Crj or Erj
 

To those of you who have ACTUALLY flown both, which do you like better out of the Erj and Crj?

the one that pays the most?

Exactly. One can do this, the other can do that. One is certified for this high, one is certified for that high. One operator has this option on one, one operator has that option on one.

In the end, they BOTH pay crap.

A friend flew CRJ-200 and Emb Legacy (a beefed up ERJ), and much preferred avionics and performance of CRJ. Cockpit has more room too.

BOTH not careers IMHO.

Doubt it, the ERJ has excellent performance even though the cervice ceiling is lower than the CRJ. Don't know of any fully loaded CRJ2 that cruises at .78m+ at FL370.

I used to see .82 on a CRJ2 at 370 during winter; In the middle of Summer, maybe .80

I'm quite sure the MMO of the CRJ is a good bit higher, as is VMO.

Which ERJ's have you been flying? I know the XR can do alright. But I've flown some of the others and in cruise with the thrust levers in the detent, .75 was all it would do.

Everybody I know who has actually done both prefers the ERJ (I've never flown it myself).

dunno your experience dojet, but i've always had to pull the power back at 370 in an LR ERJ, even fully loaded, cause it'll go right through .78

we've got a few ERJ EP's though, and that's a different story all together, i pray to squeeze and extra percent of mach outta her. and normally fail.

The latter is what I'm talking about. Just becasue it is an ERJ doesn't mean that all of them can blaze away at a mighty .78. Downhill maybe.

I assume we are talking about the CRJ200 and ERJ135/140/145
 

I haven't flown the ERJ, but have sat in the cockpit jumpseat (which is terribly small, but I appreciate the crew for squeezing me in)... IMHO, the ERJ felt like riding in a Kia SUV, while the CRJ seems to be built a lot sturdier... like riding/driving a Chevy Suburban. My terrible analogy is just to say the CRJ seems like a much more "solid" airplane... not nearly as cheap. The ERJ is also a lot louder in the back and although neither airplane is very passenger friendly, the CRJ seems to be less passenger un-friendly than the ERJ.

Also, everyone knows a man is defined by the size of his gear handle... haha.

last year i was in a crj-7 and erj145 level-d sim, from the few hours i was in both i came to like the crj more. i really didnt like the erj's yoke, and the crj was easier to fly it seemed, thats just a few reasons. oh my aviater is me in the crj.:)

well if the pilot of a c-150 thinks so......................... :eek: The CRJ looks like a pig, little stumpy wheels, sits real low to the ground, the 200 anyway. The 700 is nice the 900 looks too silly, I mean how much farther are you going to stretch the thing?

They are going to stretch it even more. They just launched the CRJ1000! There is a thread on here about it. At first, I thought it was a joke, but it seems to be true...:o

He is entitled to an opinion, just as you are. If he had cast a vote for the ERJ, I bet your respone would be different.

Because you have told us time and time .. and time again:
Expressjet can do no wrong --> Expressjet operates the ERJ --> The ERJ is the best aircraft ever made. The XR has been known to make grown men cream in their pants :rolleyes:


From a passenger standpoint, I haven't noticed any noise difference in the cabin of either aircraft. I do think the ERJ is more comfortable because the windows are at a height where you can see a little better.

There is a 130 seater on the board according to wikipedia. Could be false info but seems accurate

hahahah does the SAAB have Ventral Tanks???????????? hahhaaha relax man it was a joke ;)

No but I have heard the SAAB has "large talons" haha

hahaha beautiful

I agree completely!

Yeah I hate that about the CRJ200, but it seems they fixed the problem in the -700 and -900. Why would they make the windows so low?

I belive they had to raise the floor from the Challenger to get the 2 X 2 seating configuration. Hence, the windows being lower.

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..

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?

they both suck - grow a set and fly a turbo prop

That is hillarious!!!! :D

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.

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.

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......

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. :D

...CHQ flights from msp to Iah are, well were, now that cal pulled them off, was weight restricted to 41!

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.

I'll agree with you, POPA. That stupid yoke in the ERJ is a real POS!

Well thats why you need to have an XR :)

I actually find the ram horns to be fairly comfortable to fly with. A little weird at first but after a few hundred hours I don't know if i could go back to a normal yoke.

Tell me that again when you're in the mid to high 20s, heavy and its ISA +10. In the teens and 30s I will agree with you, better get out of the detent.

After a few hundred hours with the motorcycle grips, I KNOW I could go back to a normal yoke - or even better, a stick :)

I like it for TO and cliimb. Suck balls on landing, especially in a crosswind.

Ditto the ERJ yoke comments. I cannot stand it!

I like having jet performance in the EMB above FL200. We can get 1300+ fpm through FL300 at a moderately heavy weight.

The CRJ is slightly quieter and slightly quieter in the back though. I prefer the EMB

Sissy Horns
 

The Hawker 800 had the same "sissy horn" yoke as we called it... I never had a problem with it.

Someone seroiusly needs to hang little pon-poms off it like they did on their bike when they were a little girl... that would be way classy! :D

thats kinda funny :)

The CRJ-200 sucks. IMHO.

But the cockpit is reasonably spacious for such a small airplane. Also, I agree that it seems like fairly sturdy construction.

I think the CRJ-700 is a far nicer airplane and they could have made it even better, but that would have cost more money.

What I don't like about the CRJ-200:

-Feels unstable to me (but not to everyone else I guess...)
-Dead zone at the yoke-centered position
-Underpowered
-Not initially designed for pax service - things break more often than they should

What I like:
-Not bad cockpit space, especially room for the pilot case
-Very good brakes! (RWY 35 or 26 in PHL anyone?)
-Can go fast. Sometimes.
-It's an airplane and I get paid to fly it!! :D