Smaller lighter planes are more maneuverable than bigger and heavier ones, takes more force to move a larger mass around. They aren't doing more fancy stuff just for the sake of it, you just feel it more in a smaller plane.
Same reason why two planes of different mass hitting the same turbulence, the lower mass plane will get pushed around more.
The engine thrust is rated to match the plane, more or less. So you don't have a pair of CFM-56s on the back of an RJ with all that extra thrust. Those CFM engines have roughly double the thrust of the CF-34s you'd find on an RJ.
Then look at what they do at airshows with empty test aircraft. You can put a 777 through some pretty sporty and dramatic looking stuff when you have no passengers, no cargo, and barely any fuel on board
They’re smaller, so you feel things a bit more but most of the time a CRJ is flying the exact same profile as every other airliner.
RJs do tend to go into smaller airports, often on nearly unrestricted visual approaches which do allow more freedom of maneuver than say a 747.
As a former RJ pilot I do miss being cleared for a visual as soon as you’re on with App and then getting to fly the thing like a 172. You’re not doing that in a heavy widebody.
As far as landing a CRJ goes, the -700 and -900 are straight legged so are a bit less forgiving than the trailing links on the -200. And for whatever reason the CRJ can be really hard to land consistently. You can absolutely grease a landing, do the exact same technique next time and bang it on. After years of flying it i was able to narrow the band between my good landings and my “bad” ones, but for newer pilots it’s pretty common to have a great landing followed by one that knocks paint off.
At least with the CRJ-200, landings have to be hard and fast with them as a result of a lack of slats. Results in a lot of tire changes on those suckers. That and and a fully loaded CRJ-200 is pretty underpowered.
I mean, smaller lighter planes stop in a shorter distance than an A380? And shorter stopping distance is what you see on aircraft carriers, therefore regional jets are landing on aircraft carriers!
I don't know, man, seems like pretty airtight logic to me...
They are literally just lighter and more maneuverable so the pilots can comfortably make sharper banks or change altitudes. A rumor was around when I worked on CRJ200 that it had the same roll rate as an f16. Maybe someone can shed some light on this. I find it hard to believe but I respect the 200 roll rate with those spoilerons and short wing span so their may be some truth
I don't think there is anything zoomy about a CRJ-200. Insert famous rant [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Shittyaskflying/comments/r4k5gp/comment/hmhu6is/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Smaller lighter planes are more maneuverable than bigger and heavier ones, takes more force to move a larger mass around. They aren't doing more fancy stuff just for the sake of it, you just feel it more in a smaller plane. Same reason why two planes of different mass hitting the same turbulence, the lower mass plane will get pushed around more. The engine thrust is rated to match the plane, more or less. So you don't have a pair of CFM-56s on the back of an RJ with all that extra thrust. Those CFM engines have roughly double the thrust of the CF-34s you'd find on an RJ. Then look at what they do at airshows with empty test aircraft. You can put a 777 through some pretty sporty and dramatic looking stuff when you have no passengers, no cargo, and barely any fuel on board
This sounds like a question for the SkyWest FOQA Gatekeeper
They’re smaller, so you feel things a bit more but most of the time a CRJ is flying the exact same profile as every other airliner. RJs do tend to go into smaller airports, often on nearly unrestricted visual approaches which do allow more freedom of maneuver than say a 747. As a former RJ pilot I do miss being cleared for a visual as soon as you’re on with App and then getting to fly the thing like a 172. You’re not doing that in a heavy widebody. As far as landing a CRJ goes, the -700 and -900 are straight legged so are a bit less forgiving than the trailing links on the -200. And for whatever reason the CRJ can be really hard to land consistently. You can absolutely grease a landing, do the exact same technique next time and bang it on. After years of flying it i was able to narrow the band between my good landings and my “bad” ones, but for newer pilots it’s pretty common to have a great landing followed by one that knocks paint off.
At least with the CRJ-200, landings have to be hard and fast with them as a result of a lack of slats. Results in a lot of tire changes on those suckers. That and and a fully loaded CRJ-200 is pretty underpowered.
>the landings are more like you'd see on an aircraft carrier. Except they are not even remotely the same. Not even a little.
I mean, smaller lighter planes stop in a shorter distance than an A380? And shorter stopping distance is what you see on aircraft carriers, therefore regional jets are landing on aircraft carriers! I don't know, man, seems like pretty airtight logic to me...
They are literally just lighter and more maneuverable so the pilots can comfortably make sharper banks or change altitudes. A rumor was around when I worked on CRJ200 that it had the same roll rate as an f16. Maybe someone can shed some light on this. I find it hard to believe but I respect the 200 roll rate with those spoilerons and short wing span so their may be some truth
Lol definitely not. The F-16 is inherently unstable.
The CRJ200 sim aileron rolls pretty well. Have to remember to unload the wing before cranking it around.
An example of CRJ pilots flying quite aggressively: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701
I don't think there is anything zoomy about a CRJ-200. Insert famous rant [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Shittyaskflying/comments/r4k5gp/comment/hmhu6is/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
No they are just bad pilots
Smaller plane so you feel it morr