Crj or Erj
02-24-2007 | 02:27 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
I belive they had to raise the floor from the Challenger to get the 2 X 2 seating configuration. Hence, the windows being lower.
02-24-2007 | 02:33 PM
#22
Indian Takeout Driver
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
From: FAR part 347 (91+121+135)
the pax windows on the CRJ are by far the worse thing about them. I know they fixed that on the 70 and 90 however as I just rode on one the other day from Long Beach. BTW, as an aside, I finally rode on a Pax version of the MD11 (Finnair to Helsinki), and was amazed by the size of the pax windows on it.. a good bit bigger than the 767 and 777 windows. Douglas sure built some nice planes..
02-26-2007 | 10:19 AM
#23
CA
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
From: I am the Captain now...
Having been on both the CRJ and ERJ, they've both got their pros and cons. The CRJ's Collins avionics are a whole lot nicer and user friendly than the junk pile Primus system we have in the ERJ. Not to mention the CRJ's FMS is a little more user friendly and the autopilot wouldn't get a bad case of the Honeywell shuffle anytime someone in the back farted.
Performance-wise, I think the ERJ is better. I've seen close to 1000 fpm up through FL340 in an XR, granted the ISA deviation was a little on the negative side. I can't remember the last time we had to drop pax either.
Eh- it's all personal preference. Neither plane is perfect. Do you like red M&Ms or green M&Ms?
Performance-wise, I think the ERJ is better. I've seen close to 1000 fpm up through FL340 in an XR, granted the ISA deviation was a little on the negative side. I can't remember the last time we had to drop pax either.
Eh- it's all personal preference. Neither plane is perfect. Do you like red M&Ms or green M&Ms?
02-26-2007 | 10:58 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
From: CL65 Captain
Are you kidding me? The ERJ 140's are constantly weight restricted and always departing with a few pax and a jumpseating pilot at the gate... just yesterday a Chataqua 140 had to drop 4 pax (and me) from ORF-STL. Luckily I still managed to get a seat in the back somehow.I was told by an ERJ captain that the airplane has a landing weight issue. In the limited time I have flown the CRJ200 I have never had to leave pax or jumpseater's behind on any flight... even lengthy legs such as PHL-MCI with an alternate and restricted to FL250 due to an inoperative pack.
02-26-2007 | 11:41 AM
#26
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
One difference to think about as far as weight restrictions go is the weight of each passenger used for the particular operating certificate. For example, I believe the average pax weight used at Eagle is 194lbs while, at XJET it is 189lbs. Those are winter weights. When your trying to beat ramp structural or landing structural by 5lbs(its been that close before)that can make a difference.
02-26-2007 | 12:48 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From: Red Tail CRJ CA
I think the most interesting answer I have heard to this question was from a friend of mine who flys the 145 at CHQ..... In short for the 50 seaters he simply stated he thought the CRJ was better.... for the 70's and 90's the Emb's are better......
02-26-2007 | 02:36 PM
#28
CA
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
From: I am the Captain now...
Groove, I'll be the first to admit that the ERJ has a major problem with it's landing structural weight. But if you've got a creative crew, you can usually find a way around it.
But at the end of the day, they both suck monkey butt.
But at the end of the day, they both suck monkey butt.
02-26-2007 | 03:08 PM
#29
Banned
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
...CHQ flights from msp to Iah are, well were, now that cal pulled them off, was weight restricted to 41!
02-26-2007 | 03:14 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,857
Likes: 0
As somebody who's only flown the ERJ, I'm going to go ahead and say I prefer the CRJ. Why? It has a real yoke! There's a reason that 99% (no, I'm not sure that's the actual number) of the world's airlines don't have a freakin' ram's-horn.
As far as ERJs being underpowered, I certainly won't say they're comparable to a 777. However, it's really easy to overspeed an LR when you're at cruise power, at any altitude.
As far as ERJs being underpowered, I certainly won't say they're comparable to a 777. However, it's really easy to overspeed an LR when you're at cruise power, at any altitude.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
