I have been flying between LGA and Memphis/ Nashville multiple times a month over the past few years on DL. Mostly they are flying the CR-900 and occasionally CR-700. On the Nashville route maybe once a month I end up on the embrarer ER-170 or 175. I have noticed that I seem to be more tired and fatigued after these flights and often times feel a bit more motion sick on these flights. It could be anecdotal or just a coincidence but wanted to see if anyone else has had a similar experience?

I used to be excited to get on the ER-170 as it is a bit wider and feels a bit more like a mainline aircraft but now I usually try to select the CRJ if those are the two options.

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.

How does this apply to the E-175? Not a long aircraft at all and you do realize he is saying he feels ill on the E-175. Don't know if I'm reading your post wrong right now or what.

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.

I've always felt more motion sickness on MD-8X and DC-9X aircraft than I've felt from 737s or A320s.

I've flown 75k miles on the E175 and have noticed that I get a slight twinge of motion sickness during turns if I'm sitting in an aisle seat/can't look out the window. It's an odd feeling that I've never noticed on any other aircraft.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting, perhaps the weather conditions haven't been comparable on either aircraft.

Either way, I agree about preferring the the E series. Definitely a lot more room than the CRJ's, and in the end, that's what really matters

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.

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.

The C-Series may not suck. But I won't be able to try one for quite some time.

One of my craziest flights was on an E-jet, and from time to time this topic has come up. I wondered but didn't think there was anything to it, until I saw a notice through work about issues the aft FA'S were having during turbulence. This happened shortly after we started flying the E-jets so it seemed like something that caught them by surprise the way it was written. On a side note I don't have anything wrong with the plane.

One of my craziest flights was on an E-jet, and from time to time this topic has come up. I wondered but didn't think there was anything to it, until I saw a notice through work about issues the aft FA'S were having during turbulence. This happened shortly after we started flying the E-jets so it seemed like something that caught them by surprise the way it was written. On a side note I don't have anything wrong with the plane.

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.

^^This.
I really like the 175 as far as aircraft go, but NOT for its ride quality.
I've got a lot of miles on me, between working for an airline and also enjoying travel on my own. In my experience, the ERJ-170/175 isn't the WORST out there for turbulence, but it's nearer the bottom than the top!

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.

Working for an airline that flies them, the crews definitely talk about it being worse in turbulence (more pronounced movements, particularly at the back) than other aircraft they have worked. They still love the airplane, don't get me wrong, but the crews report the exact things people in this thread are saying.

Glad to hear I am not crazy with my feelings on the ER-170 and 175 I do find during turns I feel it a bit more than on the CRJ's.

Obviously this one was a bit weather related but we had to go around at MEM one night on an AA E-170 and I was not feeling good at all once we landed.

I usually am sitting in Comfort Plus of F so not generally at the back of the aircraft.

E-Jets are fantastic aircraft and some of my favorites, but out of all the aircraft I have flown on they definitely do bounce around the most/don't handle turbulence as well as other aircraft. Must be something with the wing design.

Do these same issues carry over to the E-170's larger cousin. The E190/195? The wing is basically the same right?

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.

Landing in PHX in any aircraft can bounce you around quite a bit due to the heat here. Was on a 737 from DTW in March and still got bounced and rocked due to the winds from the mountains in the east valley we flew over and heat rising from the 100 degree temps.

I have never been sick. But, I notice that the times one might get sick are more due to how the pilot is flying and/or the weather than the airplane.

One thing I noticed about myself when flying is I am more prone to motion sickness when I "fly on an empty stomach". If you must fly again on the E-170/175, make sure you're fed and then see if you're feeling the same.

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.

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.

...Would you kindly be able to recollect the details and/or expand a bit on this interesting topic?
Thanks
danny

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...

Vctony wrote:

I've always felt more motion sickness on MD-8X and DC-9X aircraft than I've felt from 737s or A320s.

Interesting that you say that, because one of the first times I felt motion sick on a plane was on an MD-88. I've taken relatively few MD-8X flights compared to the 737 and A320, so I don't really have enough data to say whether the plane had anything to do with it, but all the other times I felt sick on a plane it was obviously because of weather/turbulence. This was the only time I can recall feeling sick when there wasn't turbulence. The best way I can describe it is that our decent felt more "abrupt" than usual, and perhaps a bit more rapid. Each time the plane started to descend the contents of my stomach wanted to climb. I can't really say though if that feeling was because of the plane, or the pilot's flying style, or the fried chicken I'd eaten at Popeye's back at the airport.

I've noticed it too on Flybe's E175s - nothing major, but there's definitely a strange sense of motion that I've never noticed on any other type.

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...

I am dead serious, and trust me, the #2 FA has a blast herself too (Not!)

I don't know the amount, but I'm guessing it was a significant option.

In practice I don't myself get motion sick and I've never really noticed anything special about the E170/175 (besides the annoying anti-collision strobes blinding you if you are aft of the wings at night). However I do notice a substantial yawing effect on the A319/A320's. Especially on finals... I've never noticed this odd sideway/sliding movement on other aircraft either.

I'll admit my A319/A320 flying is mainly on pmUS/pmAA aircraft only.

Maybe. I have to say my 2 standout turbulence flights (out of maybe 750 flights) were on A319 and E-175 respectively, both in July. Both of these aircraft have good size wings AFAIK.

I think we also caught some big turbulence on 747 long ago.

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.

Another tool in the "calculated misery" box of tricks. Lol

"Pay $$ extra to sit in our premium NoVomit™ cabin, where complimentary clothes pegs will be given to mask the vomiting from our aft customers"

It's a fly by wire airplane. There's no "no yaw damper" option.

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.

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.

I’ve never felt it after many back row flights on the 737 but my mom mentions it every time we sit near the back of the 737. Maybe it’s subtle enough that it all comes down to a persons tolerance.