CRJ or ERJ
06-22-2007 | 09:05 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
....wait for it......
06-22-2007 | 11:28 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
The ERJ feels like a wet rag in my hand, especially at low airspeeds.
06-23-2007 | 08:03 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
From: Cessna 152 Captain
When it comes to the 700 vs the the 170, I heard that the 170 takes the cake and of course the 190 tosses the 900 to the curb. But I haven't been on either of the EMBs so I can't personally speak from experience. The 170s and the 190s do look like baby 73s though. Kind of neat really that EMB took another step into making a "new" aircraft rather than the Canadian route in to just taking it to a limousine chop shop to add a few more seats.
Sabb back me up buddy
06-23-2007 | 09:52 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: Retired
I was wondering if I could put some pretty tassles and a bell on my bike handles when I get on line?
In the end, who the hell cares? PAY ME!
06-24-2007 | 05:39 AM
#28
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 6
I would love to hear from folks who fly all three versions (or the sub-versions of the -900, the -705) of the CRJ.
I fly the -200 and have about 2700 hours in it. I still don't like it very much. But I am slowly getting used to it.
I wish I flew the -700. Seems like that has fixed all the problems of the -200.
- larger wing
- slats
- FADEC
- simplification of systems
- enough power
The -900 would also have all these things, but is much to big to be flown by a 'regional' contract carrier. But that's a whole 'nuther ball o' wax.
Anyway, let's hear about the real world differences and improvements in the -700 and -900 over the -100/-200.
I fly the -200 and have about 2700 hours in it. I still don't like it very much. But I am slowly getting used to it.
I wish I flew the -700. Seems like that has fixed all the problems of the -200.
- larger wing
- slats
- FADEC
- simplification of systems
- enough power
The -900 would also have all these things, but is much to big to be flown by a 'regional' contract carrier. But that's a whole 'nuther ball o' wax.
Anyway, let's hear about the real world differences and improvements in the -700 and -900 over the -100/-200.
06-24-2007 | 11:39 AM
#29
Airport Hobo
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
It's the other way around with the pilots. FADEC is nice!
06-24-2007 | 03:54 PM
#30
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 423
Likes: 3
From: 717 FO
I would love to hear from folks who fly all three versions (or the sub-versions of the -900, the -705) of the CRJ.
I fly the -200 and have about 2700 hours in it. I still don't like it very much. But I am slowly getting used to it.
Anyway, let's hear about the real world differences and improvements in the -700 and -900 over the -100/-200.
I fly the -200 and have about 2700 hours in it. I still don't like it very much. But I am slowly getting used to it.
Anyway, let's hear about the real world differences and improvements in the -700 and -900 over the -100/-200.
1) FADEC and the associated climb/toga/max detents. It's nice to not have to manually set the power percentage.
2) Decent climb rates all the way up to cruise. No more having to think when asked if you can make FL3XX in X minutes.
3) No more babysitting the ECS. Just set 27-28 degrees in the back and forget about it. Nice!
4) Associated with #3 is the fact that the cabin air now blows from above your head instead of at your feet. Girls in sandals can now fly comfortably!
5) Less legs per day, mainly because the -700/900 is put on longer segments.
If you like "real airliner" landings the the -700/900 is your bird because it has the slats. Personally, I'm still getting used to it. I flew the Saab and then the -200 so I'm very comfortable with the "lawn dart" sight picture.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
