What's it like to fly the CRJ?

PeanuckleCRJ said:
Don't get me wrong.. I actually loved the way the CRJ flew. I knew that I could fly that badboy accurately down to any weather condition with whatever happened.... but man....

If it's a cold morning..get in and get the APU running and the warm air flowing through the cockpit. Half the switches won't work until you get that flight deck the temp of an oven. You'd think the Canadians would design an airplane that would work nicely when it's cold soaked...



Anybody else really like the way the tiller felt?
Click to expand...

Molsen logic :rolleyes:

Well, I don't know actually. The laws of physics act a little differently in Canada. For example, In Canada cold air rises. This is why they put the air conditioning vents on the floor of the cabin.
 
flyguy said:
Molsen logic :rolleyes:

Well, I don't know actually. The laws of physics act a little differently in Canada. For example, In Canada cold air rises. This is why they put the air conditioning vents on the floor of the cabin.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my day.
 
Dunno.. it's close, but the CRJ I sat jumpseat in sure seemed bigger.

Heck, it's got room for a jumpseat.

Flying the Hondo was fun, but I don't miss that small cockpit at all. I used to feel like I was putting on a wetsuit rather than sitting down in a seat.
 
inside0ut said:
First jet was the 200, now I fly the E175. Big difference between the two.

I loved the CRJ, it was soooo easy to do 250 to the marker, turn the pumps on, drop the gear, pull the brakes and have it on speed, on glideslope, configured about 2 seconds later. The 175? Not so much.

The 200 did have a autopilot that would break your teeth tho. On a turbulent or gusty day with the AP on you would get smacked. Thank god they changed that in the 7 and 9.
Click to expand...

So, why don't you give us a detailed breakdown of how the 170/175 flies, what's good, what's bad, and how do you like the FBW and the fuzzy logic!?

:D
 
ZapBrannigan said:
Aircraft pitch attitude on final is surreal. It is extremely low so the transition from the approach pitch attitude to the flare pitch attitude is dramatic.
Click to expand...


No kidding. I've seen CRJ's flown like this on final all the way down to flare height, but the pilots usually grease the landings.
 
The ERJ doesn't have leading edge devices yet we come in at fairly slow speeds (125-135) with a normal +1/+2 pitch attitude.

I think the CRJ had some problem during flight testing (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and subsequently approach speeds were raised to avoid whatever problem they encountered. It seems like an artificially high approach speed and not really the stall speed plus 30-35%.
 
If memory serves the RJ did not use 1.3 Vso for ref. It is inflated, but I don't remember the percentage or the reason.
 
Every time I ride as a passenger on the CRJ, I enjoy it. I guess I haven't been exposed to much, but that thing pulls on takeoff! I'm surprised to hear it's underpowered because it feels like it accelerates pretty nicely. The truth is there were only about 6 people in the airplane the day I flew so it must've been due to the lower weight on the short hop from PHL-LGA.

The beast is definitely the 757 though. Textbook short field takeoffs out of Toncontin Int'l (Tegucigalpa, Honduras) are just simply amazing. That plane CLIMBS.
 
The CRJ is only underpowered up at altitude. Down low, the thing is a rocket ship and will outclimb pretty much anything except a 757 up through 10,000 ft.
 
PCL_128 said, "...and will outclimb pretty much anything except a 757 up through 10,000 ft."

I'm gonna have to raise the BS flag on that one. Source?

I find it hard to believe that your new non-ALPA (sorry had to throw that in there) Boeing 717 doesn't outclimb the Fischer Price Jet.
 
I've been told if you really want to fly a rocketship, fly a learjet. I hear the older ones had even better climb performance.

I'd say Zap and mikecweb probably outclimb most other jets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top