly, for efficiency reasons alone, as light as can be done with the new engines. Remember 86,000 pounds was in the contract to PREVENT these new airliners from service st regional carriers. It’s s feature, not a bug.

GF

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 32andBelow, 727NWA, 815Oceanic, a320fan, A388, ack426, AMERICAN757, anthsaun, AsiaTravel, AVENSAB727, Aviano789, AvObserver, B2707SST, B6JFKH81, baqnav, BatonOps, bd777, benm345, BlatantEcho, blockski, bnatraveler, bob75013, BobbyPSP, Boeing1978, Brickell305, BTVB6Flyer, carljanderson, Chrisba320, CobraKai, CRJ900, cschleic, csweet, DBKissORD, deltaffindfw, DFWandOMA, dmstorm22, dredgy, dtw9, EightyFour, EISHN, ericloewe, evomutant, Falcons023, FARmd90, FatCat, FermiParadox, filipair, FlyHossD, flyingclrs727, FlyingHamster33, FlyPNS1, fsabo, Gaetan, GalaxyFlyer, Geoff1947, george77300, goboeing, greenair727, GRJGeorge, GSP psgr, HeeseokKoo, hinckley, hloutweg, hOMSaR, iceberg210, inaforeignsky, Indy, indygs, InnsbruckFlyer, jetbluefan1, jetero, Jetmarc, jmt18325, jplatts, jscottwomack, kaukalo, Kikko19, kl713, KMCOFlyer, kngkyle, LAXdude1023, leghorn, leo467, lightmac, Lindegaard, LoudounHound, lowfareair, max999, mfamguy79, MIAFLLPBIFlyer, mil76, MSPbrandon, N505fx, nikeherc, OGLOBAL, oldannyboy, pabloeing, PIEAvantiP180, PixelPilot, Planeflyer, pwm2txlhopper, RainerBoeing777, RalXWB, reality, red66mustang, redtailmsp, RJLover, rlwynn, robbo2k, Ropsten, ryanb178, SAAFNAV, scbriml, SCQ83, Seabear, seat1a, senathan, sircygnus, SOBHI51, Socrates17, SomebodyInTLS, stburke, STT757, TC957, Tedd, ThomasCook, tomcat, TWA302, TWA767, tys777, Ufsatp, USAavdork, usairways85, usflyer msp, washingtonflyer, wave46, windian425, winter, wjcandee, Worldair1, Zephyrhills, zmiko and 672 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos