MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
If given choice, CRJ or ERJ? And Why...
- Thread starter Lumber Yak
- Start date
- Watchers 16
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Patriot328
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 763
flight-crew
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2001
- Posts
- 167
Go Canadair
One nice thing about the CRJ compared to the ERJ is that the cockpit is a lot wider, and so is the cabin. More width is always nicer. So you have more width and space up front. The CRJ is also quieter. I don't know about the APU cooling on the ERJ, but the CRJ cools down like a champ in the summer.
Here are some things that I don't like about the CRJ:
-No autothrottles.
-Someone said that it has one of the best autopilot systems out there. I don't totally agree with that. When you are in Speed Mode, the Flight Director system seems to lack on the pitch commands. Here's a perfect example. I had a takeoff with a low level off altitude (I think 3000 ft). We were light on pax and fuel, so we took off like a rocket. If you follow the Flight Director system in that situation, you will bust your altitude so bad. I bet the Flight Director would still be commanding 10 degrees nose up while you were 500 ft. prior to your altitude doing 3000 ft/min!!! So I don't always trust the Flight Director in that airplane, especially in speed mode. I've also noticed that if you are doing a climbing turn in speed mode, the autopilot / flight director system can be a little aggressive and slam everyone back in their seats by pulling some extra G's. It's a little better once it's stabilized in speed mode. I personally use vertical speed to get the airplane stabilized, then switch to speed mode.
-I love the look of those winglets. But I don't like how they are so close to the ground. The crosswind landing technique in the CRJ requires you to crab all the way down and then "kick it straight" with the rudder at the last minute. You can't be doing the wing low / slip method.
-Carrying a jumpseater can be a pain sometimes. It's not that you are weight limited... it's that you can be CG limited. A lot of times you will need to load the cargo compartment with extra ballast weight in order to carry the jumpseater up front.
-APU location. At our airline, we need to get an engine start clearance just to start the APU. This is good procedure. It was just bad engineering on Bombardier's part in where they put the APU exaust. The exaust angles down and to the right side of the aircraft. If you had any excess fuel in the APU and had a torching when you started and someone or something was back there, you could start a fire and/or injure someone. So having to get a clearance everytime you start the APU is a minor hassle.
-The room in the lavatory. This is one thing that the ERJ beats the CRJ on. I have been in a Coex ERJ's lav and it is a lot wider and more roomy than the CRJ's. Again, the lav space on the CRJ is horrible.
-Crew baggage storage. Our 44-seat versions of the CRJ have extra coat clossets and bag storage containers. But there is no where for the crew to store their bags on the 50-seat version we operate. But I think the ERJ is the same way in that area.
Anyone else care to comment...
One nice thing about the CRJ compared to the ERJ is that the cockpit is a lot wider, and so is the cabin. More width is always nicer. So you have more width and space up front. The CRJ is also quieter. I don't know about the APU cooling on the ERJ, but the CRJ cools down like a champ in the summer.
Here are some things that I don't like about the CRJ:
-No autothrottles.
-Someone said that it has one of the best autopilot systems out there. I don't totally agree with that. When you are in Speed Mode, the Flight Director system seems to lack on the pitch commands. Here's a perfect example. I had a takeoff with a low level off altitude (I think 3000 ft). We were light on pax and fuel, so we took off like a rocket. If you follow the Flight Director system in that situation, you will bust your altitude so bad. I bet the Flight Director would still be commanding 10 degrees nose up while you were 500 ft. prior to your altitude doing 3000 ft/min!!! So I don't always trust the Flight Director in that airplane, especially in speed mode. I've also noticed that if you are doing a climbing turn in speed mode, the autopilot / flight director system can be a little aggressive and slam everyone back in their seats by pulling some extra G's. It's a little better once it's stabilized in speed mode. I personally use vertical speed to get the airplane stabilized, then switch to speed mode.
-I love the look of those winglets. But I don't like how they are so close to the ground. The crosswind landing technique in the CRJ requires you to crab all the way down and then "kick it straight" with the rudder at the last minute. You can't be doing the wing low / slip method.
-Carrying a jumpseater can be a pain sometimes. It's not that you are weight limited... it's that you can be CG limited. A lot of times you will need to load the cargo compartment with extra ballast weight in order to carry the jumpseater up front.
-APU location. At our airline, we need to get an engine start clearance just to start the APU. This is good procedure. It was just bad engineering on Bombardier's part in where they put the APU exaust. The exaust angles down and to the right side of the aircraft. If you had any excess fuel in the APU and had a torching when you started and someone or something was back there, you could start a fire and/or injure someone. So having to get a clearance everytime you start the APU is a minor hassle.
-The room in the lavatory. This is one thing that the ERJ beats the CRJ on. I have been in a Coex ERJ's lav and it is a lot wider and more roomy than the CRJ's. Again, the lav space on the CRJ is horrible.
-Crew baggage storage. Our 44-seat versions of the CRJ have extra coat clossets and bag storage containers. But there is no where for the crew to store their bags on the 50-seat version we operate. But I think the ERJ is the same way in that area.
Anyone else care to comment...
Beechnut
Ndugu's Foster Dad
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 714
I agree with everything flight-crew said with one exception: I don't know if it's a model change or an extra feature or what the case is, but we have room to store our bags in the cockpit in a closet on the right side of the aircraft. The F/A puts her bag in a closet on the left side of the aircraft just aft of the cockpit door.
S.
S.
skyslug
Oops!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 242
Never had a problem with crosswind landing in the CRJ. There is more room than it seems to do a nice crosswind landing without dragging a wing tip. I've never heard of someone damaging a wing on a crosswind landing (but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened however
)
Never had to worry about balast with a jumpseater on the 50 or 40 seat models.
Our ground crews know to stay away from the APU exhaust because it could be started at any time so again, I haven't heard of anyone getting injured from it starting. Although in quieter environments the use of the APU horn might alert ground crews to the starting of the APU.
Our crew baggage storage is as beechnut states.
The only strange thing I've got to gripe about (besides the terrible climb performance) is how the autopilot captures the localizer. It's really snaps to the localizer with a 30 degree bank to capture it unlike the FMS4100 which had a much more gentle capture feature.
I personally don't use the speed mode just for some of the reasons you've stated. It seems to be chasing the speed bug and causes rapid pitch changes. I use the VS or Pitch modes and find them much more gentle.
)Never had to worry about balast with a jumpseater on the 50 or 40 seat models.
Our ground crews know to stay away from the APU exhaust because it could be started at any time so again, I haven't heard of anyone getting injured from it starting. Although in quieter environments the use of the APU horn might alert ground crews to the starting of the APU.
Our crew baggage storage is as beechnut states.
The only strange thing I've got to gripe about (besides the terrible climb performance) is how the autopilot captures the localizer. It's really snaps to the localizer with a 30 degree bank to capture it unlike the FMS4100 which had a much more gentle capture feature.
I personally don't use the speed mode just for some of the reasons you've stated. It seems to be chasing the speed bug and causes rapid pitch changes. I use the VS or Pitch modes and find them much more gentle.
LAPD Airship
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
- Posts
- 25
Ok I'll throw my two cents into this heavily CRJ'd argument. First, I think it is hard for anyone who flies one aircraft to objectively say anything about the other. Evidently there are more CRJ boys on this site than ERJ.
I obviously fly the E145 and like it. Have ridden and jumpseated on the CRJ many times (ASA). Personally they both have good points and bad points, but lets face it, neither are Boeing and thats all that really matters.
Things I dont like or have heard others dont like about the CRJ:
More expensive
higher operating costs
Had its own issues at first, and might still, but was simply a stretch Challenger
No FADEC or any other thrust management system
What is up with that Cessna 172 nose down landing attitude?!?!
LOUD EXPLOSION landing gear extension
Windows are nice if you are a child (very strangly arranged in the cabin - i.e. LOW)
that bathroom....god help ya if you are a chick or need to sh*t
Dunno about the crew bag storage - cant comment
Cockpit may be wider - but that center console sure does take it all away
Jumpseat is HELLA uncomfortable and my knees are up in the glare shield it seemed....im NOT tall and my legs were in the way of both guys trying to move their chairs backwards.
Like the Cabin height and width
Engines are wholly underpowered for that plane - in a word - pitiful.
ERJ:
Was quite unreliable early on - many MANY things have been fixed, and better engines put on them - VERY reliable aircraft now, especially at COEX and we can thank our excellent MX for that.
Was designed with what it does in mind, i.e. was built as an airliner, and wasn't just built from some business jet model
FADECS are very nice...closest thing you can get to auto throttles without them being auto throttles.
APU and the PACKS blow snow into the plane in the middle of August in Houston...you can't ask for better than that
IF you fly the airplane the way the company wants you too, well, then you have similar performance as the CRJ ...BUT if you Takeoff in Takeoff Power instead of ALT-TO, you have excellent thrust early on, climb in MAX CON Thrust instead of Climb Thrust and you can ALMOST pretend you are in a Boeing...about 300-310 in the climb and 1500'/min, otherwise its 280 in the climb and a thousand/min
I like the single window/isle seat - Row A, which all of our passengers fight over
the bathroom - well plenty of room for the mile high kind of experiences if you get my drift....AND you can spread out when you sh*t
narrow long cabin vs the short wider cabin - whatever
ERJ flys like most larger jets due to its length and therefore has the "normal jet" nose high landing attitude and profile
Loud Cockpit, just as in the CRJ...has to do with the lack of insulation according to the reps at Embraer and not the windows or the wipers. I have ridden in both aircraft and can't really see a difference in noise....both aircraft's pilots tend to wear the "clamp" style David Clark headsets.
and finally...my favorite...JETWAYS JETWAYS JETWAYS. At COEX there are no airstairs installed on the plane and now that EWR is finished, 95% of all our gates systemwide have the aircraft at a jetway. Its tall enough to easily fit a jetway up to it. This further takes away that "commuter" feel of these airplanes to the pulic, and to the pilots...no more walkin across the ramp in all sorts of WX conditions like you would expect to do with a prop
Relatively high wing...basically gave up "looking down" at my wings back when i left flying the Pipers on my walk-arounds.
Anyway, just some observations...just kinda sick of hearing how all-mighty that CRJ is when in all honesty, all 'small jets' seem to be "throw away" and lack the solid construction of Boeing aircraft. I have been told the useful life of an E145 is only 17 years....SO, looks like new aircraft on the line continuously
I obviously fly the E145 and like it. Have ridden and jumpseated on the CRJ many times (ASA). Personally they both have good points and bad points, but lets face it, neither are Boeing
and thats all that really matters.Things I dont like or have heard others dont like about the CRJ:
More expensive
higher operating costs
Had its own issues at first, and might still, but was simply a stretch Challenger
No FADEC or any other thrust management system
What is up with that Cessna 172 nose down landing attitude?!?!
LOUD EXPLOSION landing gear extension
Windows are nice if you are a child (very strangly arranged in the cabin - i.e. LOW)
that bathroom....god help ya if you are a chick or need to sh*t
Dunno about the crew bag storage - cant comment
Cockpit may be wider - but that center console sure does take it all away
Jumpseat is HELLA uncomfortable and my knees are up in the glare shield it seemed....im NOT tall and my legs were in the way of both guys trying to move their chairs backwards.
Like the Cabin height and width
Engines are wholly underpowered for that plane - in a word - pitiful.
ERJ:
Was quite unreliable early on - many MANY things have been fixed, and better engines put on them - VERY reliable aircraft now, especially at COEX and we can thank our excellent MX for that.
Was designed with what it does in mind, i.e. was built as an airliner, and wasn't just built from some business jet model
FADECS are very nice...closest thing you can get to auto throttles without them being auto throttles.
APU and the PACKS blow snow into the plane in the middle of August in Houston...you can't ask for better than that
IF you fly the airplane the way the company wants you too, well, then you have similar performance as the CRJ
...BUT if you Takeoff in Takeoff Power instead of ALT-TO, you have excellent thrust early on, climb in MAX CON Thrust instead of Climb Thrust and you can ALMOST pretend you are in a Boeing...about 300-310 in the climb and 1500'/min, otherwise its 280 in the climb and a thousand/minI like the single window/isle seat - Row A, which all of our passengers fight over
the bathroom - well plenty of room for the mile high kind of experiences if you get my drift....AND you can spread out when you sh*t
narrow long cabin vs the short wider cabin - whatever
ERJ flys like most larger jets due to its length and therefore has the "normal jet" nose high landing attitude and profile
Loud Cockpit, just as in the CRJ...has to do with the lack of insulation according to the reps at Embraer and not the windows or the wipers. I have ridden in both aircraft and can't really see a difference in noise....both aircraft's pilots tend to wear the "clamp" style David Clark headsets.
and finally...my favorite...JETWAYS JETWAYS JETWAYS. At COEX there are no airstairs installed on the plane and now that EWR is finished, 95% of all our gates systemwide have the aircraft at a jetway. Its tall enough to easily fit a jetway up to it. This further takes away that "commuter" feel of these airplanes to the pulic, and to the pilots...no more walkin across the ramp in all sorts of WX conditions like you would expect to do with a prop
Relatively high wing...basically gave up "looking down" at my wings back when i left flying the Pipers on my walk-arounds.
Anyway, just some observations...just kinda sick of hearing how all-mighty that CRJ is when in all honesty, all 'small jets' seem to be "throw away" and lack the solid construction of Boeing aircraft. I have been told the useful life of an E145 is only 17 years....SO, looks like new aircraft on the line continuously
Last edited:
Capt. Caucasian
WAR EAGLE!
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 359
Dangit, now I have to reply to this thread too...
First off I am a pilot at CALEX just like LAPD Airship (I hope your week of vacation was not too rough ). I have only flown the E145 but I also used to fly the 737-200 so at least I can compare it to a Boeing. BTW, the 737 I flew was a 1970 model. The autopilot in the C310R that I instructed in was more advanced than the 737's.
The goods about the E145:
-In all reality it is a good climber. At max gross weight with a high ISA the thing will climb to FL370 at 1000 fpm or greater. 310 kias until the low twenties then it falls off to about 250 at FL370. On numerous occations I have raced CRJ's. One month I always took off right after a CRJ going on roughly the same route. I always outclimbed and even pulled out in front on every occasion. (I'm sorry CRJ guys but it is the truth)
-The landing attitude is almost identical to the 737.
-Most of the systems were actually designed by Boeing. For example: the pnuematics panel is almost identical to the 737 but with buttons.
-The packs really do make it snow in the cockpit in the summer (IAH)
-Easy to use avionics. Sure I wish we had the PRIMUS 2000, but I can't complain too much.
-Handle bars, I love handle bars - except in narly crosswinds!
-The new E145XR will have a center fuel tank, winglets, and much more thrust. We get them next month.
That's all I can think of now, it is getting late.
First off I am a pilot at CALEX just like LAPD Airship (I hope your week of vacation was not too rough
). I have only flown the E145 but I also used to fly the 737-200 so at least I can compare it to a Boeing. BTW, the 737 I flew was a 1970 model. The autopilot in the C310R that I instructed in was more advanced than the 737's.The goods about the E145:
-In all reality it is a good climber. At max gross weight with a high ISA the thing will climb to FL370 at 1000 fpm or greater. 310 kias until the low twenties then it falls off to about 250 at FL370. On numerous occations I have raced CRJ's. One month I always took off right after a CRJ going on roughly the same route. I always outclimbed and even pulled out in front on every occasion. (I'm sorry CRJ guys but it is the truth)
-The landing attitude is almost identical to the 737.
-Most of the systems were actually designed by Boeing. For example: the pnuematics panel is almost identical to the 737 but with buttons.
-The packs really do make it snow in the cockpit in the summer (IAH)
-Easy to use avionics. Sure I wish we had the PRIMUS 2000, but I can't complain too much.
-Handle bars, I love handle bars - except in narly crosswinds!
-The new E145XR will have a center fuel tank, winglets, and much more thrust. We get them next month.
That's all I can think of now, it is getting late.
AAsRedHeadedbro
Havin' fun at the track!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Posts
- 141
I had to laugh with the "snow" in the cockpit comment. It's true, though. We'll be sitting there waiting for our pax to finish loading and we'll suddenly notice little snow pellets raining down on us. You can hang a side of beef in there no matter how hot it is outside.
Personally, I am happy with the aircraft.
It's true, though. We'll be sitting there waiting for our pax to finish loading and we'll suddenly notice little snow pellets raining down on us. You can hang a side of beef in there no matter how hot it is outside.Personally, I am happy with the aircraft.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
