Swayne coming to a 121 near you

Skåning said:
Flew the 135, 145EP/LR/XR at ExpressJet. FMS was better than the Airbus and auto anti-ice was really nice. Flew the Legacy 600/650 (same type rating) around the world a bit too. Exact same as the 145XR but with more fuel tanks and no windshield wipers, go figure. The push to center the HDG bug was nice and t/o config button that yelled at you "TAKEOFF OK". Have about 120 hours in the E170/175, no that was a nice plane. All the bugs worked out and truly a mainline aircraft. Made it through the schoolhouse without studying with just my E145 knowledge. :/
Click to expand...

I definitely agree about the 170/175. Very nice airplane, much more capable avionics than even the big Boeings. Although the CRJ 700 was the best performing/flying airplane I ever flew at the regionals, particularly for the tricky mountain airports.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I consider my time on the CRJ an improving experience I never wanted to have.


“Flies better”

I mean, I haven’t flown both, but, define better.
Click to expand...

My time is only on the -800 and MAX8, but IMHO the controls are well harmonized, not too heavy or light, but still reasonably responsive. The 73 feels like an airplane, where the bus always felt more like a video game, just point it, and forget it.

Another discussion all together, but I prefer the linked controls, back driven auto throttles, and having to trim. We run the HUD, and after getting it figured out, I don't want to fly without one. If I were king of the airline, there would be dual HUD's (I'd throw EVS in there as well) on every airplane.

Nothing wrong with the bus, it's a fine jet as well. I just enjoy actually flying the 73 more. But I'm weird that way, I loved flying the Super 80.

End of the day QOL is king, and since it's looking like the bus will be my ticket to driving to work, instead of commuting, thats probably where I'll be going.
 
ShortField said:
-900ERs are fine, it’s the early -900s that are real piggies.
Click to expand...

Curious what makes this the case? Theory says it should be the opposite. The -900 has a lower OEW and has lower operating weights than the -900ER, with the same engines. So in theory it's takeoff performance and fuel burn should be slightly better than the -900ER?
 
nimslow said:
The answer you will get most of the time is "it's not an airbus". In reality, there isn't anything horrible about the 73.

No argument that the bus cockpit is larger, quieter and more comfortable. The 737 flies and performs better. The bus is generally a little less work. I actually prefer the avionics on the 73 over the bus.

I'm coming up on two years and 1,000 hours on the 73, and I'm still having a great time. I'll probably have to go back to the bus, strictly for QOL reasons, but I don't really want to.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Alt Cruise in the bus allows for +/- 50’ excursions, allowing for smoother thrust manipulation. I’ve seen plenty a 73 pilots scramble to pull back the thrust when you get a little mountain wave or Mississippi River updraft.

Plus, who really wants to have a conversation with a headset off, and not use a coffee stir stick to press the ICS switch in order to talk to each other.
 
JDean3204 said:
The Q400 fly’s like a dream...

A dream where you’re driving a dump truck with a flat tire. Great performance though, jet like speeds!!

Oh wait, this is a jet pilot conversation, I’ll go back to my hole now
Click to expand...

The Q400 was a handful, but the Baby Dash was an absolute joy to hand fly. If you could put the -400 engines and avionics on a -300 frame and give it -200 handling you'd have the ultimate commuter turboprop :D
 
milleR said:
The Q400 was a handful, but the Baby Dash was an absolute joy to hand fly. If you could put the -400 engines and avionics on a -300 frame and give it -200 handling you'd have the ultimate commuter turboprop :D
Click to expand...

Never flown the 400 but I do very much miss the Baby Dash. The 145 just doesn't handle as nicely, in addition to having a number of other annoyances the Dash didn't have.

alaskadrifter said:
It’s a shame the Saab 2000 never caught on, incredible performance and handles nice too.
Click to expand...

I've never flown it of course, but the Saab 2000 has always fascinated me. Seems like it would be superior to 50-seat jets for most of the short routes they're used for as it probably wouldn't be much slower and would have much lower fuel burn.
 
bimmerphile said:
Look, a 900ER rotating 2 miles downrange:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
My DH home last night DEN-ORD was a 900ER...ate up all but the last couple thousand feet of Rwy. 8.
 
Last edited:
JordanD said:
Meh, banter. I'll still mutter "hunk of crap" under my breath at the 175 on occasion but I know things could be far, far worse. :p
Click to expand...
Hey when you hit the third FCND message since you and Mx have been trying to clear it, I say a lot worse things than that about that airplane.
 
poser765 said:
Hey when you hit the third FCND message since you and Mx have been trying to clear it, I say a lot worse things than that about that airplane.
Click to expand...
Oddly the only time I've had that one was when the last FO accidentally pushed a trim cut out on the taxi in.
 
Yakob said:
Never flown the 400 but I do very much miss the Baby Dash. The 145 just doesn't handle as nicely, in addition to having a number of other annoyances the Dash didn't have.



I've never flown it of course, but the Saab 2000 has always fascinated me. Seems like it would be superior to 50-seat jets for most of the short routes they're used for as it probably wouldn't be much slower and would have much lower fuel burn.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the numbers for 50 seat jets, but the 2k cruises up to FL310 at .62 (about 360 true) on about 1,800-2,000 lbs/hr. Take off and landing performance is amazing. This plane goes from Anchorage to Dutch Harbor typically without stopping for fuel (700nm). Not many planes can do that, and land on a 4,500’ runway.
47273
 
Last edited:
alaskadrifter said:
I don’t know the numbers for 50 seat jets, but the 2k cruises up to FL310 at .62 (about 360 true) on about 1,800-2,000 lbs/hr. Take off and landing performance is amazing. This plane goes from Anchorage to Dutch Harbor typically without stopping for fuel (700nm). Not many planes can do that, and land on a 4,500’ runway.
View attachment 47273
Click to expand...
700 miles at .62? Shoot me now.
 
The "management" of Gulfstream Academy had a falling out, and 2 guys pulled out and formed jet U. They literally sold it as "why waste time flying a turboprop for 250 hrs when you can go straight to the jet?" Hence the 'props are for boats' motto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top