"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Isaksen" wrote in message news:34KIg.718

I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
off by 3000.

Maybe empty, and maybe if it was a planned event, but loaded- I don't
think so. If someone has a book they could verify.

Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found scrape marks on
the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ overrotating.

That would be consistent with a craft being muscled off the ground before
it was ready to fully fly. Possibly could have flown by 4500 or so feet,
but that's just a guess. As it was, it appears the craft sort of
half-assed flew for a half mile before settling back down. The flight
path appears to have been fairly straight, so I'd guess there was some
degree of control.

I understand that on some turbine A/C a standard procedure is to calculate
the power setting required for a given runway length, weight, density
altitude, etc. On takeoff, that power setting is used instead of full
power, saving wear and tear on the engines, and reducing noise and fuel
burn. Does anyone know if this is the case for the CRJ? I can imagine a
scenario where the pilots used a power setting calculated for a 7,000'
runway, whereas full power *might* have allowed the aircraft to safely
depart from a 3,500' runway.

Anyone familiar with these procedures for the CRJ?

KB