Thanks for all the answers guys! I will definitely use them.

Rob

Plenty power on the 76 as opposed to underpowered like the CRJ

FMS on the CRJ is far better, better VNAV capabilities, a LOT better holding entries (if I'm doing anything but a direct entry, I just do it on heading mode until I'm entering the racetrack pattern and then engage LNAV, if you let it do the entry it just banks and yanks like in a red bull event LOL)

Better TCAS coverage (UP and down look) on the CRJ, you can't extend the range on the 76

The newer 76's have a very good radar like the RJ, but the older birds (such as the older BCF's for example) radars just plain suck, you have to avoid every bit of green on the scope, if not you will find yourself spilling your coffee in a Saint Elmo's fire light show.

The following is not exclusive of the CRJ/76 but rather A/C 's with wing mounted engines vs to fuselage mounted engines...., but pitch tendencies are opposite..., I found it interesting on the first couple of ILS's on the SIM I found myself over correcting the opposite way...LOL (the 76 pitches up when you add power)

The 76 is a stable flying platform, much more so than the RJ in every condition really..., a pleasure to handfly (I know the CRJ is fun to handfly, but the 76 so much more)

I enjoyed the CRJ and don't bad mouth it at all....! It is a great airplane.

But I'm also enjoying the 76 even with an older office layout...., the space, power, stability and overall characteristics of the 76 makes the good reputation it has amongst the pilots very well earned.

I think the most interesting comparison between the 767 and the CRJ is first generation glass vs. second generation glass. The situational awareness in the CRJ is much better. The moving map on the CRJ is bigger than the 767 and also displays TCAS data. I found it much easier to keep track of your relative position to the airport and traffic around you in the CRJ.

In the CRJ you have the option of looking at a synoptic systems page which told you on, off, or unknown. In the Boeing you have to determine on, off, or unknown using lights - which are all over the cockpit - and the EICAS, which is interesting because lights frequently burn out.

I don't know the history of the certification of the cockpit of the Boeing but just looking at it you can see that Boeing or the FAA or both didn't trust the screens. There are six separate screens doing what three could do and none of the screens include pitot/static data. Curiously the airspeed and altitude are electrical/mechanical (not pitot/static) which we now know are more prone to breaking than screens. The technology was there to put all the data on fewer screens and use reversionary logic for redundancy but they chose to use tried and true round dials. By the time the CRJ was certified the parties involved trusted screens enough to get rid of all round dials. It wasn't until third generation glass that they combined EICAS/engine data into one screen though.

Most or all modern airplanes use speed and altitude tapes which can be packaged neatly next to the attitude indicator but are relatively difficult to read. A speed tape without numbers shows you nothing, a round dial without numbers shows information that you can use. If you are familiar with a particular airplane you could use a round airspeed indicator without numbers with little trouble. Changes are easier to see on a round dial too but the trend vector on the speed tape makes that comparison a wash.

Every jet I'd flown before the 757/767 was second or third generation glass. Overall I'd say the situational awareness is better in more modern equipment but the transition to early glass was much more manageable than I anticipated. It's probably worth mentioning that the MCDU on the 767 is as good as the CRJ in most cases and superior when it comes to vertical navigation.

The CRJ has a T-tail design which was a design option for the early 7X7 in the mid 1970's. Of course that design never made it, but there are pics of the concept.

United Airlines was the launch customer for the 767 in 1982. Ironically, United Pilots gave up their scope in 1999 with the RJ Exception Letter Of Agreement that allowed for the proliferation of CRJ-200s. Prior to that LOA, United could only use 65, 50-seat RJs total in service to the company.

I was writing my post when you posted this but we said pretty much the exact opposite regarding VNAV. It's been a long time since I've flown a CRJ but as far as I recall there was no ability to hook the VNAV to the flight director and all you could really do is enter an angle. Am I off on that?

If you have winds programmed into the 767 MCDU the computer computes and flies and idle descent and does so really well. There are some intricacies (recruising) but it seems to work about as well as you'd expect if you are into idle descents.

I'm curious where our difference of opinion is.

I flew the 767 for about 12 yrs. Wonderful aircraft and very solidly built. In reading about its design and testing I found out an interesting fact. During the wing stress test it is a Boeing tradition to see how far beyond the requirements the wing will bend before it breaks the spar. The 767 test exceded the requirements but never got to breaking point because it pulled the anchors that were cemented into the ground! It gave me many warm feelings on those nights at 40 W.

I was referring to the guidance of the VNAV..., but you are correct in the sense that it is not engaged to the automation.., you have to follow it with some other sub mode...!

Now on regards to the VNAV on the 76 being pretty good..., you are by far the only pilot I know that says that:confused:

I'll join him. 767 VNAV is far superior the the CRJ VNAV in my opinion.

In the CRJ you have to manually adjust the angle of descent based on ground speed in an attempt to get close to a flight-idle descent. Otherwise you're constantly descending with power. Also, it doesn't build in your speed reductions for you.

At max takeoff weight -

CRJ-200 thrust to weight is .33 to .34:1.

767's .30:1.

Flat panel upgrade to the 767 shows TCAS on the nav display.

767 was first generation glass. Follow-on Boeings were just further developments of the concepts the 767 pioneered. They got pretty close to today's design on their first attempt.

VNAV works fine. But not all the time so you have to 'trust but verify'. IMO Pegasus jets are better than the early jets. More computing power allowing more accurate wind computations?

With VNAV we're going down below 500' on RNAV/RNP approaches in mountain valleys. Unheard of capability a decade or two ago.