I previously flew the CRJ-200, and now fly the E190. I’ve always been curious but had trouble finding any good explanation - why does the CRJ-200 struggle so badly to climb above around FL250 (depending on temperature of course) when on paper it has a higher thrust to weight ratio (at MTOW, normal takeoff thrust) and lighter wing loading.

Thrust to weight ratio (at MTOW with normal takeoff power):
CRJ-200 = .33
E190 = .30

Weight per wing area (MTOW)
CRJ-200 = 102 lbs/sq ft
E190 = 114 lbs/sq ft

Do the 200’s engine lose performance more rapidly than the E190? Is the wing design of the 190 somehow superior? Any insight is appreciated!

A lot of thrust lapse above the low 20s on the older CF-34s. Heck, a Challenger 605 struggles above 270 with ISA+a lot. Leveled off out of DXB once 310 having climbed the 2,000’ at 400 fpm or less. I didn’t fly it but the CL 850 was even worse, heavier.

CRJ200flyer wrote:

I previously flew the CRJ-200, and now fly the E190. I’ve always been curious but had trouble finding any good explanation - why does the CRJ-200 struggle so badly to climb above around FL250 (depending on temperature of course) when on paper it has a higher thrust to weight ratio (at MTOW, normal takeoff thrust) and lighter wing loading.

Thrust to weight ratio (at MTOW with normal takeoff power):
CRJ-200 = .33
E190 = .30

Weight per wing area (MTOW)
CRJ-200 = 102 lbs/sq ft
E190 = 114 lbs/sq ft

Do the 200’s engine lose performance more rapidly than the E190? Is the wing design of the 190 somehow superior? Any insight is appreciated!

It helps if you climb the 200 at a slower IAS/Mach number. A LRC cruise climb versus a 290/.74 or whatever your default is, generally gets you up to altitude quicker.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

CRJ200flyer wrote:

I previously flew the CRJ-200, and now fly the E190. I’ve always been curious but had trouble finding any good explanation - why does the CRJ-200 struggle so badly to climb above around FL250 (depending on temperature of course) when on paper it has a higher thrust to weight ratio (at MTOW, normal takeoff thrust) and lighter wing loading.

Thrust to weight ratio (at MTOW with normal takeoff power):
CRJ-200 = .33
E190 = .30

Weight per wing area (MTOW)
CRJ-200 = 102 lbs/sq ft
E190 = 114 lbs/sq ft

Do the 200’s engine lose performance more rapidly than the E190? Is the wing design of the 190 somehow superior? Any insight is appreciated!

It helps if you climb the 200 at a slower IAS/Mach number. A LRC cruise climb versus a 290/.74 or whatever your default is, generally gets you up to altitude quicker.

My company’s standard was the 290/.74, but you’re right about it climbing better at lower speeds. I did didn’t try a LRC cruise climb, but did fly at 250 many times to get up and over some weather quicker. While the climb rate was improved, it was still much slower than other airliners and still ran out of energy at what I consider a low altitude. Don’t get me wrong, I actually did enjoy my time flying the 200 for four years, but am still confused what was holding it back.

This thread is explains the reason a friend who worked down the street from me in Houston Center (ZHU) would ask CRJ2 pilots, "if you had a vertical rate what would it be"!! Though us in the TRACON just let everyone else climb above you guys in the CRJ2, E145 and E45X, then let ZHU deal with it.....though the latter would do fairly well.

Wow, we climbed the CL605 at 270/.74. No surprise 290 was so slow, all the thrusties were going to forward movement.

IAHFLYR wrote:

This thread is explains the reason a friend who worked down the street from me in Houston Center (ZHU) would ask CRJ2 pilots, "if you had a vertical rate what would it be"!! Though us in the TRACON just let everyone else climb above you guys in the CRJ2, E145 and E45X, then let ZHU deal with it.....though the latter would do fairly well.

I believe that I've made this comment on this forum previously, but one of my former IAH 737 first officers had flown CRJs (Comair?) before coming to CO. He referred to the CRJs as "cholesterol of the airways" (his words, not mine).

In my experience, the ERJ-145s were just a bit better than the CRJ 100s/200s. It was sometimes frustrating to try to climb behind a CRJ and be held down and sometimes, slowed down. So I always appreciated the efforts by controllers like IAHFLYR to allow us to out climb and/or out run the CRJs.

FlyHossD wrote:

IAHFLYR wrote:

This thread is explains the reason a friend who worked down the street from me in Houston Center (ZHU) would ask CRJ2 pilots, "if you had a vertical rate what would it be"!! Though us in the TRACON just let everyone else climb above you guys in the CRJ2, E145 and E45X, then let ZHU deal with it.....though the latter would do fairly well.

I believe that I've made this comment on this forum previously, but one of my former IAH 737 first officers had flown CRJs (Comair?) before coming to CO. He referred to the CRJs as "cholesterol of the airways" (his words, not mine).

In my experience, the ERJ-145s were just a bit better than the CRJ 100s/200s. It was sometimes frustrating to try to climb behind a CRJ and be held down and sometimes, slowed down. So I always appreciated the efforts by controllers like IAHFLYR to allow us to out climb and/or out run the CRJs.

EMB-145s and CRJ-200s - flying roadblocks that hold up all traffic.... but at least the CRJ-200's accelerate once they get to cruise... EMB-145s and any Skywest aircraft just obstruct traffic no matter what the phase of flight, climb, cruise, descent, or approach.

Woodreau wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

IAHFLYR wrote:

This thread is explains the reason a friend who worked down the street from me in Houston Center (ZHU) would ask CRJ2 pilots, "if you had a vertical rate what would it be"!! Though us in the TRACON just let everyone else climb above you guys in the CRJ2, E145 and E45X, then let ZHU deal with it.....though the latter would do fairly well.

I believe that I've made this comment on this forum previously, but one of my former IAH 737 first officers had flown CRJs (Comair?) before coming to CO. He referred to the CRJs as "cholesterol of the airways" (his words, not mine).

In my experience, the ERJ-145s were just a bit better than the CRJ 100s/200s. It was sometimes frustrating to try to climb behind a CRJ and be held down and sometimes, slowed down. So I always appreciated the efforts by controllers like IAHFLYR to allow us to out climb and/or out run the CRJs.

EMB-145s and CRJ-200s - flying roadblocks that hold up all traffic.... but at least the CRJ-200's accelerate once they get to cruise... EMB-145s and any Skywest aircraft just obstruct traffic no matter what the phase of flight, climb, cruise, descent, or approach.

The E45 cruises faster than the CR2.

The only good thing about the 200 was it’s handling characteristics.

What old Peterbilt w/o power steering did you drive before the 200? A DC-8?

bigb wrote:

The only good thing about the 200 was it’s handling characteristics.

That and the flight deck is better than the 737.

The Climb Restricted Jet -200 is interesting. 12 years on type and now 6 on the 737. Both have serious shortcomings as airplanes.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

What old Peterbilt w/o power steering did you drive before the 200? A DC-8?

CRJ-200 handles great. Turns on the dime. One of my favorite Jets to fly the various visual approaches and departures of DCA, LGA, and PWM. Out side of that, that is it…

saab2000 wrote:

bigb wrote:

The only good thing aboutw the 200 was it’s handling characteristics.

That and the flight deck is better than the 737.

The Climb Restricted Jet -200 is interesting. 12 years on type and now 6 on the 737. Both have serious shortcomings as airplanes.

I don’t have experience with the 737 (even though I am trying to upgrade into it. But Ive called the 737 flight deck and systems design the CRJ-200 of Boeings with all the manual stuff….

Okay, I’m jaded.

N1120A wrote:

The E45 cruises faster than the CR2.

Most likely, I've never flown the CR2 only the CR7. We flew the CR7 at M0.83 everywhere.
But i've always heard the CR2 was not known for it's performance.

We were behind a Skywest 175 today, and ATC asked their speed, M0.62... then asked our speed, M0.80

ATC then asked Skywest how fast they could go... M0.72, and issued maintain M0.72 or greater and we were given M.70 or slower, which we were unable to do unless we decended to a lower altitude. We countered with a different cruise altitude or take off course vectors. We got a descend 2000ft and normal speed.

Woodreau wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The E45 cruises faster than the CR2.

Most likely, I've never flown the CR2 only the CR7. We flew the CR7 at M0.83 everywhere.
But i've always heard the CR2 was not known for it's performance.

We were behind a Skywest 175 today, and ATC asked their speed, M0.62... then asked our speed, M0.80

ATC then asked Skywest how fast they could go... M0.72, and issued maintain M0.72 or greater and we were given M.70 or slower, which we were unable to do unless we decended to a lower altitude. We countered with a different cruise altitude or take off course vectors. We got a descend 2000ft and normal speed.

I've heard the CR7 is the real hot rod of that line.

How is that 175 not on the edge of a stall at that speed? LOL. I'm pretty sure the economic cruise speed on the 175 is in the mid .7s.

The -200 will go fast in the upper 20s or low 30s. I’ve seen .82 at 320 in winter. But Econ cruise in summer was .74. I was lazy and flew upper 20s and since most airliners fly higher, we weren’t in anyone’s way.

Woodreau wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The E45 cruises faster than the CR2.

Most likely, I've never flown the CR2 only the CR7. We flew the CR7 at M0.83 everywhere.
But i've always heard the CR2 was not known for it's performance.

I usually flew the CR7 at .77 in cruise. All the way up to .83 was pretty rare, though I did use it a couple times to get ahead of airbii heading into ORD.

bigb wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

What old Peterbilt w/o power steering did you drive before the 200? A DC-8?

CRJ-200 handles great. Turns on the dime. One of my favorite Jets to fly the various visual approaches and departures of DCA, LGA, and PWM. Out side of that, that is it…

saab2000 wrote:

bigb wrote:

The only good thing aboutw the 200 was it’s handling characteristics.

Agree with both bigb and saab2000 that the deuce hand flew real nice. Light and responsive, especially in roll. 700/900 weren’t bad but the 200 was better due to the lower mass. It is the best hand flying transport category aircraft I’ve flown, and I’ve got DeHavilland, Canadair/Bombardier, McD, Boeing, and Airbus type ratings. The Dash-8 was pretty sweet as well.

All that said, it really wimped out in the mid 20s. Just pathetic climb performance up there. I got paired with a center controller one day playing golf, and as we got to taking about what we did for a living he asked what I flew. When I told him the CRJ-200 his response was “oh, I’m sorry.”

Must be a whole better than the CL605 then, it was a truck. The Global was better, but Falcon and G550 pilots thought the Global was heavy. Falcon bubbas took pity on us.

Woodreau wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The E45 cruises faster than the CR2.

We were behind a Skywest 175 today, and ATC asked their speed, M0.62... then asked our speed, M0.80

ATC then asked Skywest how fast they could go... M0.72, and issued maintain M0.72 or greater and we were given M.70 or slower, which we were unable to do unless we decended to a lower altitude. We countered with a different cruise altitude or take off course vectors. We got a descend 2000ft and normal speed.

Normal cruise on eJets is .76. They must've been way ahead, and making up for fuel. Mmo is .82 IIRC.

That's different to E45 though, it was advertised with .72, and most usual speeds were around .70-.71. Depends on how much crew wanted to follow wind fluctuations (as Erj was not equipeed with AT) and what was acceptable noise - since it was built on E135, the noise levels at high speeds were quite loud.

Cheers,
Adam

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Okay, I’m jaded.

Haha, don’t be lol. Trust me on this, no need to verify.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Must be a whole better than the CL605 then, it was a truck. The Global was better, but Falcon and G550 pilots thought the Global was heavy. Falcon bubbas took pity on us.

I can’t comment on the Business Jets, I only experienced with the CRJ-200/700/900 and Boeings. But it is a possibility that that the CRJ-200 might be a truck to you if compared to a Falcon or Gulfstream. I wouldn’t put it past it now thinking about it.

N1120A wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The E45 cruises faster than the CR2.

Most likely, I've never flown the CR2 only the CR7. We flew the CR7 at M0.83 everywhere.
But i've always heard the CR2 was not known for it's performance.

We were behind a Skywest 175 today, and ATC asked their speed, M0.62... then asked our speed, M0.80

ATC then asked Skywest how fast they could go... M0.72, and issued maintain M0.72 or greater and we were given M.70 or slower, which we were unable to do unless we decended to a lower altitude. We countered with a different cruise altitude or take off course vectors. We got a descend 2000ft and normal speed.

I've heard the CR7 is the real hot rod of that line.

How is that 175 not on the edge of a stall at that speed? LOL. I'm pretty sure the economic cruise speed on the 175 is in the mid .7s.

Skywest is known to fly slow. They have a reputation…, But if I can recall I was flying the 200 at . 80 to .81 on in cruise. It’s been awhile. It just dies in the climb. Like literally lol

Delete

Woodreau wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

IAHFLYR wrote:

This thread is explains the reason a friend who worked down the street from me in Houston Center (ZHU) would ask CRJ2 pilots, "if you had a vertical rate what would it be"!! Though us in the TRACON just let everyone else climb above you guys in the CRJ2, E145 and E45X, then let ZHU deal with it.....though the latter would do fairly well.

I believe that I've made this comment on this forum previously, but one of my former IAH 737 first officers had flown CRJs (Comair?) before coming to CO. He referred to the CRJs as "cholesterol of the airways" (his words, not mine).

In my experience, the ERJ-145s were just a bit better than the CRJ 100s/200s. It was sometimes frustrating to try to climb behind a CRJ and be held down and sometimes, slowed down. So I always appreciated the efforts by controllers like IAHFLYR to allow us to out climb and/or out run the CRJs.

EMB-145s and CRJ-200s - flying roadblocks that hold up all traffic.... but at least the CRJ-200's accelerate once they get to cruise... EMB-145s and any Skywest aircraft just obstruct traffic no matter what the phase of flight, climb, cruise, descent, or approach.

Flying in and out of the Midwest for another regional carrier, SkyWest was a source of endless frustration. I’ve heard DTW, ORD, Chicago Center and Cleveland Center controllers ask SkyWest over and over to speed up, and make jokes about how “a certain airline’s” 200s were incapable of normal cruise speeds. Always dreaded deadheads on them as I knew the flight would be the maximum possible length.

Back to the topic of the thread, so is it the engines’ lapse of performance with increasing altitude that is the problem? I still don’t get why on paper the plane has a good thrust to weight ratio, and reasonable wing loading, but it just can’t perform.

High bypass ratio means greater thrust lapse with temp and lower air density. Remember the two planes that the engine was designed for, S-3 and A-10, were designed for low altitude flight.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

High bypass ratio means greater thrust lapse with temp and lower air density. Remember the two planes that the engine was designed for, S-3 and A-10, were designed for low altitude flight.

As a general statement I agree. I remember years ago seeing a chart that the turbofan thrust fell off faster with altitude than did a turbo jet. Only problem I can't wrap my head around is why then do the modern twins (787/A350) with their 10 or 12 to 1 BPR go up so much better than older twins with their 5-6 to 1 BPR? Even at high weights. Is the wing loading just that much less?

SteelChair wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

High bypass ratio means greater thrust lapse with temp and lower air density. Remember the two planes that the engine was designed for, S-3 and A-10, were designed for low altitude flight.

As a general statement I agree. I remember years ago seeing a chart that the turbofan thrust fell off faster with altitude than did a turbo jet. Only problem I can't wrap my head around is why then do the modern twins (787/A350) with their 10 or 12 to 1 BPR go up so much better than older twins with their 5-6 to 1 BPR? Even at high weights. Is the wing loading just that much less?

Because the Overall Pressure Ratio of the newer engines is far higher than for the CF-34, 21:1 vs 45-50:1 for the newer engines

https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/e ... f34-engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GEnx