Quote:
Originally Posted by Purpleanga
(Post 2370409)
The CRJ7 was designed a little later than the 145 so there are minor differences that make it better but the 145 is closer to the CRJ7 than the crj2. It's pretty much fully automated, has a fadec. Same as the CRJ7. As far as power, the CRJ7 is faster but the 145LR can climb to service ceiling without step climbing so its adequate in power. Yea the avionics are a bit 90s but it can do the same things that the CRJ has, including descent planning. The only thing better about the CRJ is the passenger comfort but as far as pilots point of view thers very little difference, it's a small cramped RJ.
|
Purely for discussion purposes, because, honestly, QOL trumps which plane is "better", but I'd say hands down the 700 is the better airplane to spend time in, fly, and deal with weather. This opinion was formed through 8500 hours in the 145 and 1000 in the 700.
In terms of systems, both are about equal, with some give and take. I liked the set it and forget it anti-ice system in the 145, vs. the less automated system in the CRJ. On the other hand, the FMC's in the 700 were so much more capable than the Universal UNS-1M's in 145's.
The 145 has a VERY forgiving low sweep wing with excellent low speed and low mach capabilities - it can loiter around at ridiculously low mach numbers up high that would have just about any other jet falling out of the sky. It has great brakes, and can land on just about any runway served by a turboprop. I used to regularly fly into SBP when it was only 4800 feet long and easily make the turn-off about 3500' down the runway with less drama than the Saab I flew into there in the 90's.
The 700 has a much less forgiving wing up high and really should not be allowed to get below .74 up in the mid-30's and above, lest bad things begin to happen due to the drag rise. That wing thrives on speed, and the result is a fast airplane. .79-.81 was more or less normal mach when I flew it, but .82-.83 was go-home mach - and it could do it easily. The 145's limit was a more leisurely .78, with .74 to .76 being normal.
The radar on the 145 is a joke. It's not that the unit in the avionics bay itself is bad, but it is hampered by a TINY dish stuck onto that pointy little snout the jet has. Down low, with liquid moisture around, it does fine, but once into the high cruising levels, it does an awful job of painting weather, due to the small dish's inherent limitations detecting reflections from the small ice crystals that make up clouds up there - even convective ones.. Most of us quickly learned to avoid any color at all up high - even green - because you were likely looking at weather that other radars would paint as yellow, at a minimum. That little dish just did not pick up the weak returns from the ice crystals up high very well.
On the other hand, the 700's radar worked VERY well. It was so nice to get into a jet that had a good radar after ten years flying with a terrible radar. We could actually see and pick clearly defined paths around weather, confident in our choices, rather than attempt to interpret the vague and weak images portrayed by the 145's radar.
The 700 is an order of magnitude quieter than the 145 at cruise mach. I remember being somewhat amazed at how quiet the 700 cockpit was during cruise when compared with the near-727 level of noise in the 145 cockpit. This was huge when it came to overall comfort level in the 700 vs the 145.
Passengers definitely preferred the 700 over the 145 (not that they were huge fans of either, really), mostly due to the larger cabin and lower noise.
Lastly, I thought the airplane flew more nicely than the 145. Hydraulics all around gave it nice light control feel and pretty good harmony. The 145, especially the oldest ones, had heavy pitch forces due to the unassisted elevator. Roll was OK, but not stellar.
However, as I said earlier, this is all secondary to which jet will give any individual the best QOL for his or her situation. Obviously, stay with the jet that gives one the best overall life.
