Crj1000
02-19-2007, 06:09 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Who Cares
Posts: 318
Crj1000
Guys before you read the rest of this post---check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries... I read the other post on the CRJ1000 as well and figured I'd chime in with this. People speculate about who will fly this airplane, regional vs. mainline, etc. Most don't know that Bombardier has tried to launch this a couple of times and it has failed miserably. "CRJ1000" is the new name for the concept. Two years ago they were about to launch the "C" series aircraft, ran into all kinds of issues with the program and abandoned it. This article is a year old and came out around the time that Bombardier announced the conclusion of the "C Series" http://www.ainonline.com/Issues/03_0...CSeries_70.htm
This jet was origionally going to be 90 seats (trumped by the EMB-190), and now talks of a 100 seat RJ. Bombardier is trying to round up $$$, get the dust off of the old "c" series aircraft, and rename the project the CRJ1000.
What is less expensive? Bombardier to build a new RJ with 100 seats, starting with R&D, going to concept, development, etc. or Embraer to throw another 10 seats on the EMB-190? and call it a 100 seat jet (which would be much more comfortable than another CRJ stretched out.
Pax comfort? CRJ 200/700/900 are all pretty much the same in terms of cabin comfort. Embraer didn't keep stretching the EMB145, they just re-designed the entire thing and came up with the 170/190 which is much more comfortable than the CRJ.
In the past... this CRJ1000, "C" series, and any other names they've used for this jet have all failed.
This jet was origionally going to be 90 seats (trumped by the EMB-190), and now talks of a 100 seat RJ. Bombardier is trying to round up $$$, get the dust off of the old "c" series aircraft, and rename the project the CRJ1000.
What is less expensive? Bombardier to build a new RJ with 100 seats, starting with R&D, going to concept, development, etc. or Embraer to throw another 10 seats on the EMB-190? and call it a 100 seat jet (which would be much more comfortable than another CRJ stretched out.
Pax comfort? CRJ 200/700/900 are all pretty much the same in terms of cabin comfort. Embraer didn't keep stretching the EMB145, they just re-designed the entire thing and came up with the 170/190 which is much more comfortable than the CRJ.
In the past... this CRJ1000, "C" series, and any other names they've used for this jet have all failed.
02-19-2007, 06:14 PM
#2
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,050
Guys before you read the rest of this post---check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries... I read the other post on the CRJ1000 as well and figured I'd chime in with this. People speculate about who will fly this airplane, regional vs. mainline, etc. Most don't know that Bombardier has tried to launch this a couple of times and it has failed miserably. "CRJ1000" is the new name for the concept. Two years ago they were about to launch the "C" series aircraft, ran into all kinds of issues with the program and abandoned it. This article is a year old and came out around the time that Bombardier announced the conclusion of the "C Series" http://www.ainonline.com/Issues/03_0...CSeries_70.htm
This jet was origionally going to be 90 seats (trumped by the EMB-190), and now talks of a 100 seat RJ. Bombardier is trying to round up $$$, get the dust off of the old "c" series aircraft, and rename the project the CRJ1000.
What is less expensive? Bombardier to build a new RJ with 100 seats, starting with R&D, going to concept, development, etc. or Embraer to throw another 10 seats on the EMB-190? and call it a 100 seat jet (which would be much more comfortable than another CRJ stretched out.
Pax comfort? CRJ 200/700/900 are all pretty much the same in terms of cabin comfort. Embraer didn't keep stretching the EMB145, they just re-designed the entire thing and came up with the 170/190 which is much more comfortable than the CRJ.
In the past... this CRJ1000, "C" series, and any other names they've used for this jet have all failed.
This jet was origionally going to be 90 seats (trumped by the EMB-190), and now talks of a 100 seat RJ. Bombardier is trying to round up $$$, get the dust off of the old "c" series aircraft, and rename the project the CRJ1000.
What is less expensive? Bombardier to build a new RJ with 100 seats, starting with R&D, going to concept, development, etc. or Embraer to throw another 10 seats on the EMB-190? and call it a 100 seat jet (which would be much more comfortable than another CRJ stretched out.
Pax comfort? CRJ 200/700/900 are all pretty much the same in terms of cabin comfort. Embraer didn't keep stretching the EMB145, they just re-designed the entire thing and came up with the 170/190 which is much more comfortable than the CRJ.
In the past... this CRJ1000, "C" series, and any other names they've used for this jet have all failed.
Nope, the CRJ1000 is a stretch-900. http://www.bombardier.com/
The C-series concept (still without customers) is a wider, larger airplane with under-wing engines. Actually the c-series makes a lot more sense to me, but I guess the common type goes a long way $$$.
Last edited by rickair7777; 02-19-2007 at 06:24 PM.
02-19-2007, 06:27 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Who Cares
Posts: 318
The CRJ is a horrible airplane to ride in the back of. The seats are uncomfortable and anything over 1.5 hours is miserable. I've ridden on -200/-700/-900's and they are all about as uncomfortable. Embraer didn't keep stretching the E-145... they made the 170/190. Bombardier gets this CRJ1000 (which is where the CRJ900 meets the failed "C-series" in their eyes).
"The Bombardier BRJX, or Bombardier Regional Jet eXpansion, was a project for a larger regional jet than the Canadair Regional Jet. Instead of 2+2 seating, the BRJX was to have a wider fuselage with 2+3 seating, and underwing engine pods. It was projected to seat 80 to 120 passengers, abutting the smallest narrow-body jetliners of the large commercial passenger jets (A318, B717). The project was shelved by Bombardier. Bombardier's competitor, Embraer, continued their equivalent project, and produced the EMBRAER E-Jets series of 70 to 110 seaters. The project was shelved in favour of stretching the CRJ-700 into the CRJ-900.
The BRJX program has since been replaced by the Bombardier CSeries project, itself having later been cancelled in favor of further CRJ stretch developments."
The point is, they have tried to come up with a "larger" airplane several times and can't seem to make it work. They either run out of money, Embraer beats them to the punch, and they resort back to "stretching the CRJ100/200" essentially.
"The Bombardier BRJX, or Bombardier Regional Jet eXpansion, was a project for a larger regional jet than the Canadair Regional Jet. Instead of 2+2 seating, the BRJX was to have a wider fuselage with 2+3 seating, and underwing engine pods. It was projected to seat 80 to 120 passengers, abutting the smallest narrow-body jetliners of the large commercial passenger jets (A318, B717). The project was shelved by Bombardier. Bombardier's competitor, Embraer, continued their equivalent project, and produced the EMBRAER E-Jets series of 70 to 110 seaters. The project was shelved in favour of stretching the CRJ-700 into the CRJ-900.
The BRJX program has since been replaced by the Bombardier CSeries project, itself having later been cancelled in favor of further CRJ stretch developments."
The point is, they have tried to come up with a "larger" airplane several times and can't seem to make it work. They either run out of money, Embraer beats them to the punch, and they resort back to "stretching the CRJ100/200" essentially.
02-19-2007, 07:33 PM
#6
Banned
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
02-19-2007, 07:54 PM
#7
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,050
I agree that further stretching of the 200 is getting silly. The 170/190 is on the right track configuration-wise.
02-19-2007, 07:55 PM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,050
If not, they're gonna wish they did...
02-19-2007, 08:09 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 345
Theyre stretching the Challenger
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
