A recent discussion thread from a regional airline first officer flying the CRJ has surfaced a long-running, mostly good-natured debate within pilot circles: does engine placement—fuselage-mounted (as on the CRJ and Embraer E-Jets in some configurations) versus wing-mounted (as on the E175 and most narrowbody mainline aircraft)—actually matter in terms of the value or difficulty of the flying experience? The original poster notes hearing informal jabs suggesting that time logged on fuselage-mounted twin-engine aircraft is somehow less legitimate than "underwing time," despite both aircraft types requiring type-specific certification, presenting comparable operational complexity, and counting identically toward ATP minimums and airline hiring requirements under FAA regulations.
From a technical standpoint, the engine-mounting debate does have real engineering implications, even if they don't translate into "harder" or "easier" flying. Fuselage-mounted engines (as seen on the CRJ, MD-80/90 series, and business jets like the Citation and Learjet families) tend to keep the wing aerodynamically cleaner, allow for a lower wing that simplifies main gear design, and reduce asymmetric thrust effects in an engine-out scenario since the engines sit closer to the aircraft's centerline. Underwing designs, by contrast, generally allow for larger engine diameters (important as high-bypass turbofans have grown to improve fuel efficiency), easier engine access for maintenance, and a flying-wing pitch effect during thrust changes that some pilots find more intuitive. Neither configuration is inherently superior; airframers choose one over the other based on mission requirements, fuselage ground clearance, cabin noise considerations, and structural trade-offs—not because one produces "better" pilots.
For working pilots, particularly those at regional carriers navigating airline flow-through agreements and career progression to mainline operators, this kind of gatekeeping chatter is largely cultural rather than substantive. Hiring departments at major carriers evaluate turbine PIC and SIC time, type ratings, and overall multi-crew experience—not engine placement. The CRJ series (200/700/900) remains a cornerstone of regional aviation staffing at carriers like Endeavor, PSA, Envoy, and SkyWest, and pilots flying it accumulate the same category of jet experience, CRM exposure, and high-altitude operations as their E175 counterparts. Passenger perception, meanwhile, is largely psychological rather than data-driven; studies on turbulence and ride comfort show wing-mounted engines don't inherently produce a smoother ride, though the visual proximity of underwing engines may create an illusion of stability for nervous flyers.
The broader takeaway reflects a familiar pattern in aviation culture: informal hierarchies often emerge around aircraft type, engine configuration, or even airframe manufacturer, echoing similar debates between Boeing and Airbus pilots or turboprop versus jet crews. These distinctions rarely hold up under regulatory or operational scrutiny, since the FAA, insurance underwriters, and airline training departments treat turbine time uniformly regardless of engine placement. As regional fleets continue to diversify—with some carriers retiring CRJs in favor of E175s or vice versa based on scope clause economics rather than pilot preference—the conversation underscores that professional credibility in aviation rests on stick-and-rudder skill, systems knowledge, and safety culture, not on where the manufacturer happened to bolt the engines.