CRJ 200 vs. E-145. What are the differences?

[dojetdriver]

But, the ERJ (at the time) was not even close.

For example...the Capt. could not use his FD or the A/P at or below 1000 feet. The FO could not use his FD or the A/P at or below 1500 feet.

Also when using the A/P it would fly through the loc and g/s. The soft ride software was terrible.

No matter the a/c No A/P I have flown has known the word or phrase Right Now. Not even the CRJ.

So, I have hand flown the ERJ a lot. (As well as the CRJ.) And, I prefer the the CRJ when hand flying. Not that the ERJ was terrible. But, not as good IMHO.

Peace

Like another guy said, the ERJ is now CAT II capable. That doesn't exactly mean it's a good idea. The autopilot on that thing sucks so bad, not only in lateral tracking but sometimes following a G/S as well. Make you vomit.

I second how it flies especially when slow. The ERJ feels like a wet rag in my hanhs when slow.

 

[honeycomb]

Like another guy said, the ERJ is now CAT II capable. That doesn't exactly mean it's a good idea. The autopilot on that thing sucks so bad, not only in lateral tracking but sometimes following a G/S as well. Make you vomit.

On the G/S it seemed to get worse (the oscillation that is). And, bigger in deviations.

I thought I would vomit. AE made us see it in the sim. Man what a ride.

 

[honeycomb]

I second how it flies especially when slow. The ERJ feels like a wet rag in my hanhs when slow.

I wasn't going to say it...but thanks...it is bad in comparisons to other jets I have flown.

As a matter of fact it has the worst slow speed handling that I have ever witnessed.

 

[172driver]

I do what is in the FCM, and it says wing on/cowl on/wing off.

This is the procedure at AWAC; I'm curious if any other CL65 operators do it the same way.

Comair does. I have seen the turkey popper more than once before we had the procedure.

The autopilot in the ERJ can go down to 200 feet on either side. It is also a cat 2 and in some cases cat 3 aircraft. Cat 2 is AP down to 200 feet, FO handflys to DH then the CA takes over for the landing or if nothing is seen the FO does the go around.

WTF? That sounds interesting, to say the least.

 

[honeycomb]

And ALL of the Un-Important Aural Warnings are Female.

Example....."High Speed".....sounds like "Hi Steve".....

The Important Aural Warnings are Male.

Example....."Terrain..Terrain....Whoop..Whoop....Pull Up!"

Just in case you needed to know.

 

[rjacobs]

If the ERJ had leading edge devices it would be a much better airplane to fly slow. The CRJ 200 does not have them, how is the slow speed handling on it, I would guess the winglets help a bit in that situation.

 

[n757st]

If the ERJ had leading edge devices it would be a much better airplane to fly slow. The CRJ 200 does not have them, how is the slow speed handling on it, I would guess the winglets help a bit in that situation.

I have found the CRJ to be very stable at slow speeds, but honestly when does this thing ever fly slow? VREF+5 at 47000 is 146, thats faster then the majority of airliners that I have seen out there. No leading edges yes, but as a result we have *possibly* artificial high approach speeds.

 

[rjacobs]

Well the ERJ doesn't approach that fast since MLW is 42xxx. If it is windy at ref+15 or 20 depending on flaps, than it can get over 150 on app speed. A typical approach speed is 125-130 sometimes as low as like 110, dont remember the exact speeds on the low end of the weights.

 

[CHQ Pilot]

Agreed. Calling those things FADEC's is a bit of a misnomer. It only has F-ull A-uthority after you give it the information it needs. Unlike other aircraft that are equipped with a real system.

Even though the CRJ (50 seat) doesn't have them, it's nice to know that if you want more power, all you have to do it push up the thrust levers and not have to punch a button to tell it what to do.

I think you would be surprised that you wouldn't get much over the engine limitations (if even that much) if you firewalled them. The engines are trimmed to not exceed limitations and to provide the guranteed amount of thrust. Just because sims will exceed limitations, doesn't mean the aircraft will. It is all up to the current ambient conditions. The FADECS will always give you the maximum available since it is computer trimming (by fuel flow)and not manual engine trimming. If the FADEC computes that it cannot give you the maximum, it will let you know. I would trust the FADEC engine to give the most amount of thrust any day over a non-FADEC engine.

 

[labbats]

.78? Not all of them are capable.

Seriously? Every one I've flown 145/140/135 had no problems.

I think maybe the 140s in the upper 20s would max out at .75 in CRZ thrust, but that's the only time I can think of ever having thrust levers full and not hitting red line.

 

[dojetdriver]

I think you would be surprised that you wouldn't get much over the engine limitations (if even that much) if you firewalled them. The engines are trimmed to not exceed limitations and to provide the guranteed amount of thrust. Just because sims will exceed limitations, doesn't mean the aircraft will. It is all up to the current ambient conditions. The FADECS will always give you the maximum available since it is computer trimming (by fuel flow)and not manual engine trimming. If the FADEC computes that it cannot give you the maximum, it will let you know. I would trust the FADEC engine to give the most amount of thrust any day over a non-FADEC engine.

Thanks, I already know how a FADEC works and what it does. The last two aircraft I have flown had them. The point I was making is the ERJ's wannabe FADECs are not that sophisticated.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

Interesting.

Well I've been flying the CL65 for three years and I've had that 14th stage plunger blow out once, and it was after using the wing and the cowls together. I've never used the wing/cowl/wing method for the cowl A/I alone and its never been a problem.

Forgot to turn the wings on prior to the cowls once and guess what, blew the cowl pressure relief valve. If Bombardier fixed the problem, as someone else mentioned, they didn't tell AWAC about it. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal anyway. It's second nature now and it would seem funny to turn the cowls on without turning the wings on first.

 

[punkpilot48]

If the ERJ had leading edge devices it would be a much better airplane to fly slow.

Vortillons aren't leading edge devices?

 

[rjacobs]

no, slats would be leading edge devices. The vortillons are exactly like a VG on the top of the wing, they only really do something in a stall situation.

 

[U-I pilot]

Not really. Its a wanna be ..... a strake of sorts. He's talking slots/slats/leading edge flaps.

Vortilons are more for straight airflow (preventing spanwise flow) over the ailerons than anything else.

 

[flyboyike]

I do what is in the FCM, and it says wing on/cowl on/wing off.

This is the procedure at AWAC; I'm curious if any other CL65 operators do it the same way.

We (9E) do.

 

[flysafe]

Jeez, no wonder we get paid squat. This job is about money not the airplane. You would never see this conversation on a major board, because they don't give a s***. Come on!

 

[honeycomb]

Not really. Its a wanna be ..... a strake of sorts. He's talking slots/slats/leading edge flaps.

Vortilons are more for straight airflow (preventing spanwise flow) over the ailerons than anything else.

Almost right....

They prevent span-wise flow to prevent loss of lift at high AOA. Or, the degradation of Lift due to the span-wise flow during high AOA flight. It supposedly creates a aerodynamic fence at high AOA. Just like the old a/c that had a real (ie physically present) fence on the top of the wing.

They are only effective at VERY high AOA.

Though I have my thoughts on the whole issue. Like they don't work as published. I think you need some VERY HIGH AOA to get the production of a invisible fence to materialize. I don't think we as pilots spend much time in that area of flight.

 

[OPECJet]

I'm pretty sure those vortillons are there only to hit with your forehead. I don't even fly that airplane and managed to do it once...

Seen 2 FOs get them on walk arounds as well.

 

[dojetdriver]

Jeez, no wonder we get paid squat. This job is about money not the airplane. You would never see this conversation on a major board, because they don't give a s***. Come on!

You are right, a bunch of us dorks talking about RJ's. The sad part is you are a little off, I have seen threads/discussions/converstaions about which is better; the Boeing of the Airbus. Specifically the 73 vs the 319/320.

And yes, they were just as pathetic as what you have read here.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

It's interesting the difference in procedures between carriers- even down to Vref. Our 47,000 pound Vref+5 is 147. Go figure...



That CAT II thing on the ERJ is messed up! Kinda funny imagining the juggle of flight guidance and aircraft control those last couple hundred feet... or is it funny?

 

[rjacobs]

no its actually pretty good because the last 100 feet before landing it would be so hard to re-focus your eyes it is easier to have the captain on the controls lightly while looking outside and just take it at minimums or the FO going around and not having to look outside at 100 feet then back in while getting the heck out of dodge. The first time you do it in the sim its a bit weird, but not bad. you also get the callouts from the RA/EGPWS so its easier for the captain to take over and not have to think about it. Dont know what other carriers its done like that at, just the one I flew for. It was called a monitored approach, you could actually do it on a cat 1 if you wanted to.

 

[sweptback]

That CAT II thing on the ERJ is messed up! Kinda funny imagining the juggle of flight guidance and aircraft control those last couple hundred feet... or is it funny?

That's actually how most carriers do it. When ASA got CAT II certified, we basically copied United's procedures.

 

[imacdog]

no its actually pretty good because the last 100 feet before landing it would be so hard to re-focus your eyes it is easier to have the captain on the controls lightly while looking outside and just take it at minimums or the FO going around and not having to look outside at 100 feet then back in while getting the heck out of dodge. The first time you do it in the sim its a bit weird, but not bad. you also get the callouts from the RA/EGPWS so its easier for the captain to take over and not have to think about it. Dont know what other carriers its done like that at, just the one I flew for. It was called a monitored approach, you could actually do it on a cat 1 if you wanted to.

It is still a little odd to have the A/P, FO, and Captain taking their turns on the controls while heading for a very low weather approach. At Comair (CRJ), we can leave the AP on until 80 feet during a precision approach. On a Cat II, the FO will monitor the instruments from 200 feet above mins until the missed approach point and call missed if the Captain does not see the runway. All the Captain has to do is look out the window, disconnect the A/P, and either land or go missed depending on if he sees the runway in time.

 

[snap145]

It is still a little odd to have the A/P, FO, and Captain taking their turns on the controls while heading for a very low weather approach. At Comair (CRJ), we can leave the AP on until 80 feet during a precision approach. On a Cat II, the FO will monitor the instruments from 200 feet above mins until the missed approach point and call missed if the Captain does not see the runway. All the Captain has to do is look out the window, disconnect the A/P, and either land or go missed depending on if he sees the runway in time.

ive never flown the CRJ..but it looks like a alot of fun....like a Jeep, where the ERJ is a sports car....neways....at CHQ in the 145 it is mandated that we do not handfly any approaches below 500ft. and or 1 mile vis....anyone know if thats an Embraer thing or a CHQ SOP...80 ft. minimum AP disengagement height at Comair? Our GOM doesnt state anything like that, which is interesting....all it lists is the coupled go around height loss in the different models of the ERJ, in which case the autopilot would be turned of anyways.

 

[~~~^~~~]

It is still a little odd to have the A/P, FO, and Captain taking their turns on the controls while heading for a very low weather approach. At Comair (CRJ), we can leave the AP on until 80 feet during a precision approach. On a Cat II, the FO will monitor the instruments from 200 feet above mins until the missed approach point and call missed if the Captain does not see the runway. All the Captain has to do is look out the window, disconnect the A/P, and either land or go missed depending on if he sees the runway in time.

Think of it this way - the F.O. job is to fly the approach to minimums and go missed - no second thoughts, no guessing, he is thinking "missed missed missed" with his fingers on the TOGA's waiting on the GPWS to say "minimums". The Captain is thinking "maybe, maybe" and once the Captain has the runway in sight they take the airplane and land it.

It is cleaner than the "are those the lights? yeah, I think so, yes, come on down 100 feet, crap we are too high" pattern that sometimes happens when flying down right to minimums. IMHO.

The only down side is that it is another procedure. One up side of the down side is that Captains at ASA can no longer be used for F.O. because we are not qualified to do CATII from either seat.

 

[imacdog]

The Captain is thinking "maybe, maybe" and once the Captain has the runway in sight they take the airplane and land it.

That's how it works here, too. The FO's sole job is to watch the plane fly itself to the decision height, and the captain's sole job is to look out the window for the runway. Only difference is, in my opinion it is easier for the FO to monitor everything when the A/P is flying versus hand-flying. FOs are also able to cross-check both sets of instruments as the A/P flies down the approach path. So basically, we are accomplishing the same thing with one less control transfer and the precision of automation versus hand-flying during the final few hundred feet of the approach. I guess as long as no one gets hurt during an approach it really doesn't matter but to me it makes more sense to leave it automated until the decision to land or go missed is made.

 

[n757st]

ive never flown the CRJ..but it looks like a alot of fun....like a Jeep, where the ERJ is a sports car....neways....at CHQ in the 145 it is mandated that we do not handfly any approaches below 500ft. and or 1 mile vis....anyone know if thats an Embraer thing or a CHQ SOP...80 ft. minimum AP disengagement height at Comair? Our GOM doesnt state anything like that, which is interesting....all it lists is the coupled go around height loss in the different models of the ERJ, in which case the autopilot would be turned of anyways.

Thats seems pretty limiting, what if you have an MEL'd autopilot. The CRJ limitations that we have at AWAC also say 80 feet is the minimum auto pilot height on an ILS, but we have a company limiation of 50 feet below DH.

 

[rjacobs]

That is pretty high at CHQ, its gotta be a CHQ SOP thing. 500/1 is almost VFR(especially for a GA aircraft).

 

[snap145]

I may be wrong here but im looking at the limitations as we speak...seems awful high to me to0....any other CHQ peeps got any input on this? This could turn into an argument about how im lazy and technologically dependant because i never handfly that low....