CRJ vs ERJ Type

[BrickTop]

I am typed in and worked for a CRJ 121 carrier. I have been hired by ExpressJet and am going to be on the ERJ. Wondering if anyone has flown both or is typed in both and which one is viewed as an easier aircraft to train and fly.

 

[Jack Mehoff]

I have spent the past 2 and a half years on the CRJ and now upgrading onto the ERJ. So far from what I have learned in GS the ERJ is a much smarter airplane. Some drawbacks are no 6th screen for the schmatics of systems, no "banana bar" and no automatic apu fire protection on the ground. I am not in the sim yet so I can't tell you the flight differences. Over all from a automation stand point, I think the ERJ is better then the CRJ.

 

[johnsonrod]

I have spent the past 2 and a half years on the CRJ and now upgrading onto the ERJ. So far from what I have learned in GS the ERJ is a much smarter airplane. Some drawbacks are no 6th screen for the schmatics of systems, no "banana bar" and no automatic apu fire protection on the ground. I am not in the sim yet so I can't tell you the flight differences. Over all from a automation stand point, I think the ERJ is better then the CRJ.

Having sat in the CRJ cockpit, it is certainly more comfortable than the ERJ cockpit in my opinion. I like the ERJ automation better though.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Having gone around and around and around on this for years, the CRJ is pretty far behind the ERJ in just about every area. The cockpit isn't as roomy, doesn't offer as much visibility, and is more complex. The tubes are also a lot smaller if I recall correctly. Far less automation, far tighter limits on just about every system (i.e. less operational flexibility), and more workload all the way around on the CRJ.

ERJ is not perfect but it is definitely superior. I know of a handful of instructors and pilots who have taught and/or flown both CRJ and ERJ and to the man they all consider the ERJ far superior to the CRJ.

I think the APU fire protection on the ERJ is sufficient, FWIW, and something that can easily be rectified with software if Embraer thought it necessary.


As it stands, there is an automatic shutdown for an APU fire on the ground that does offer some protection.

 

[bvt1151]

Having gone around and around and around on this for years, the CRJ is pretty far behind the ERJ in just about every area. The cockpit isn't as roomy, doesn't offer as much visibility, and is more complex. The tubes are also a lot smaller if I recall correctly. Far less automation, far tighter limits on just about every system (i.e. less operational flexibility), and more workload all the way around on the CRJ.

ERJ is not perfect but it is definitely superior.

This is the first I've ever heard this, and have heard from several who've flown both that the CRJ is superior. The ERJ was the easiest to land and they liked the yoke once they got used to it, but that was about it. They compared the ERJ to the Brasilia and the CRJ to a Boeing product. Don't know exactly what that means, but I do know the CRJ's never lost the aft end due to a hard landing.

 

[wmuflyguy]

The both pay crap.

 

[BrickTop]

The both pay crap.

HAHA!!!! ILMAO This is true and come January Ill be making unemployment Pay!!! But at least Ill be laid off from XJT and not dodging FAR's and living in shame of my job at Mesa!!

 

[johnsonrod]

The both pay crap.

A pilot flying a Legacy for a good part 91 or even part 135 outfit might do OK. But I can attest to the low pay for the ERJ in the regionals... Not good.

 

[Popeye0537]

This is the first I've ever heard this, and have heard from several who've flown both that the CRJ is superior. The ERJ was the easiest to land and they liked the yoke once they got used to it, but that was about it. They compared the ERJ to the Brasilia and the CRJ to a Boeing product. Don't know exactly what that means, but I do know the CRJ's never lost the aft end due to a hard landing. [/quote


Just wondering but what Erj lost its aft end due to a hard landing? Ask Mesa about the hard landning they had...

 

[amcnd]

having flown both 3000hours in the EMB and 500 in the CRJ200 and 700. Out of the 50 seater's I like flying the EMB better. The CRJ is a better built airplane. The EMB performs better in climb and flys better in turbulence but the radar sucks!! But all being said ,given that I have flown the CRJ700 I Like it the best. The CRJ is a easier airplane to really learn.

 

[bvt1151]

Just wondering but what Erj lost its aft end due to a hard landing?

Its been several years, but I'm sure there's still a picture floating around somewhere. Anyone find it?

 

[LegacyDriver]

This is the first I've ever heard this, and have heard from several who've flown both that the CRJ is superior. The ERJ was the easiest to land and they liked the yoke once they got used to it, but that was about it. They compared the ERJ to the Brasilia and the CRJ to a Boeing product. Don't know exactly what that means, but I do know the CRJ's never lost the aft end due to a hard landing.

First time you've heard of it, but true nonetheless. The ERJ's engineering is better and more advanced. Let's face it the thing is newer than the CRJ.


As for the fuselage issue, that was a Rio Del Sur ERJ that impacted the ground at a RIDICULOUS sink rate. That was not a hard landing that was a downright crash.

The thing still managed to taxi off the runway.

I don't know about you but that tells me this is one tough assed bird. (They have since reinforced the fuselage. It would take one hell of a hell of a HELL of a pounding to break it now.)

 

[Acepilot81]

Its been several years, but I'm sure there's still a picture floating around somewhere. Anyone find it?

it was a MD80 not a ERJ

 

[dojetdriver]

it was a MD80 not a ERJ

Yes, we've all seen the video of the MD-80 landing hard and loosing it's a$$ end in the process. The aircraft they are talking about with the fractured rear fuselage is an EMJ.

 

[LegacyDriver]

It's a RIO DEL SUR EMB-145. The guy hit the ground at a ridiculous sink rate (excess of 1500 FPM I think). Snapped the fuse just ahead of the engines. They taxied off having not realized what they did. The gear held. Nobody got hurt. Embraer later reinforced the fuselage.


The 140 and 135 are shorter from the aft part of the wing back so they are inherently less likely to break there even without the reinforcement (which they do in fact have).

 

[DoinTime]

Wasn't there an Eagle or Mesa ERJ awhile back that was totaled after a hard landing? It wasn't to many years ago. I think they flew it the next day because they never caught the crack in the wing spar and the buckle in the fuselage on the walk around.

I used to get bent out of shape about the vertical cramptness of the CRJ but it doesn't bother me anymore. The cockpit while having a lower ceiling is considerably wider than the ERJ. Other than headroom the CRJ cockpit is quite comfortable, reasonably quiet, and visibility is adequate.

The mechanical systems are all pretty primitive as they are largely unchanged from the early 1980's design of the aircraft but the pilot interface with the systems is pretty simple. There really isn't much you can screw up in the CRJ but I'm sure the same can be said of the ERJ.

My analysis of the two airplanes is like comparing a Chevy to a Cadillac. Just walking around the two airplanes its obvious that the ERJ is a turboprop in a jets clothing. The term "rushed to market" rings true. The CRJ was designed to be jet and the attention to detail in its engineering shows.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Yeah it's wider because you have the gigantic center pedestal taking up all the room!

The ERJ was DESIGNED as an airliner. The CRJ was a Corporate Jet converted to an airliner. It shows.

We have a 130 knot margin for our coffin corner at 410 compared to what, 30 knots for the CRJ? We can start and use our APU at altitudes well beyond what the CRJ's can... We don't have engines that seize up for odd reasons like the Canadair... We also have some of the benefits that go with coming to the game later. Embraer could take advantage of newer technologies that Canadair couldn't.

The list is endless.

The CRJ is okay, but the ERJ has much wider safety margins and is more user friendly all the way around with the exception of the speedbrakes. I hate them on the ERJ.

 

[sweptback]

We have a 130 knot margin for our coffin corner at 410 compared to what, 30 knots for the CRJ?

If you operate the airplane within the limitations, coffin corner should not be an issue. The CRJ doesn't really have one either -- this isn't a Lear 23 that we're talking about here.

Isn't the ERJ limited to 370 anyway? There's really not much of a coffin corner there in any airplane.

We can start and use our APU at altitudes well beyond what the CRJ's can...

How often do you need to start the APU above 300? And use it above 370?

We don't have engines that seize up for odd reasons like the Canadair...

I'll give you that one, but outside of the PCL incident (which has been beat to death), this has never been an issue.

Bottom line, whatever airplane you fly will be the greatest airplane ever. Other than that, we're both flying similar airplanes for lousy wages.

 

[DoinTime]

The ERJ was DESIGNED as an airliner.

The ERJ was designed as a turboprop. A low budget one at that.

We have a 130 knot margin for our coffin corner at 410 compared to what, 30 knots for the CRJ?

130 knot stall margin at FL410? Thats impressive that the ERJ has a clean stall speed of 110 knots indicated. Not many straight winged t-props can even claim that.

Embraer could take advantage of newer technologies that Canadair couldn't.

About the only thing I can think that is of any importance is the fuel controler. What else are you refering to?

 

[dojetdriver]

Yeah it's wider because you have the gigantic center pedestal taking up all the room!

The ERJ was DESIGNED as an airliner. The CRJ was a Corporate Jet converted to an airliner. It shows.

We have a 130 knot margin for our coffin corner at 410 compared to what, 30 knots for the CRJ? We can start and use our APU at altitudes well beyond what the CRJ's can... We don't have engines that seize up for odd reasons like the Canadair...

Maybe it's just ExpressJet, but does any other airline operate the ERJ 135/145 above Fl 370? If it was capable of going that high, what would the coffin corner margin be? I'm not talking about the Legacy.

About those engines. It isn't liket the ERJ rolled off the line with the best powerplant. How many time have you heard of a CRJ having to return for landing right away because the FADEC was a POS?

Yeah, I know the CRJ-200 has no FADEC, but I wouldn't exactly call the ERJ's engines better. The FADEC on the ERJ has to be told what to do before it does it. Ever Jumpseat on an Airbus or 777? I don't see the PNF reaching down and telling the engines what mode to be using.

Any engine that is good enough to be placed on the A-10 is a better product.