Crj or Erj
03-01-2007, 07:34 AM
#71
CA
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: I am the Captain now...
Posts: 1,006
ANP, any regional aircraft is going to have weight restrictions. Some more than others. Maybe we've exaggerated the ability of the 145, but the 145XR really is a different beast. As long as your landing structural weight isn't a problem, it will go at max gross- no problem, at least according to the ATOG charts. We've had no problems with a heavy load and headwinds IAH-PSP. Turned out to be 3:32 total flight time. But I don't have a lot of experience with the thing at hot and high airports, so take my post with a grain of salt.
Although, with a creative crew- weight problems can be solved quite easily. A few empty galley carts here, some half weights there. Do a'la CHQ and leave bags, maybe even an FA.
If fuel's a problem, carve out some of the contingency fuel and cruise a little lower.
Although, with a creative crew- weight problems can be solved quite easily. A few empty galley carts here, some half weights there. Do a'la CHQ and leave bags, maybe even an FA.
If fuel's a problem, carve out some of the contingency fuel and cruise a little lower.
03-01-2007, 09:16 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Former EMB 120 Jr. Water Boy, CRJ newbee
Posts: 373
Originally Posted by CL65driver
ANP, any regional aircraft is going to have weight restrictions. Some more than others. Maybe we've exaggerated the ability of the 145, but the 145XR really is a different beast. As long as your landing structural weight isn't a problem, it will go at max gross- no problem, at least according to the ATOG charts. We've had no problems with a heavy load and headwinds IAH-PSP. Turned out to be 3:32 total flight time. But I don't have a lot of experience with the thing at hot and high airports, so take my post with a grain of salt.
Although, with a creative crew- weight problems can be solved quite easily. A few empty galley carts here, some half weights there. Do a'la CHQ and leave bags, maybe even an FA. If fuel's a problem, carve out some of the contingency fuel and cruise a little lower.
Although, with a creative crew- weight problems can be solved quite easily. A few empty galley carts here, some half weights there. Do a'la CHQ and leave bags, maybe even an FA.
If fuel's a problem, carve out some of the contingency fuel and cruise a little lower.
03-01-2007, 05:52 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by groovinaviator
That is hillarious!!!!
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.
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.
03-01-2007, 07:07 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Originally Posted by CL65driver
That's pretty interesting. Ours is similar. Only we have to select the mode for the detent.... oh the humanity!
Mr. FADEC is a beautiful thing though!
Mr. FADEC is a beautiful thing though!
Well, I'm flying the ERJ now. But believe me, the 328's was just easier to use and more pilot friendly. On a go around you didn't have to pull BACK into the detend and THEN press a button for the proper power setting. In cruise, just pull it back into the cruise detent. No worrying about going through a "weak" detent", seeing T/O Reserve on the EICAS and then pulling it back and pressing another button. Then have some idiot CA **** his pants because of what just happened.
The engine shutdown was a more positive method as well. Lift the trigger and pull the thrust lever back, simple. No worrying about having the TL not at the stop and turning the knob and NOT having the engine shut off.
03-01-2007, 09:10 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Originally Posted by fire
uhhh max thrust!!! full foward homie
03-02-2007, 04:07 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by dojetdriver
Till when? Point I'm getting at is put it in the detent and thats it. PNF doesn't have to do anything, like verify the power is set correctly while trying to help aviate, navigate, or communicate
Seriously man, your training on the ERJ must have been pretty bad if these simple things gave you problems.
03-02-2007, 07:48 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Originally Posted by POPA
Until the thrust levers don't go forward any more.
Seriously man, your training on the ERJ must have been pretty bad if these simple things gave you problems.
Seriously man, your training on the ERJ must have been pretty bad if these simple things gave you problems.
WHEN do you pull it back, press a button for climb power is what I wrote. Get it now??
Point I'm getting at, the 328's FADEC was easier to manage and required WAY less pilot interface to get what you wanted. I never said it gave me problems. But the more unnecessarily complicated something is (the ERJ's FADEC) the more prone it is to have issues.
03-02-2007, 02:20 PM
#80
Indian Takeout Driver
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FAR part 347 (91+121+135)
Posts: 1,566
So from this thread, we have come to the conclusion then that the ERJ climbs better, but the CRJ cruses better. Which has been my observation. Both are in dyer need of slats, and more power.. the ERJ certainly could use a more critical wing.. both are however, short range, commuter jets and do a fine job at making regional airline Exec rich, while we view the jobs as "Career builders" and accept crap wags to fly them..
Sums it up, I think.. eh?
Sums it up, I think.. eh?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
