OnCenterline

EMB-120: Not bad, Embraer's best prop plane, but as harbinger of things to come, it was forever load-limited. It's loud, but the engineers managed to maintain 30% parts commonality with the -145, which supposed to be a big selling point. Had some nifty options on the MFD (checklists, etc. that the RJ's did not).

The Brasilia also had a major problem with initial props, and later with icing. The props were fixed, but the icing procedures need to be respected.

Electrical system is DC, and the "auto-transfer" feature was a nightmare.

E-145: This plane absolutely sucks. It's load-limited just sitting there. It's slow, made cheaply (plastic everywhere), and while it's ten feet longer than the CRJ, it's MTOW is less than the CRJ MLW. It does have FADEC, which is nice, and while the electrical system is elegant in design, it is loud and finicky (DC based, like the -120, and also like the -120, it has 5 generators. IMO, it's not a good sign that such a small plane needs 5 generators). Synoptic pages on the screens are awful, and the radios are nothing but static in even the lightest rain. Pros: some pax (myself included) like the single-aisle seats, and the big lav is a bonus, as are the higher windows.

Doesn't carry much fuel, so range is limited.

Some planes didn't have thrust-reversers, and the ones that did were subject to an AD limiting their use (depending on the carrier and its MX program).

CRJ: I know this plane the best because I have over 11,000 hours in it. My initial systems instructor was working at Bombardier when it was built, and apparently this plane was to Bombardier what the 747 was to Boeing, in that they basically bet the company on it, and if that's the case, it explains some of the deficiencies. They borrowed heavily from the -604, which is where the low windows and lousy air-conditioning system came from. The wing is a high-speed variant of the -604s, and provides lousy low-and-slow performance, and at 20,000 feet, between the de-rated engines and the wings, climb performance is awful, especially in hot weather, but can easily reach mid-30 flight levels in winter.

Handles like a sports car below 20,000.

All of that said, much of the Boeing design philosophy was included: build it strong, and utilize the "dark cockpit" concept (no lights or messages that aren't necessary). EICAS and system synoptic pages are still among the best, which make trouble-shooting a breeze, and having been in some pretty violent weather, I can say it's built like a tank. The engines are the same as on the A-10, and are incredibly reliable. Control yokes (it's amazing what you notice) are the most ergonomic I've ever used. Avionics options are nice, and blow the -145's away. Cockpit is cleanly designed, though the first-generation seats are awful, but the slanted center panel makes it much easier to get in and out. The windows don't open, but the lack of the tracks and rails creates room that isn't there in the Embraer/Boeing's.

Good short field landing performance, but not so much in T/O, due to lack of slats.

Fast (can cruise as high as 0.84 Mach).

If your airline is willing to pay the fee, it can buy the MX program that allows the MLW to equal the MTOW, which eliminates most non-performance related load issues. This is a huge plus.

The JS is awful, and the bag closets will hurt your back and destroy your bags (esp. with the post-9/11 doors).

For all of its faults, and it has a handful, I love the -200. There's a reason that this one sold better than the -145. It's just a better plane.

I never flew the -700/-900, but between sitting in the jumpseat and talking to pilots that did, just about all of the issues from the -200 were fixed, especially on the -700 (much better thrust-to-weight ratio).

Have only ridden the E-170 series in the jumpseat. Very nice cockpit, but Embraer has not historically made structurally great planes. Long-term verdict on this one is yet to be determined. The mechanics I've talked to prefer the CRJ over the -145 as well.

AlaskaBound

I would say this is the most accurate response to OP.

Avroman

Can't speak to the seating Air Wisconsin used in their 146's but Mesaba had 69 seats in a plane designed for 85. This made for a very roomy comfortable experience for passengers and an artificially high CASM. The plane was really nice to fly, but climbed much like the CRJ-200. It was a raped ape off the ground but really dogged out at about 20,000ft. With the anti-ice on it stopped climbing in the mid 20's. Almost never took it above 30. Would do Aspen with less pucker factor than the CRJ-700 does. The systems weren't as automated as a CRJ, but it was also a much older design. The Avro was just an updated version of the BAE-146, mostly with respect to the avionics and adding fadec to the engines. It also could do Cat IIIa autoland.

FlyJSH

I'm sure you neglected to ask about the Mighty Saab 340 because you already knew of its greatness.

However, if it was actually an oversight:

Built like a tank
Controls feel like you are driving a bus without power steering
Built like a tank
Allegedly has air conditioning
Built like a tank
Landing gear so stiff if you managed a squeaker, you must have misjudged something
And Built like a tank


G-d, I miss the old girl.

kfahmi

Great info, thank you very much. In the -200, did the poor climb rate/ service ceiling ever give you issues with avoiding weather? (I.e. weaving in and out of TSRA at FL290 as opposed to cruising well above it at FL370--410) ?

BTpilot

Absolutely. Just did it last night across Tennessee at FL300..

Would of loved to be at 410 lol

BoilerUP

The Challenger 604 was not introduced until 1996; the CRJ began service in 1992. Did you mean CL601?

As a passenger, I prefer the CRJ2 to the E145 as the cabin width gives more shoulder room and you can fit a LW/PNT bag in an overhead or under a row of seats (provided the FA allows you to bring the thing onboard in the first place). As a pilot, the stretch Challenger's climb performance is terrible and it would benefit greatly from engines with a higher thrust flat rating.

Excellent brakes, better jumpseat than a 145 (not saying much), climbed MUCH better at 250/0.70M profile than a 290/0.70M. I was not aware that you could "buy" a 53k lb MLW for the CRJ-200, one would think operators would have jumped at that because the airplane was often payload limited on a short flight full of bags and people if you had fuel for a semi-distant alternate.

Glad I never had to suffer through a 4hr+ flight on a 145XR from IAH to YYZ, though the Legacy 600 is a very nice corporate aircraft when you consider it isn't REALLY a purpose-built business jet.

CRJ-900s suck as a passenger, the 700s are pretty much that airframe's max effective limit IMO.

E-Jets are way mo' betta as a pilot (never flew one), jumpseater and passenger but they should be as they are a much more recent design. I do remember in the early days (05-07), they were often referred to as the E-180 because they had electric board issues a LOT that caused gate turnbacks.

kfahmi

What kind of distance do you strive to keep between you and active cells? In light GA airplanes I look for a minimum of 30 nm from the serious storms, while in bizjets you can just climb up to 410 and only have to dodge a few tops. Seems like FL200-300 is the absolute worst place to be when there's convective activity nearby.

kfahmi

And what is it with the CRJ's window placement? The Challenger 300's windows are located normally. But I've never been aboard a 601/604/605...I'm having trouble imagining the corporate crowd being OK with windows placed at little-kid height...

snippercr

I cant wait to see this thread in 5 or 6 pages...