AirWillie

The CRJ is not bigger than the ERJ by a whole lot. You can't really tell the difference I guess unless you fly the CRJ900, that probably does feel different. And where it matters, in the cockpit, the ERJ is definitely better.

As far as a great starter, both the ERJ and CRJ were designed for low time pilots. So you can't go wrong either way. I find that the ERJ was a lot more fun to fly because the wing is a little more efficient, I think, than the CRJ. It was very maneuverable. For example, you can land an ERJ with just two flap settings vs the 4 to 5 on the CRJ. The CRJ however has a better EFIS system, a little more practical than the ERJs although anything the CRJ can do the ERJ can as well. Plus the ERJ does not have a set standard FMS like the CRJ does which was very annoying having to learn the different boxes. As far as the systems are basically the same, they were designed for low time pilots so there's nothing really to do other than to place switches in the auto position.

The tprops have older analog technologies so you might be able to say they are easier to fly but they probably require some sort of mechanical aptitude to understand them and they have less automation to help the pilot, although most have an AP and that's all you really need as far as automation goes.

250 or point 65

Really? Dragging up a 2 yr old thread? We all know you have time in each plane.

UpThere

I will have to disagree. Personally, I don't think any jets are made for low time pilots.

shdw

Haha I just noticed that. But hey I didn't see anyone mention the Piaggio and I am curious how that stands up to all these other aircraft if anyone has some experience here.

fatmike69

So do they design the "big jets" for high time pilots, by making them harder to fly and harder to understand the systems?

usmc-sgt

The original poster who asked the question is either A. already furloughed or B. in year two of med school by now.

As for answering this absurdly old question, I think one person had it right. Once you get into training I would say that ANY airplane is easiest to learn if you put the effort forth. I would say that the Saab 340 is much more difficult than the dash 8 series especially the 400 and the regional jets and the 1900 is much more of a handful in the sim although more familiar from stepping up to a recip twin.

The systems in the saab are a disaster when compared to the idiot proof dash 8 systems and you fly the entire checkride on AP with the RJs and the dash 400 as compared to handflying all of it in the 1900. They all have their differences.

And to the person who heard a dash 8 was a blast to fly...the 400 is not a blast to fly, it handles like a tank and cant descend to get out of its own way unless you start throwing all you have out there and from altitude the props are not usually an option unless you really need them since all they really do is make more noise and do not add much to your descent, maybe a few hundred more fpm or so. It is relatively fast, climbs ok and has a good avionics set up except for some of its canadian quirks.

dojetdriver

I'd agree with this. I don't have any experience in the EMB120, or the SAAB. But from the guys I know, they say they are "over engineered" airplanes that can be very systems intensive and take a lot of energy and effort get a full grasp of them. Of course, a good systems instructor can make anything easy.

But to take your point one step farther. In many cases, a plane can only be as difficult as the airline's training department/instructors make it out to be.

Some times they can get wrapped in so much minutia. If they have the "you have to know how to build it" mentality and expect you to know the torque setting on the bolts that hold the synthetic fetzer valve to the flopper stopper is, as opposed to the torque on the non-synthetic, well, whatever.

usmc-sgt

I agree, Colgan Saab guys are taught how many fan blades total in the compressor section and how many rivets on the engine nacelle etc.

I was taught at flight safety and I know that there are two engines on the plane, and only because I saw it in a picture. FS was VERY basic in what they taught. It is a sharp contrast the the saab initial class where I am surprised those guys dont come out with A and P when they are done.

dojetdriver

Examiner: "what kind of engines are on this plane?"
Student: "turbine engines"

usmc-sgt

That is funny, I told all of my students to answer checkride questions like that without being on the verge of being blatantly arrogant to the examiner. Start very small and vague, if he wants more he will ask.

"Tell me about the engine on the 172?" It is a lycoming IO 360.