CRJ or ERJ - which one do you prefer?

[ERJpusher]

As far as room in the cockpit goes, there is plenty of room. I am 6'4", 255 lbs. and I have more room than I need. The rudder pedals electrcally move to provide even more space in front of you.

 

[Rook]

As a former Brazilia Bra (for you SoCals) I loved the ram horn. Very natural position. I'm biased for the CRJ cuz I've always wanted to fly one since I was a student pilot. My former sim partner is now flying the 145 at CHQ and he says it's a wonderful plane. I think it's more user friendly than the CRJ and more automated. So I guess you don't have to push as much buttons which makes more time for coffee/USA Today and doing your Jepp revisions. Both great airplanes.

that's my 10 cents
my 2 cents is free
nuisance who sent?
You sent for me?

Rook
600' AGL Autopilot on.
'WHEW!'

 

[Prop Trash]

From a passenger's stanpoint, here are the pros and cons:

EMB-145
Pros

• large window alligned with an average person's line of sight
• 1-2 seating configuration (less likely to sit by someone you don't know)
• 17.3 inch seat vs. the Canadair's 17 inch seat
• no airstairs (at least not at Continental Express)
• large lav provides ample space, even enthusiastic couples can join the "mile high club" comfortably

Cons

• overhead bins will not fit a roll-aboard
• low cabin height causes anyone over 6'1" to duck slightly while walking down the aisle
• the seat next to the fuselage has less space for your feet due to the curving wall

CL-65
Pros

• overhead bins will accomodate a standard rolling bag
• higher cabin height does not require tall people to duck

Cons

• low cabin windows strain the neck
• 2-2 seating is preferred less than the 145's 1-2 configuaration
• seats are narrower than the 145

From the pilot's point of view
EMB-145
Pros

• Cold A/C!!
• cockpit is comfortable while seated, there is plenty of room to recline and push the seat way back
• the ram's horn yoke is very comfortable and natural feeling
• the FADEC controlled engines keep you from having to touch the throttles (below FL 310) until it is time to descend
• total glass cockpit, clean, logical layout
• room for overnight bags inside the airplane
• everthing's automatic (except for the throttles)

Cons

• the radar SUCKS!!
• the FADEC won't keep the aircraft from overspeeding during cruise
• the cockpit is noisy
• Mach .78 and FL 370 is the best it'll do
• no ACARS printer
• the aft CG gear makes decent landings more challanging
• bad EICAS caution inhibition causes too many extra "dings"

I've never flown the CL-65, so I'll have to leave the rest blank.

 

[LearLove]

ummmmmm.....

"the aft CG gear makes decent landings more difficult"

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the gear (mains) on all tri gear aircraft aft of the CG. If the mains were at or fwd of the CG it would be tipped all the time.

 

[Alaskaairlines]

I believe the CRJ criuses a bit faster than .78? And what are the certified max alts for both?

 

[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.