Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are ERJs Underpowered?  
User currently offlineAguilo From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 243 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

Doesn't it seem like ERJ145s are somewhat underpowered?

Considering their small size and narrow aerodynamic fuselage, they seem to take forever to get the front tires off the tarmac - the engines seeming to spool up power quite slowly. Little to no push back in your seat either. Even a DH8 or a SAAB340 has SOME oomph on take off, surprised the jet powered ERJs don't.

Seems they have "just enough" power but not much extra

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNwairlinkfo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

I do not fly the ERJ, but I'm willing to bet depending on which airline you were on, that they utilize FLEX takeoff's. These are reduced power takeoff parameters which require less thrust and longer takeoff rolls to preserve engine life. It could be that the ERJ does have a low power engine take-off, but I can tell you that in the CRJ our FLEX reduced thrust TO is MUCH less than the full power version. There is a HUGE difference in feeling between the two. EX: You will think to yourself.....wow that is really a lot of thrust on the full power takeoff and on the other you will think: is that enough to get off the ground! Hope that helps.


User currently offlineTrident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

I always felt they were quite powerful - they certainly have a good rate of climb immediately after take-off.

User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3655 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2382 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 145 has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.31, compared to the 777-200ER's 0.29. There is no question that the 777 is not underpowered, as are all twins. I have to agree that you have experienced reduced thrust takeoffs.

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12467 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Probably designed by the same people who designed the A340  Insane

They're certificated by the relevant authorities, so they cannot be underpowered.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAguilo From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2320 times:

Thanks NWAirlinkFO, didn't know about that low power take off - very interesting though!

My ERJ expereinces have all been 145s on CO, US and DL.

Out of curiosity: When do you use the Full Power version? Does the airline monitor what settings you are using? Wouldn't it be more "fun" to just slip that baby into full power all the time? Do they monitor your fuel consumption or something on a per pilot basis?


User currently offline757LGW From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 152 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

The ERJ may be a little underpowered considering it is a Regional Jet and is expected to operate out of short runways. I remember that when Jetmagic wanted to fly the ERJ 135 into LCY it had to use the engines from the ERJ 145 as the ERJ 135 engines were not powerful enough to operate out of LCY's short runway.

User currently offlineAguilo From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

FYI 757LGW: On a short runway, you want to have an "overpowered" engine not an underpowered one so you can get up to speed faster and take off sooner...

User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Isn't that what 757lgw is saying

Sam



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineSW733US From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

757lgw meant (if you read carefully) that Its a little underpowered even though it is expected to take off from short fields.

User currently offlineUSAIRWAYS321 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1847 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

That's what he meant, yes, but he mixed the words up early in the post, it's no big deal though...

User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Aguilo,
It's not very uncommon these days that a pilot does not set full-power for takeoff. Why burn more fuel and put more stress on the engine and it's components when it is not needed? Of course a lot of factors play into this though such as weight, temperature, runway length, humidity, winds...but in favorable conditions it's a common practice.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineUSAIRWAYS321 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1847 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Also, many airlines do monitor fuel consumption by pilot, especially in times like these when the economy is relatively poor and fuel prices are rising. If a pilot uses a higher amount of Jet A than the average too often, he will likely find himself sitting down with the higher-ups, an unpleasant experience.

User currently offlineRyanair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

You see many ERJ's at MAN, which is my local airport. They certainly lack the oomph on take-off, they take up quite a bit of runway, and the initial climb off the ground is quite shallow. But the reason for this is probably because the airlines utilize the Flex reduced take-off thrust procedure like Nwairlinkfo said.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steven Grace
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T Silgrim



Ryanair737


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

"Even a DH8 or a SAAB340 has SOME oomph on take off, surprised the jet powered ERJs don't."

A turboprop will typically always have higher initial acceleration than a turbofan. FYI, the ERJ turbofans are the same as on the Citation X which is the fastest civilian jet.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

Yes they are VERY slow climbers, but that's mainly because of their low thrust takeoffs,

Sam



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

Full 'rated' power takeoffs are performed regularly by crews, to ensure that the engines will manage the task. All this means is that the crew will not enter any assumed temperature for the engines EPR or N1 setting, nor will they use any derates.

Typically, assumed temperature or 'flex' power settings are the norm.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are Airbuses Underpowered? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 07:01:12 by JeffB
Are CRJs Really Better Then ERJs? posted Sun Apr 27 2003 07:51:36 by WMUPilot
NW Route Pullback - Where Are Those Planes Flying? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 17:36:59 by PanAm747
What Are Some New Qantas Routes? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 08:39:28 by TruemanQLD
ExpressJet Southeast Fares Are In! posted Tue Feb 27 2007 00:29:50 by ERJ170
Bmi - How Long Can They Carry On The Way They Are? posted Sat Feb 24 2007 16:36:23 by Demoose
Are Monarch's 757's On There Way Out? posted Sat Feb 24 2007 01:29:04 by Gilesdavies
What Are The Fare Classes For 10,000 DL Upgrade posted Thu Feb 22 2007 17:48:02 by JerseyGuy
Easy Question: What Are The More 'senior' Routes? posted Thu Feb 22 2007 07:22:34 by CoolGuy
What Are Commercial Pilots' Goals? posted Thu Feb 22 2007 05:47:57 by CoolGuy