CRJ or ERJ - which one do you prefer?

[cl-65link]

FL 410 for Canadair. Good luck getting there, though, especially in summer. I personally have never been above 370. The CRJ is all glass( at least at Pinnacle, even the peanut guage).

 

[Stingman]

Mach .78 and FL 370 is the best it'll do

Yeah, but I get paid by the hour!

CHA-CHING!

 

[Palerider957]

When you talk CRJ, the 700 is a very different creature than the 200. The 700 has a lot more automation (bleeds, packs, power settings), then the 200. The 700 is a race horse (900 packs and engines, but 20,000 lbs lighter). FL370 and .84 are VERY possible in the 700. I've had the 700 up at FL410 with 54 pax coming back from Omaha and we were pegged at .80, climbed at 800 FPM thorugh FL410. On the down side the 700 is a stiff-legged bird which makes smooth landings difficult compared to the 200 which roll right on.

I flew the Bra-kill-ya and the yoke was fine with me, really it only took me about 5 mins to adapt between the. Right now we're going through some pains with the 700 engines, they've been throwing blades so we're temporarily restricted to .77, or 300 KIAS, whichever comes first at altitude.....hopefully we'll get the .84 back and start to make some money again--come on premium!!!!

I don't know much about the ERJ, except that it's pretty cool looking.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

The CRJ-200 can go up to .81 mach in cruise but not all of the time, depends on weight, temperature, and cruise altitude. I've been in the CRJ-200 for about a year and a half and I've been up to FL410 only five times but it can get up there. The CRJ-200 has the Collins Pro Line avionics and the ERJ-200 has Honeywell Primus.
Collins Pro Line avionics
Honeywell Primus avionics

The CRJ-200 has trailing link landing gear so it helps make soft landings. The CRJ-700 doesn't have the trailing link gear. The -700 also has the passenger windows higher up for better comfort and viewing.

 

[Alaskaairlines]

Very interesting guys!

So there isn't much difference between the -700 and -900 other than weight?

Are they sheering those fan blades in cruise, does that make them loose an engine or shut it down?

 

[CF34-3B1]

EMB yokes: I flew EMB120s for 3 years, loved the rams horn yoke, one of the things I actually do miss about the Brasilia. That and the radar. You could shoot down birds with the radar in the 120. From what the ERJ guys tell me, they changed the radar in the 135/145, I can tell you the CRJ radar is ok, but I'd trade it for the old non digital EMB120 radar.

Performance: On paper the CRJ200 will do .81 and FL410. I've been flying it for 2 1/2 yrs, been to FL410 once, during a ferry flight, took off very very light, still took us all day to get there. But it WAS cool .81 isn't that uncommon during the winter if you're light, but .78 to .79 is more realistic. Still gets you on down the road though.

Climb performance: From what I can tell the ERJs can out climb us especially above the mid 20s

Cockpit: I've sat in the ERJ a few times, was a galactic improvement over the 120. CRJ is wider and a lot quieter, mostly (from my understanding) cause the ERJ uses the same windshield as the EMB120 but its going 100kts faster IAS.

I wouldn't trade my CRJ for an ERJ, but if I were faced with deciding between 2 jobs where 1 flew CRJs and 1 flew ERJs, I wouldn't let the airplane be a big factor. They're both good airplanes.

Note: As noted by another poster, this is strictly based on CRJ200. The -700 is a completely different animal.

 

[ERJpusher]

I like to think of the CRJ as the Cadillac and the ERJ as the Corvette. The CRJ seems to be more of a luxury jet and a little more solidly built. But the ERJ is a sleeker, sportier looking airplane--- quite a bit longer and more sweptback wings. The one thing missing on the ERJ (except the XR) is winglets, which I think are pretty cool.

We fly the ERJ 145LR (Rolls Royce AE 3007A1/P engine) at .78 and FL370 all the time, even with full pax. We still have to throttle back to prevent overspeeding it. If they can certify the airframe, we could easily cruise .79 or .80. It seems to be overpowered. The 145ER, the 140, and 135 have the same engine as the LR, but are on a lower thrust schedule.

 

[Alaskaairlines]

I tend to think a bit differently. To me the CRJ looks like the sporty plane, and the ERJ is on its heels.

Kind of like a BMW and a Mercedes folliwing close behind.

 

[ERJpusher]

If you ever see the two sitting side by side, you'll know what I mean. The CRJ-200 looks short and fat and the ERJ-145 looks long and slender-- quite noticeably so. The CRJ-200 is the same length as the ERJ-135, our 37-seater. The difference is the 2-2 seating in the CRJ and the 2-1 seating in the ERJ.

No one wants a short, fat sports car, which is why I describe the ERJ as the "sporty jet."

 

[miller22]

In response to the lost blades on the CRJ-700

Funny thing, noone ever knew the blades were missing. The blades were separating from the N2 turbine rotor, which meant it had some more blades to go through before it came out the back of the engine. But there were no shutdowns, severe damage, or even N2 vibe or higher ITT. Some were missing up to 10 blades and the only reason they found them was because they did a boroscope. Kinda ironic GE built the N2 turbine blades so flimsy and the rest of the engine like a tank!

As far as CRJ vs ERJ, rumor has it the CRJ just went through its final destructive (well kinda) testing and has been certified for up to 80,000 hours. If true, that fact alone outweighs any of the other benefits of the ERJ in the eyes of management.

 

[Jetlink]

I happen to have the experience in evaluating the early ERJ models, having already flown the CRJ prior to the evalutaion.

We found that the early ERJ didn't have any space for the pilots' flight bags. A problem I hear is now fixed.

We didn't like the tube effect of the passenger cabin.

We suspected problems with the engine control systems, and there were problems with early models.

We didn't like the motorcycle handle bar yokes.

We had some folks go to the factory (I wasn't with them) and tour the facility. Very scary stories came back.

I have factory training in the CRJ, and have frequented the factory floor in the past. I know how that airplane is built and feel very confident in the CRJ.

It's not a perfect airplane. There are a few things I would change on it, but overall, I prefer the CRJ.

I have flown both.

Typed in one (E145) and not in the other (CL-65).

From my perspective, each has their own good and bad points, yet the comment was made, whichever you get paid to fly (I AGREE!)

I actually find that the CRJ seems to be much less a solid plane than it looks. The airplane is simply a stretch challenger, wherein the ERJ was bulit for the purpose it serves...even if it is off the original plans of the E120, it was built from scratch as an airliner. This is why the CRJ has had FAA bulletins on its wing spars.

The CRJs cockpit is wider, when you remove the center console. Otherwise, the ERJ has more actual "room" to sit in if you will.

CRJ is amazingly lacking in automation. No FADECS, introduction of fuel, dealing with anti-ice and other little crap that you don't really notice until you don't have to do anything anymore.

To start the engines on the ERJ, you turn one knob...and 30-40 seconds later you are up and going...without doing another thing.

The ERJs cockpit is "cleaner" and not so antiquated looking as the CRJS.

The CRJs cabin is all of ONE inch taller than the ERJ - HARDLY room for people to stand up tall (CRJ = 6'1") (ERJ = 6'0").

Those airstairs....HAVE GOT TO GO. Talk about living in the "commuter world"...having pax walk across a ramp to an airplane in this day and age is ridiculous.

The CRJs bathroom - HOLY SHIIT - or not, because you can't get your pants down if you go in there. ERJs is bigger than the DC10's - and yes sex is comfortable in it

The length of the ERJ allows for a "nose up" attitude on approach vs. the Cessna 172 nose down until the last minute flare in the CRJ.

Ask anyone who rode in the back and the windows are horrible, and the EXPLOSION of the landing gear on the CRJ is rather disturbing in the back.

Now that they are installing bullet proof doors on the CRJ, it is my understanding the "closet" that the CRJ had is now gone to crew bag storage...so yes kids, B1900 days and stow those bags in the back with the cattles.....inexcusable.

The CRJ does cruise faster, but don't we get paid by the hour??? I have never understood why anyone wants to go faster in the airline business anyway. CRJ is certified at Mach .81=464knts vs. ERJs XR .80=460kts or LR .78=450kts BFD.

The wings are WAY too low on those CRJs = I stopped looking "down" at my wings when i stopped flying Pipers.

According to "customer service studies" by AMR when they were evaluating the two airplanes, pax preferred the 2 to 1 seating of the ERJ than the 2 to 2 seating of the CRJ. In observation of our pax, most prefer and request the A isle seating if there is going to be a full flight, so they might have an isle and window seat in one. It is very very popular.

Both aircraft have no overheads to speak of and neither can really accomodate a rollerboard. This is why both aircraft provide for gate checked bags.

The CRJ has hydrolically actuated ailerons and elevator vs. ERJs just having the ailerons as such.

I like the CRJs TR's better, but overall, my choice is very much with the ERJ, expecially the XR, which is powered properly, and looks fukkin great with those winglets.

 

[cl-65link]

Who cares about the yoke. How much hand-flying are you guys doing. In the Jetscream we had no choice, no AP. As far as the overhead storage in the CRJ goes my Purdy-Neat fits fine if it's not stuffed full. Also, who cares about the Lav,I care about what is up-front and the things that turn fuel into thrust As far as the stairs go, what do ERJ operators do when they pull up to a gate with no jet-bridge? Time to wheel out the stairs.

 

[Prop Trash]

Originally posted by CL-65link:
As far as the stairs go, what do ERJ operators do when they pull up to a gate with no jet-bridge?

The same thing that a 747 does when there is no jet bridge. Yeah, it sucks when you get the hard stand, but as a passenger, I'd rather fly in a plane built for jet bridge use than know I'm going to have to walk accross a hot, noisey, snow-covered, windy, or wet ramp.

 

[ERJpusher]

I'd rather have the wheel stairs up to the plane than walk down an airstair door anyday.

As far as hand flying goes, most everyone I know only uses the AP in cruise and maybe in descent. We hand fly the rest of the time. You've gotta have some fun

 

[purduedchi]

Just some food for thought: I'm an FO on the 145 ER/LR and there are hookups for the airstair door. In places like ITH and a few other places we hook up to a jetway even with the airstair. I have actually needed the airstair door once on a diversion to an airport that was not equipped for the ERJ. If not for the airstair then the pax would have had to of stayed on board for 4 hours while on the ground. I believe PIT is installing the modification to the jetways to hook up to ERJ's with the airstair doors.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I don't see why having an airstair door is bad. It would always seem to be an advantage. We use the airstair door but also use jetways when they are available. Jetways are extremely expensive so our major partners don't just go out and buy them for us. We use them when they are available otherwise we use the airstair door. If a an airplane has an airstair doesn't seem to make a difference regarding the airplane itself. Aeromexico has an airstair on it's MD-80s because many airports in Mexico don't have the money for jetways. Seems like a good investment in that case as well as for regional airlines allowing them to fly to and unload at any airport, regardless if it has a jetway.

 

[GCD]

If you have ever flown any where else in this world, you know that US folks are spoiled to jetways. I've had to park my 747-300 in a remote many times. Ever unloaded 350 people in a remote spot? I can't remember how many buses it took, but I do remember it gets hot real quick in Bangkok, so we would stay in the upper deck with the AC full cold until the pax got off and our bus showed up.

As far as the CRJ airstairs, the rails fold down easily. PCL uses more jetways than Comair. Comair refused to use jetways early on because they were more concerned with jetway damage to the airplane, than the cost of renting the jetway. Rightfully so because I have seen a lot of jetway damage from some of the pinheads not trained properly to drive them.

 

[jumppilot03]

How many are out there

Anyone know the numbers of each plane (ERJ, CRJ) currently flying? It seems to me that I see more CRJs.

 

[Jetlink]

I don't see why having an airstair door is bad. It would always seem to be an advantage.

Like anything, its a good thing certain times and not others. If your company or the majors you serve don't want to pay for the jetways, an airstair is an obvious choice. I don't believe i have ever seen a CRJ without an airstair honestly.

If you are ASA or Comair and dont have jetways at your major hubs, then obviously its a benefit. You can open the door up without waiting.

If you are COEX, where 90% of our stations and/or hub gates have jetways, there is no need for the things...more problems than they are worth - plus if we do need to hardstand, the stairs they bring up to the plane are much wider and easier to deal with.

Our first copy airplanes had airstairs, then the powers that be realized they would be using jetways way too often to really need them, and took them out and coverted all future orders to just the door.

I am just amazed there are not more people falling or slipping down those airstairs on the CRJs I have been on...the things are steep and narrow. Certainly not easy to carry a bag up the stairs and you along with it.

As far as the numbers of CRJs vs. ERJs...the CRJ was put on the market several years before the ERJ...so obviously there would be more CRJs without even seeing the numbers. It also depends on where the customer base is....North America vs. European customer bases.

 

[Jetlink]

Re: How many are out there

Anyone know the numbers of each plane (ERJ, CRJ) currently flying? It seems to me that I see more CRJs.

Well you got me curious, so here are the numbers as of 12/2002.

ERJ:

605 Delivered
705 Firm Orders 135/145
88 Firm Orders for the E170

1995 - First Flight of the 145, with Certification later that year
1998 - First Flight of the 135

In service in 27 Airlines.

Industry Breakdown:

COEX
Ordered: 274
Del: 201
To go: 73
Additional 100 Options
Total: 374 E135/E145

Eagle:
Ordered: 135/140/145

CHQ:
26

Mesa:
Not sure


CRJ:

CRJ100
Delivered: 226
Backordered: 0
Total: 226

CRJ200
Delivered: 463
Firm Orders: 206
Total: 669

CRJ700
Delivered: 68
Firm Orders: 130
Total Ordered: 198

CRJ900
Delivered: 0
Firm Ordred: 30 - To Mesa Airlines Only so far.

Industry Breakdown:

ACA
Ordered: 121
Del: 74
Orders: 47
CRJ700: 0

ASA
Ordered: 57
Del: 54
Orders: 3
CRJ700 Ordred: 12
Del: 9

CMR
Ordered: 130
Del: 116
Orders: 14
CRJ700 Ordered: 20
Del: 6

"Delta Connection" has the following Order without specifiying which one of you is getting the following:
Ordered: 110
Del: 53
Orders: 57
CRJ700: 26
Del: 0

Mesa
Ordered: 72
Del: 38
Orders: 34
CRJ700 Ordered: 20
Del:6
CRJ900 Ordered: 20
Del: 0

SKYWEST
Ordered: 100
Del: 59
Orders: 41
CRJ700: 0

EAGLE
CRJ700 Ordered: 25
Del: 8

Numbers as of 12/2002

Totals for 50< Seat Jets:

ERJ
605 Delivered
705 Firm Orders

CRJ
689 Delivered
206 Firm Orders

Totals for 70+ Seat Jets:

ERJ
88 Firm Orders

CRJ
68 Delivered
130 Ordered