ExperimentalAB

Since I've transitioned from the EMB-145 to the CRJ-200/7/9 two years ago, I've found myself more and more unimpressed with the way the CRJ flies -- sometimes I even fantasize about the -145 as I'm flying a visual in the CRJ (okay, not really, but it gets the point across)!

I have to wonder...does the Challenger fly any better? It seems to me that when the plugs were added to lengthen the fuselage, it must have thrown a well-balanced aircraft off (except for the awful loose-goose landing gear on the -200).

My first impression of the aircraft was that the flight controls feel far too artificial (and that hasn't changed!). Also, the deployment of flaps at most any speed results in an almost violent pitching moment - I can't imagine that John Q CEO would appreciate that while he is sipping his martini...

So...did the Canadians mess too much with a good thing? Are the Challengers better flyers than their RJ counterparts?

thndr8

I would like to know too. I hate the way the CRJ flies. I miss landing the ERJ and would go back in a heartbeat but I switched companies for QOL not airframes. I can still dream though.

ExperimentalAB

Ayep...I'd choose the CRJ with SkyWest over the EMB with Trans States any day -- but boy this old girl is painful to fly sometimes!! The -200 is hands-down awful, while the -700/-900 are slightly better performers in turn.

That brings up another question...The -700/-900 have their gear too far to the rear, don't they? I don't ever remember "driving the mains in" with the -145. I could land her sweet every time, but the CRJ's still get me once in awhile...

Blueridger

Uhhh.... your comments seem very odd to me. The CRJ was the best handling machine I ever flew and one could consistently land it smoothly with the trailing link gear arrangement. I thought the controls were superbly crisp and responsive; heck the roll rate was phenomenal! The flap deployment and accompanying pitching moment could be rather exaggerated, however the best solution to that was to maintain your speed or slow down very gradually while the flaps were being extended.
But hey, to each his own. I have never flown an ERJ, so the comparison can't be made for myself.

VmoMmo

My two cents~

First off.....as far as John Q sitting in the back, it is one of the best cabins out there for comfort and it doesn't give you that "tube" effect with the width. It's pretty darn quiet too. Seriously, it really feels like a living room (decent galley and lav) back there and I have yet to have a passenger say anything negative about it. The baggage space is ample too for normal loads (4-8 pax).

As far as flying it...........it's NOT a Falcon. Great cockpit if you're a big guy. Coast to coast 7 days a week at M .80 no problem. 7+30 I'd like to be on approach (601-3R). FL410 not a problem when well into a long range flight. It does use the runway at high, hot and heavy (604, 605 better than the 600 and 601) and is pretty temperature sensitive at altitude (sound like an RJ yet?). Mid to upper 30s to start until the weight agrees to climb. Not sure what the "artificial feel" means but it does fly like a truck (however decent roll rate) and feels pretty solid. Pitch changes are moderate (trim away) on config changes, but you figure it out and can get pretty smooth at it. Landings can be tricky in a gusty crosswind, don't let 'er float (Ref is a big deal in this one) and if you're used to the flat angled approach, than there's no surprises there either. Brakes and T/Rs are effective (4500 ft runways not a problem).

So maybe to answer your question(s). Flies like an RJ, but quieter and not as "pitchy" as you're used to.

Flyer00

First, I liked the way the CRJ flew, it was just like Blueridger said, but the 604 is more fun INHO. Other observations...The 604 doesn't have spoilerons, so its roll rate isn't quite as good. I liked using flaps 8 for t/o in the rj (it just felt smoother), don't have them in the 604. The 604 climbs WAY better than the RJ, although at MGTW you can't climb straight to the top, but you can climb to the mid/upper 30's and make M80. We don't really use "speed" mode in the 604, the pitch attitude wouldn't be too comfortable in the back. Seats up front are just as crappy which makes an 8 hour flight really long! As VmoMmo said, it lands with the same lawn dart attitude of the rj!

FlyingNasaForm

When you put flaps in during a decent switch to pitch mode that will help the balloon. You can even click the wheel up one notch after the flaps are selected with the TURB mode on to eliminate the balloon effect.

If you are straight and level when flaps are selected slowly pull out 3 notches of spoilers (each notch spaced evenly from the time the flap handle is moved to when the flaps stop). That will also eliminate the pitch movement.

Or just click the AP off and hand fly it.

FlyingNasaForm

There are a few ways to eliminate that balloon effect.

1) Turn the AP before putting the flaps out.

2) If you are in a descent change the AP to PTCH mode. Then put it back in VS mode after the flaps have stopped moving. You can also add in a wheel of nose up pitch in PTCH mode (with the TURB mode on). That will eliminate.

3) If you are straight and level and need to add flaps slowly pull out 3 notches of spoiler spaced evenly along the movement of the flaps. (First notch is when the flaps start to move 2nd when they are mid and third when they reach the selected position. Then retract them slowly.


Note: the balloon affect is not as noticeable when sitting in the cabin. The closer your are to the nose the worse it is.

The only thing I can think you mean by "loose-goose" landing gear is the thud you feel on take off. I believe it is the struts fully extending after the wheels break ground. I belive that is a Mx issue, because everyone now and again you'll fly an airplane that won't thud after rotation. (For all 6 legs that day.)

From conversations with ERJ drivers I've heard that each airplane flys differently and the elevator is very ineffective at low speeds. All our birds seem to fly the same (outside of the occasional needs for aileron trim due to hangar rash).

FlyingNasaForm

Sorry for the double post. I was having some network issues.

cl601pilot

I flew the challenger for about 5 years. I thought that it was a pretty nice airplane. It did take me little while to get the landings down. I tended to land a little hard at first.

However, to me it doesn't seem to be as nice to land in general as the Gulfstream or 737.

Just keep at it. You will eventually get it figured out.