waytogo

Hi All,
About to book a flight from YYZ to LGA.
I have a choice of an E75, E90, and A320...

I read some good reviews of the Embraer's (never flown on one myself) and I am very familiar with the Airbus.

I am only concerned about what I read about the Embraers riding very rough in Turbulence.
Is it really so much worse than the A320?
While I am not too much of a nervous passenger (I travel too often to be...) the wife is, and I would rather she was more comfortable if we did hit some rough weather on the route.

What do you guys think?

warreng24

I have not heard anything about the Embraer 170/190 series being more rough (turbelence-wise) than any other mainline jet aircraft.

However, turboprops are a different story...

For a short YYZ to LGA flight, you shouldn't have much trouble turbulence-wise (on any jet aircraft).

Since you are traveling as a couple, I would actually recommend the Embraer. This is because on the Embraer the seating is 2 by 2. So you actually will get two seats to yourselves! There is also a better lavatory to passenger ratio on the E170 and E190 than other mainline aircraft.

cam_macleod

...not exactly. The 170 is typical, but the 190 is most assuredly not well thought-out in this regard.

E75 ratio is 64:1 (64 passengers to 1 lavatory)
E90 - 84:1
319 - 53:1
320 - 60:1 or 66:1
321 - 47.3:1 or 51.3:1
CRJ - 50:1
CR7 - 65:1
DH1 - 37:1
DH3 - 50:1
Beech - 18:1

Widebodies: (note lower average)
A330 - 38:1
A340 - 42:1
763 - 43.3:1 or 31.3:1 or 45.5:1 or 46.8:1 (friggin' 763 variations!)
772 - 38:1
773 - 38.4:1

...and the "just hold it in" aircraft (just 2 of the 16 in service):
Beech - 18:0

(numbers from www.seatguru.com and my calculator)

why fly

The simple answer is the 320 will give you a better ride in rough weather as its a heavier plane.

YEG USER

There was a similar thread a while ago. Click here for more information.

Post #32 shows the OP's report back on his thoughts, including comments on turbulence and bathroom ratio.

arf04

Weight is not the only issue that comes into play, though, as aerodynamics and other flight characteristics will be a factor. For example, I much prefer the old 737-200s to the next generation 737-600s (which are close in size and weight) as the newer planes smooth out the bumps and the older ones seem to ride them like the plane is a brick. Of course, a Beech 1900 versus an A330 is no contest!

I was in an E 190 last winter on a very bumpy ride into Calgary and found it to be quite decent. It is hard to do head to head comparisons as of course one does not have the opportunity to be in different aircraft in the same conditions. I am no fan of the A320 in turbulence, and yet in the CRJ I am hunky dory (and I have a lot of flights in the RJ so have been in varying conditions).

In any case, I would choose the E190 over the A320 as I think general comfort is greater and will do more to negate the psychological effects of turbulence, if not the physical ones.

neale

Actually the 14 of the 16 Beech's have a Lav. Just tails 970 and 973 do not, and they are based in Halifax. All YYZ Beech's have a Lav so 18:1, best ratio in the fleet. Running water... turbulance, well thats another story.

cam_macleod

Doh! I stand corrected 14/16ths. Thanks!

KNRG

Embraer is like riding in a car whose shocks/suspension have worn out thus you feel pretty much every bump. It wouldn't be a totally unpleasant experience unless you happen down a road with lots of potholes (aka: severe turbulence).

At the same time, the bigger planes fly like they have their suspension in tact, but the potholes are still potholes. My worst turbulence has been on some of the larger planes.

Embraers are just "bumpy" but not any more prone to the more violent turbulence then other planes. I actually got used to the shimmy-jiggle of them at one point and it helped me sleep.

Simon

In my experience, they do tend to ride very rough in turbulence. Not like you are being thrown all over the place, but the previous post on shocks or lack thereof pretty much nails it.

Simon

Stranger

Real issue is wing area. Turbulence gets averaged over the wing area. so planes with larger wings end up being more comfortable when turbulence gets rough.

Of course, heavier planes will normally end up with a larger wing. But that's not the whole story. For the same weight, planes designed to optimize for a longer typical flight length will normally end up with a larger wing.

So, yes I would expect the 175/190 to be somewhat worse than a 320, and maybe even than the CRA. But I am not convinced the difference is all that significant.

Anyway, just fasten your seat belt. Turbulence is part of the flying experience. Kind of fun in a way.

waytogo

Thanks for all your replies!

I think I will go for the E75/90.
I assume not much difference between the two? (except for the lab issue, which doesn’t mater too much since it's just a one hour flight...)


On another subject, the front rows of Y which are reserved for Elite members, are they just for Air Canada FF's or any Star Alliance Gold members?

yyzgigi

The front rows are reserved until day of checkin for AC frequent fliers not *A. The E90 is actually a little better as the entire cabin has 34" pitch, while in the E75 only the front rows have that pitch. So if you don't think you'll need to fight for the lav then the E90 is the most comfortable way to travel on AC in Y.

Machdiamond

Wing area is indeed a parameter but only for a given weight. In absolute terms there are two primary parameters that indicate turbulence sensitivity for an aircraft:
1. Wing loading
2. CLalpha curve slope

1. The wing loading is the weight of the aircraft divided by its wing area. The higher the wing loading, the smoother the ride for the passengers. But that means less fuel capacity and longer takeoff and landing distances, so there lies the tradeoff. The CRJ705 has a wing loading of 106 lb/sqft and the E190 has 98 lb/sqft. Not a big difference. On the other hand, you can feel a big difference with the Dash 8 Q400 that offers a smoother ride than the 200 series, with 43 lb/sqft against 28 lb/sqft.

2. CLalpha curve slope indicates how quickly the lift of the wing increases with angle of attack, and angle of attack quickly and briefly increases in a turbulence bump. Therefore a steep slope means the wing will respond with more upward force when entering a vertical wind gust. There are two primary factors affecting the CLalpha curve, one is the airfoil characteristic and the other is wing sweep. When the wing is more swept back, its response to gusts is reduced and the ride is smoother.

As far as the OP question is concerned, the E175-190 is not really bad in rough weather but I agree with the general observation that the CRJ offers a slightly smoother ride. The E120 is definitely worse.

ALW

You're flying into LGA. Assume it will be 2 hours from door closing at YYZ.

=aw