In the US it seems the CRJ-200 was much more popular than the ERJ-140/145. The Embraer was a newer design with newer engines and seemed more optimized for the mission of a 50 seater. The list price was also cheaper.

Is there any reason why US airlines bought more CRJs?

The CR2s were first to market. They got lots of the orders first before 145 was available to order.

They were both uncomfortable flying sewer pipes. Good riddance to them both.

Is the premise of this thread actually true? How many CRJ100/200 did US airlines buy vs ERJ135/140/145? Believe it or not more of the latter were built compared to the former.

CRJs I feel like may have had a wider customer base and found in across more regional airlines, but some ERJ customers (ahem ExpressJet operating for COEx) had huge fleets.

Oddly, I've been on dozens of CRJ-200 flights, but nary an ERJ-145. I agree with the poster who called them "flying sewer pipes''

DLPMMM wrote:

The CR2s were first to market. They got lots of the orders first before 145 was available to order.

They were both uncomfortable flying sewer pipes. Good riddance to them both.

The 145s are mildly better if you can get a seat on the left and not have a seatmate, but yeah, they're both awful.

It’s complex and complicated and expensive to have two plane types. If they purchased CR2s first which many did, it makes a lot more sense to keep that type. It’s as simple as that. Even if it’s a better plane and cheaper list price it still doesn’t mean it makes financial sense when you have all the crew training manuals done, parts supply, and training done.

STLflyer wrote:

DLPMMM wrote:

The CR2s were first to market. They got lots of the orders first before 145 was available to order.

They were both uncomfortable flying sewer pipes. Good riddance to them both.

The 145s are mildly better if you can get a seat on the left and not have a seatmate, but yeah, they're both awful.

Although I do like that the 200 is a bigger tube. I can’t stand all the way up in the 145. The single seat is nice though.

The CRJ-200 was better off short runway's, the 145 was a runway hog. AA when replacing the Dash-8's at HVN had to go the CRJ-200 even though Piedmont had been servicing the airport.

I assume one factor was, that the CRJ's offered the better opportunity to strecht the tube, while the small Embraers were basically maxed out from the beginning.

DLPMMM wrote:

They were both uncomfortable flying sewer pipes. Good riddance to them both.

Have a ride on a Jetstream, or even worse, a Metroliner and you will desperately try to summon back the comfort of a 145

Homestly, I like the E-145 - it's the Mazda Miata among passenger planes. The closest you can get to a business jet/supersports car as an average income guy

See, I've had enough of the tired old Boeing vs. Airbus talk, its time for the Bombardier/Canadair vs Embraer fights. I look forward to following this thread.

They eventually stretched the CRJ-200 from 50 pax to 100 pax with the CRJ-1000.

The EMB-145 - was an old turboprop design already stretched, with the prop engines removed and jet engines bolted on, so all they could do was shrink it to 37-seats with the EMB-135.

Semi-hijacking this thread, I was just looking at the Fokker 70 a few days ago. How did she compare against the CRJ and ERJ? According to Wiki, only 47 were sold to customers, roughly 300 of the family if you include the F100. CRJ family is at almost 2000, ERJ family at roughly 1250. Any ideas why?

The ERJ has done exceptionally well as a business jet, with almost 300 Legacy 600s sold. The Challenger 850 never did all that well, with only 71 sold.

N1120A wrote:

The ERJ has done exceptionally well as a business jet, with almost 300 Legacy 600s sold. The Challenger 850 never did all that well, with only 71 sold.

The Challenger 850 was only the answer to the few that wanted a Global cabin without the price. Most soon found out why there was a price differential. Russians liked them to fly to Spain, Cyprus for example. Extraction industries used some CRJ 700/900 to ferry crews to/from mines.

About 2005, Bombardier was trying to push the 850 solely to keep the line open in the hopes the airline market would return. It’s didn’t.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The ERJ has done exceptionally well as a business jet, with almost 300 Legacy 600s sold. The Challenger 850 never did all that well, with only 71 sold.

The Challenger 850 was only the answer to the few that wanted a Global cabin without the price. Most soon found out why there was a price differential. Russians liked them to fly to Spain, Cyprus for example. Extraction industries used some CRJ 700/900 to ferry crews to/from mines.

About 2005, Bombardier was trying to push the 850 solely to keep the line open in the hopes the airline market would return. It’s didn’t.

The CR7/9 are a whole different animal though, given the size. Is the Global a similar size to the CR2? I was under the impression that the CR2/850 is larger.

Nearly identical—CRJ and Global 6500, but Global has more headroom, it’s a different fuselage if similar in length and width. The Global 7500 is pretty close to the CRJ 700 dimensions.

The Global 6000/6500 is actually 11’ longer than the -200, but I can’t say about the interior comparison. A Global cabin is 48’4” long with 335 square feet of floor area. A G7500 is 3’ shorter interior than the CRJ 700, but exterior is pretty close to a B736-700.

Jshank83 wrote:

STLflyer wrote:

DLPMMM wrote:

The CR2s were first to market. They got lots of the orders first before 145 was available to order.

They were both uncomfortable flying sewer pipes. Good riddance to them both.

The 145s are mildly better if you can get a seat on the left and not have a seatmate, but yeah, they're both awful.

Although I do like that the 200 is a bigger tube. I can’t stand all the way up in the 145. The single seat is nice though.

I don’t understand why standing more upright for 30-45 seconds is counted as any sort of major plus over the ability to get an aisle and window seat in one, and a window that you can actually look out of if you’re over 5’2” - I’d take the ERJ over a CR2 any day.

dennypayne wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

STLflyer wrote:

The 145s are mildly better if you can get a seat on the left and not have a seatmate, but yeah, they're both awful.

Although I do like that the 200 is a bigger tube. I can’t stand all the way up in the 145. The single seat is nice though.

I don’t understand why standing more upright for 30-45 seconds is counted as any sort of major plus over the ability to get an aisle and window seat in one, and a window that you can actually look out of if you’re over 5’2” - I’d take the ERJ over a CR2 any day.

I just like a bigger tube. But also if I’m traveling with my partner and we are going to sit in the 2 seat side anyway then it might as well be a 200. Basically comes down to my travel situation if I am solo or not. If I’m solo then the single is nice in the 145. If I’m not then I’d probably rather a 200.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue the CR2 is more comfortable, in any way, than the ERJ

N1120A wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone can argue the CR2 is more comfortable, in any way, than the ERJ

Because the ERJ-145 is a piece of junk. I can at least stand up in a CRJ, I cannot do such a thing in the ERJ.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone can argue the CR2 is more comfortable, in any way, than the ERJ

Because the ERJ-145 is a piece of junk. I can at least stand up in a CRJ, I cannot do such a thing in the ERJ.

At least I don't need a chiropractor after sitting in an ERJ, unlike a CR2. And there are actually reasonable seats at 1A, the whole left side and the exit

DiamondFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone can argue the CR2 is more comfortable, in any way, than the ERJ

Because the ERJ-145 is a piece of junk. I can at least stand up in a CRJ, I cannot do such a thing in the ERJ.

I still think this is the strangest argument - I mean seriously you’re standing for all of 30-45 seconds when you board and deplane. I’m 6’4” and it’s just not an issue. And like I said above - if you’re over 5’2” you have to break your neck to look out of the horrid excuse for a window on a CR2, and I can do that that pretty much the whole flight without an issue on the ERJ because it actually has usable ones. And like N1120A says, then you don’t need a chiropractor.

dennypayne wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone can argue the CR2 is more comfortable, in any way, than the ERJ

Because the ERJ-145 is a piece of junk. I can at least stand up in a CRJ, I cannot do such a thing in the ERJ.

I still think this is the strangest argument - I mean seriously you’re standing for all of 30-45 seconds when you board and deplane. I’m 6’4” and it’s just not an issue. And like I said above - if you’re over 5’2” you have to break your neck to look out of the horrid excuse for a window on a CR2, and I can do that that pretty much the whole flight without an issue on the ERJ because it actually has usable ones. And like N1120A says, then you don’t need a chiropractor.

I agree 100%.

I don’t care about the aisle I care about the seat I walked the aisle to get to. CRJ windows are horrible.

dennypayne wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone can argue the CR2 is more comfortable, in any way, than the ERJ

Because the ERJ-145 is a piece of junk. I can at least stand up in a CRJ, I cannot do such a thing in the ERJ.

I still think this is the strangest argument - I mean seriously you’re standing for all of 30-45 seconds when you board and deplane. I’m 6’4” and it’s just not an issue. And like I said above - if you’re over 5’2” you have to break your neck to look out of the horrid excuse for a window on a CR2, and I can do that that pretty much the whole flight without an issue on the ERJ because it actually has usable ones. And like N1120A says, then you don’t need a chiropractor.

Well, on the flipside, I'd need an entire bottle of advil to take care of the headache from wrecking my head on a 145. Plus who looks out anyway, close the window shades, keep the cabin cool and sleep. You shouldn't be on any 50 seaters longer than a short nap anyway.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

dennypayne wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Because the ERJ-145 is a piece of junk. I can at least stand up in a CRJ, I cannot do such a thing in the ERJ.

I still think this is the strangest argument - I mean seriously you’re standing for all of 30-45 seconds when you board and deplane. I’m 6’4” and it’s just not an issue. And like I said above - if you’re over 5’2” you have to break your neck to look out of the horrid excuse for a window on a CR2, and I can do that that pretty much the whole flight without an issue on the ERJ because it actually has usable ones. And like N1120A says, then you don’t need a chiropractor.

Well, on the flipside, I'd need an entire bottle of advil to take care of the headache from wrecking my head on a 145. Plus who looks out anyway, close the window shades, keep the cabin cool and sleep. You shouldn't be on any 50 seaters longer than a short nap anyway.

I do. I look out the window. And I can't nap on planes. I'm also tall enough to bash my head on a 145 and still far prefer it to the CR2.

The CR2 isn't exactly a super tall cabin.

Man, can you guys get emotional about planes. Piece of junk, horrible, whatnot.

airlineworker wrote:

The CRJ-200 was better off short runway's, the 145 was a runway hog. AA when replacing the Dash-8's at HVN had to go the CRJ-200 even though Piedmont had been servicing the airport.

Not sure thats right, the EMBs generally have much better take off performance than the CRJs

Erj-145 is better in every way than a CRJ-200.
- Nice big windows on the 145. CRJ2 has the floor raised up and the windows at waist level. And they are tiny! Every CR2 window I've ever seen has always been scratched to hell anyway and you can't see out.
- CRJ-200 lavatory is the width of 2 seats. It is so cramped and awful. The 145 lav is the entire width of the plane. CR2 makes two pax sit next to the lav in the last row.
- 145 is just better balanced! At my airline, the first several rows of the CR2 are always blocked. If there isn't much cargo, you have to fly around ballast. What the hell.
- CRJs have awful awful air conditioning that is always broken.
- The APU exhaust literally points down at the ramp melting anyone trying to service a lavatory. 145 APU exhaust kindly vents up and away from the folks on the ground. I find the CRJ-200s to be substantially noisier when the APUs are running anway. If they are, because most of the CRJ2 APUs are INOP!
- Okay the cargo bin is a bit bigger, but the door sucks and you can't use half the bin anyway since its at the bottom of the bin.
- The wings are so low you could just about trip over them and I've seen pilots run into the wing doing a walk around.
- Speaking of, have you ever tried to drive a belt loader up to a CRJ2 cargo bin? Impossible, because the wing is swept back in front of where you're supposed to drive. So you have to do turning moves close into the aircraft.
Nothing good about a CRJ-200.
- Who puts the PCA connection at the furthest reach from the terminal in the back ass part of the aircraft??
- Most complicated door mechanism on the planet on a CRJ2.

Honestly amazed these planes are still flying. They absolutely suck. I'm devastated they're coming back to AA and I feel sorry for anyone who has to fly on one. The 145 on the other hand was designed to be flown on by a human being.

stratable wrote:

Semi-hijacking this thread, I was just looking at the Fokker 70 a few days ago. How did she compare against the CRJ and ERJ? According to Wiki, only 47 were sold to customers, roughly 300 of the family if you include the F100. CRJ family is at almost 2000, ERJ family at roughly 1250. Any ideas why?

I had an F70 ride a few years ago, and quite a few F100 trips one summer back around 2000. As I recall, they were much nicer than either the CRJ or ERJ. No neck kinks trying to squint out of the window, and of course both Fokkers were quite a bit larger than the ERJ-145.

mhkansan wrote:

Erj-145 is better in every way than a CRJ-200.
- Nice big windows on the 145. CRJ2 has the floor raised up and the windows at waist level. And they are tiny! Every CR2 window I've ever seen has always been scratched to hell anyway and you can't see out.
- CRJ-200 lavatory is the width of 2 seats. It is so cramped and awful. The 145 lav is the entire width of the plane. CR2 makes two pax sit next to the lav in the last row.
- 145 is just better balanced! At my airline, the first several rows of the CR2 are always blocked. If there isn't much cargo, you have to fly around ballast. What the hell.
- CRJs have awful awful air conditioning that is always broken.
- The APU exhaust literally points down at the ramp melting anyone trying to service a lavatory. 145 APU exhaust kindly vents up and away from the folks on the ground. I find the CRJ-200s to be substantially noisier when the APUs are running anway. If they are, because most of the CRJ2 APUs are INOP!
- Okay the cargo bin is a bit bigger, but the door sucks and you can't use half the bin anyway since its at the bottom of the bin.
- The wings are so low you could just about trip over them and I've seen pilots run into the wing doing a walk around.
- Speaking of, have you ever tried to drive a belt loader up to a CRJ2 cargo bin? Impossible, because the wing is swept back in front of where you're supposed to drive. So you have to do turning moves close into the aircraft.
Nothing good about a CRJ-200.
- Who puts the PCA connection at the furthest reach from the terminal in the back ass part of the aircraft??
- Most complicated door mechanism on the planet on a CRJ2.

Honestly amazed these planes are still flying. They absolutely suck. I'm devastated they're coming back to AA and I feel sorry for anyone who has to fly on one. The 145 on the other hand was designed to be flown on by a human being.

Found the offended 145 pilot who just lost flying to a 200...

DiamondFlyer wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Erj-145 is better in every way than a CRJ-200.
- Nice big windows on the 145. CRJ2 has the floor raised up and the windows at waist level. And they are tiny! Every CR2 window I've ever seen has always been scratched to hell anyway and you can't see out.
- CRJ-200 lavatory is the width of 2 seats. It is so cramped and awful. The 145 lav is the entire width of the plane. CR2 makes two pax sit next to the lav in the last row.
- 145 is just better balanced! At my airline, the first several rows of the CR2 are always blocked. If there isn't much cargo, you have to fly around ballast. What the hell.
- CRJs have awful awful air conditioning that is always broken.
- The APU exhaust literally points down at the ramp melting anyone trying to service a lavatory. 145 APU exhaust kindly vents up and away from the folks on the ground. I find the CRJ-200s to be substantially noisier when the APUs are running anway. If they are, because most of the CRJ2 APUs are INOP!
- Okay the cargo bin is a bit bigger, but the door sucks and you can't use half the bin anyway since its at the bottom of the bin.
- The wings are so low you could just about trip over them and I've seen pilots run into the wing doing a walk around.
- Speaking of, have you ever tried to drive a belt loader up to a CRJ2 cargo bin? Impossible, because the wing is swept back in front of where you're supposed to drive. So you have to do turning moves close into the aircraft.
Nothing good about a CRJ-200.
- Who puts the PCA connection at the furthest reach from the terminal in the back ass part of the aircraft??
- Most complicated door mechanism on the planet on a CRJ2.

Honestly amazed these planes are still flying. They absolutely suck. I'm devastated they're coming back to AA and I feel sorry for anyone who has to fly on one. The 145 on the other hand was designed to be flown on by a human being.

Found the offended 145 pilot who just lost flying to a 200...

Quite clearly a below-the-wing person.

PITingres wrote:

stratable wrote:

Semi-hijacking this thread, I was just looking at the Fokker 70 a few days ago. How did she compare against the CRJ and ERJ? According to Wiki, only 47 were sold to customers, roughly 300 of the family if you include the F100. CRJ family is at almost 2000, ERJ family at roughly 1250. Any ideas why?

I had an F70 ride a few years ago, and quite a few F100 trips one summer back around 2000. As I recall, they were much nicer than either the CRJ or ERJ. No neck kinks trying to squint out of the window, and of course both Fokkers were quite a bit larger than the ERJ-145.

Agreed! As a passenger, I have flown on the ERJ, the CRJ, and the F70. Always thought the F70 was the nicest out of the three. From a passenger perspective, I am indifferent between the CRJ and the ERJ, they both have their pros and cons over the other. That being said, I now realize that the ERJ is smaller and the F70 bigger than I remembered. Based on size the F70 competed with the CRJ700 (and 550). My mistake.

I always preferred the 145 over the -200. I worked for ExpressJet for many many years and for a while we had both flavors. From the maintenance side, the 145 was hands down a better airplane. The airframe systems were simpler and the avionics were more advanced. It was designed from the beginning for regional service where as the -200 was a derivative of a business jet or at least designed along side the Challenger. Changing parts on the CRJ was usually 2-3 times longer and you had to disassemble more than on the ERJ. Heaven forbid you had to change something on the CF34s that where on the CRJs.
The (if I remember correctly) R/H fuel pump recommended removing the engine to change, same with the stator. The ERJ was a couple hours for a pump and 10 minutes for the stator. The AE3007s had all the accessories hanging from the bottom while the CF34s had them wrapped around the engine in the most inconvenient way possible. Even simple things like the potable water in the ERJ used gravity feed to the sink, while the -200 used pressurized air from the engines and pumps and heaters and on and on. Most systems where like that. CRJ, overly complicated. On the comfort side, both had a 31" pitch which is about the industry standard except for some A320s that use down to a 29" pitch. The cabins only had a 1" difference in height because of the ERJs dropped floor. The CRJ is much more likely to be weight restricted. This might just be my feeling, but the CRJ seemed like it moved around a lot more in turbulence and maneuvering. The ERJ seemed to slightly rock side to side at cruise but didn't get upset as easy during turbulence. Oh, and ERJ landing always feel smoother to me, but that's just my take your experience may vary.

I rather enjoyed the apu exhaust pointed down onto the ramp. I could store enough warm air from the jetway in my winter coat to get me to the tail portion of the preflight where that was located. Then, gloriously recharge in a plume of warm probably carcinogenic exhaust but it felt amazing in Fargo or Portland Maine. That warm air in my coat got me back to the jetway during the remainder of the preflight.

PITingres wrote:

stratable wrote:

Semi-hijacking this thread, I was just looking at the Fokker 70 a few days ago. How did she compare against the CRJ and ERJ? According to Wiki, only 47 were sold to customers, roughly 300 of the family if you include the F100. CRJ family is at almost 2000, ERJ family at roughly 1250. Any ideas why?

I had an F70 ride a few years ago, and quite a few F100 trips one summer back around 2000. As I recall, they were much nicer than either the CRJ or ERJ. No neck kinks trying to squint out of the window, and of course both Fokkers were quite a bit larger than the ERJ-145.

The F70 was a full-size, mainline jet, and felt and behaved like one. If anything it offered more comfort than a 737, with a quieter cabin, and big oval windows. It was a LOVELY aircraft to fly one. Better than even the much more modern E-190 that have supplanted it at KLM...

stratable wrote:

Semi-hijacking this thread, I was just looking at the Fokker 70 a few days ago. How did she compare against the CRJ and ERJ? According to Wiki, only 47 were sold to customers, roughly 300 of the family if you include the F100. CRJ family is at almost 2000, ERJ family at roughly 1250. Any ideas why?

The Fokkers were flown by mainline. So economics were poor. AA shed their Fokker 100s quickly after 9/11.

The poor economics of the 50-seaters were masked by the peanuts paid to the regional crews and by the contracts mainline carriers paid to regional carriers to do the flying.

The only regional airline to fly the Fokker 70s in the US was Mesa they only had 2 and they only flew them for less than 2 years before they traded them for CRJ-200s and EMB-145s

Woodreau wrote:

stratable wrote:

Semi-hijacking this thread, I was just looking at the Fokker 70 a few days ago. How did she compare against the CRJ and ERJ? According to Wiki, only 47 were sold to customers, roughly 300 of the family if you include the F100. CRJ family is at almost 2000, ERJ family at roughly 1250. Any ideas why?

The Fokkers were flown by mainline. So economics were poor. AA shed their Fokker 100s quickly after 9/11.

The poor economics of the 50-seaters were masked by the peanuts paid to the regional crews and by the contracts mainline carriers paid to regional carriers to do the flying.

The only regional airline to fly the Fokker 70s in the US was Mesa they only had 2 and they only flew them for less than 2 years before they traded them for CRJ-200s and EMB-145s

Well, there were only about 50 made. QX had F28s for a long time.

The F70 at KLM City Hopper was my favorite aircraft, hands down. Spacious, quiet, very stable in the air. Many good rides on them and very fond memories.
The ERJ 145 actually reminded me of the Metroliner or the Saab 2000. Once seated, a funny ride - but not too pleasant.

I flew the CRJ-200 for a little over 2 years. I agree that it was uncomfortable in the back and the windows were so low that I called it "the glass-bottomed boat!"

However, the worst thing about the jet, from a pilot's perspective, was the abysmal performance. I flew it out of Washington-Dulles where it was very hot in the summer time, which frequently led to us removing pax and bags to remain below our performance-limited takeoff weight.

Once we took the runway, I would always hack my clock to time our climb to altitude. On hot summer days, I tried to challenge myself to get to 18,000 feet in less than 18 minutes. In other words, I was working hard to average a 1,000 foot per minute climb profile... in an airliner! On those hot days, we often cruised in the low 20,000 ft altitude range because climbing higher was impractical...again, in a jet airliner!

The only jet that I've flown that had similarly bad initial performance was heavily (likely overly) loaded 747-100s out of the Middle East in the summer! I'm sure we set off countless car alarms!

The difference was that the 747 eventually developed enough momentum to climb to a reasonable intermediate flight level, unlike the RJ!

Which is why it was an awful bizjet conversion. I left Abu Dhabi in 605 on a summer day struggled at 400fpm to F300. Finally made F380 or F400 at Sicily.

I feel your pain, Galaxy! Your climb profile shouldn't have to travel to span 2 continents!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Which is why it was an awful bizjet conversion. I left Abu Dhabi in 605 on a summer day struggled at 400fpm to F300. Finally made F380 or F400 at Sicily.

605 or 650? A 605 is a straight challenger, a 650 is just a 200. Are ya'll climbing at 290/.74 or better, or what? It climbs better at 250/LRC, but then you're a rolling roadblock for everyone else behind you.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Which is why it was an awful bizjet conversion. I left Abu Dhabi in 605 on a summer day struggled at 400fpm to F300. Finally made F380 or F400 at Sicily.

605 or 650? A 605 is a straight challenger, a 650 is just a 200. Are ya'll climbing at 290/.74 or better, or what? It climbs better at 250/LRC, but then you're a rolling roadblock for everyone else behind you.

There are 604s, 605s and 650s; all bizjets. You’re thinking of the 850, which is a bizjet CRJ-200. We climbed at 270/.74 and I never remember being a roadblock , but we didn’t operate out of airline airports. On US legs, we’d just climb at whatever speed ATC requested. That day out of Abu Dhabi, we were max gross take-off and it was ISA+15-20 at level. The Challenger was only problem on the NATS, if you were trying to make max range at M.77; you wouldn’t get your preferred track and level. Simple NY-UK, France, it was fine, M.80 which was capable usually with the 757, 767 crowd. Often, you could be above them by the ocean leaving NYC area airports. Plus we usually crossed during the day.

Even the C-5 was t a speed problem

CL850

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Challenger_850

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Which is why it was an awful bizjet conversion. I left Abu Dhabi in 605 on a summer day struggled at 400fpm to F300. Finally made F380 or F400 at Sicily.

605 or 650? A 605 is a straight challenger, a 650 is just a 200. Are ya'll climbing at 290/.74 or better, or what? It climbs better at 250/LRC, but then you're a rolling roadblock for everyone else behind you.

There are 604s, 605s and 650s; all bizjets. You’re thinking of the 850, which is a bizjet CRJ-200. We climbed at 270/.74 and I never remember being a roadblock , but we didn’t operate out of airline airports. On US legs, we’d just climb at whatever speed ATC requested. That day out of Abu Dhabi, we were max gross take-off and it was ISA+15-20 at level. The Challenger was only problem on the NATS, if you were trying to make max range at M.77; you wouldn’t get your preferred track and level. Simple NY-UK, France, it was fine, M.80 which was capable usually with the 757, 767 crowd. Often, you could be above them by the ocean leaving NYC area airports. Plus we usually crossed during the day.

Even the C-5 was t a speed problem

Yeah, my bad, I couldn't remember. I've got 4000+ hours in the 200, so you learn to make it work the best you can.

The 850 has two saddle tanks ahead of the baggage compartment, which turned it into a long range crew transporter. Russians bought them for Moscow to London, Nice, Cyprus or Turkey—cheap, looked sort of impressive. Some thought it was a Global at half price, then they tried Moscow-NYC. With the tanks, it crossed at F270.