U.S. Army seeks to destroy used Embraer jet, for ‘testing purposes’

I'm all in favor of just about anything that involves the destruction of one of those torture chambers...errr...ERJs.
 
Teller1900 said:
I'm all in favor of just about anything that involves the destruction of one of those torture chambers...errr...ERJs.
Click to expand...

I really don't get why everyone hates on them so much! Especially if you're in the single seat on the left. I did 5 flights last year on one to and from college, all on the single seat side, and found them very nice. I'd rather be in one of those than in a window seat on a 737/A320. Not to mention that boarding and exit times are much faster.
 
Teller1900 said:
I'm all in favor of just about anything that involves the destruction of one of those torture chambers...errr...ERJs.
Click to expand...
Yea I did about 1200hrs in one and I thought it was a good ride. Much better than being in the middle seat of a 737. haha

Anyway I guess they have to shoot down something for practice, so if you wanna buy it, go for it!
 
jpower said:
I really don't get why everyone hates on them so much! Especially if you're in the single seat on the left. I did 5 flights last year on one to and from college, all on the single seat side, and found them very nice. I'd rather be in one of those than in a window seat on a 737/A320. Not to mention that boarding and exit times are much faster.
Click to expand...

Let me guess - you fit the FAA's standard 170# profile? :wink2:

At 6' 3" and 245#, they are pretty sadistic. But I would have to say that ERJs are not nearly as bad as CRJs.
 
nddons said:
Let me guess - you fit the FAA's standard 170# profile? :wink2:

At 6' 3" and 245#, they are pretty sadistic. But I would have to say that ERJs are not nearly as bad as CRJs.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

I'm 6'3", 220. There is nothing good about that ride! Not even the A side. The curve in the fuselage at the bottom torques the crap out of my knee. I've got about an hour in one of those planes before I start to get cranky. With the absurd way they're being utilized now, if you're on it for an hour, you're on it for three. And as bad as the seats are in the back, the jumpseat is roughly 2894288 times worse. That said, the CRJ is undoubtedly worse still.

As far as window/aisle seats:
AA 737 < CRJ1/2 < ERJ135/145 < CRJ7/9 < back of MD-80 < ERJ170/190 < front of MD-80 < 737 < A318/19/20 < 757 < WN737 < A321 < 777.
 
Last edited:
Teller1900 said:
:yeahthat:

I'm 6'3", 220. There is nothing good about that ride! Not even the A side. The curve in the fuselage at the bottom torques the crap out of my knee. I've got about an hour in one of those planes before I start to get cranky. With the absurd way they're being utilized now, if you're on it for an hour, you're on it for three. And as bad as the seats are in the back, the jumpseat is roughly 2894288 times worse. That said, the CRJ is undoubtedly worse still.

As far as window/aisle seats:
AA 737 < CRJ1/2 < ERJ135/145 < CRJ7/9 < back of MD-80 < ERJ170/190 < front of MD-80 < 737 < A318/19/20 < 757 < WN737 < A321 < 777.
Click to expand...

Yes! I'm a pilot and will suffer through a lot just to enjoy the view from a window seat. But it's impossible on a CRJ. I agree on the knee torque issue. Also, the window is at elbow level, and it is virtually impossible to look "out." at best all you can do is look down, so when you're on the ground, you get a great look at the oil drops on the ramp, but that's it.

I consider the CRJ to be a hideous Canadian conspiracy against large Americans.
 
I used to do that for a living, there at APG as well as at China Lake and Wright-Patt. Shot 'em, set fire to 'em, you name it. Even burned up an F-111 I'd once flown. No doubt they are continuing the work we started 20 years ago evaluating the survivability of commercial airliners versus various threat systems terrorists might use against them.
 
I wonder if they are blowing up Cessnas and Pipers too?

(Not Grummans though, never)
 
Anthony said:
I wonder if they are blowing up Cessnas and Pipers too?
Click to expand...
Light planes weren't a subject of interest for vulnerability studies when I was in that business. And we got all the data we needed on the lethality side of light planes from the guy who crashed a 150 into the White House.
 
Last edited:
nddons said:
Let me guess - you fit the FAA's standard 170# profile? :wink2:

At 6' 3" and 245#, they are pretty sadistic. But I would have to say that ERJs are not nearly as bad as CRJs.
Click to expand...

Pretty close :) 170-175, depending on how much I had for dinner the night before. I'm 5'11" too, so I'm not exactly a shrimp. I'd say I'm at the upper limit of comfortable on those planes, but it's definitely still a nice ride! I'd take an ERJ145 in the A side for a hop from DC to Houston any day over a 737, A320, or a 777.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top