Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
ikramerica wrote:I believe there are some physics involved that make tail engine aircraft yaw and pitch differently than wing mounted. Also noise and vibration are different if you sit up front on both.
It could also be a matter of taxiing differences. I know that in the back of the long aircraft you get pushed sideways during taxi. The rear mounted engine birds have a longer wheel base and taxiing is more like being in a bus.
ikramerica wrote:I believe there are some physics involved that make tail engine aircraft yaw and pitch differently than wing mounted. Also noise and vibration are different if you sit up front on both.
It could also be a matter of taxiing differences. I know that in the back of the long aircraft you get pushed sideways during taxi. The rear mounted engine birds have a longer wheel base and taxiing is more like being in a bus.
CaptnSnow71 wrote:I don't get motion sickness, but I have noticed the ERJ's seem to be a bit more bouncy in rough weather compared to the CRJs. I think it has to do with the design of the wing more than anything else.
hz747300 wrote:CaptnSnow71 wrote:I don't get motion sickness, but I have noticed the ERJ's seem to be a bit more bouncy in rough weather compared to the CRJs. I think it has to do with the design of the wing more than anything else.
I notice the opposite. Landing in PHX on a CRJ7 seems to be crazy bouncy versus landing in LAX or AUS. I just find the space around me cramped on a CRJ7, so I like the space (more vertical space anyways, of an E170-195. To each his or her own I suppose.
Wayfarer515 wrote:In other news, BBD marketing has taken desperate measures to make everybody think their CRJ's don't suck, even though we all know they do.
CaptnSnow71 wrote:I don't get motion sickness, but I have noticed the ERJ's seem to be a bit more bouncy in rough weather compared to the CRJs. I think it has to do with the design of the wing more than anything else.
hz747300 wrote:CaptnSnow71 wrote:I don't get motion sickness, but I have noticed the ERJ's seem to be a bit more bouncy in rough weather compared to the CRJs. I think it has to do with the design of the wing more than anything else.
I notice the opposite. Landing in PHX on a CRJ7 seems to be crazy bouncy versus landing in LAX or AUS. I just find the space around me cramped on a CRJ7, so I like the space (more vertical space anyways, of an E170-195. To each his or her own I suppose.
ikramerica wrote:Back at least 10 years ago maybe 15 I read an article comparing stability of 777 vs A340 and how the differences in wing design and flex impacted the turbulence transmission in the cockpit.
Boeing778X wrote:Some E170/E175s in the US don't have Yaw Dampners, as it was an option.
Our E175s at Envoy don't. If you must ride on an E175, try not to sit father back than the point of the MLG, if you're prone to motion sickness.
Vctony wrote:I've always felt more motion sickness on MD-8X and DC-9X aircraft than I've felt from 737s or A320s.
xdlx wrote:Boeing778X wrote:Some E170/E175s in the US don't have Yaw Dampners, as it was an option.
Our E175s at Envoy don't. If you must ride on an E175, try not to sit father back than the point of the MLG, if you're prone to motion sickness.
Are you serious? How much did they saved on that option ? Sure they can buy a lot of barf bags with savings...
Boeing778X wrote:Some E170/E175s in the US don't have Yaw Dampners, as it was an option.
Our E175s at Envoy don't. If you must ride on an E175, try not to sit father back than the point of the MLG, if you're prone to motion sickness.
cincydavid wrote:I make EVERY effort to be over the wing, no matter what kind of bird I'm flying. I've flown E175s and CRJ900s and didn't notice any meaningful difference in being prone to motion sickness. I have heard that 737s are prone to lateral "tail wagging" that can be unpleasant for those sitting near the back, but I've never flown one.