Talk:Bombardier CRJ700 series

specs

I added the specs for the aircraft, any comments? Planes&mustangs510 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

CRJ700/900/1000

There should be separate articles for the CRJ700, CRJ900 and CRJ1000, as they are separate lines. (unlike the natural evolution of the CRJ100 to CRJ200) 70.55.84.123 (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't think so. The CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 are definitely similar enough to be the same article (same engines, same wing) and are really no different than, say, a Boeing 737-700 and -800, or an A319 and A320, which are simply discussed as variants to a main article. The CRJ-1000 is a bigger change, but BA markets them as a family, and until the CRJ-1000 has sufficient market penetration of its own it might as well stay here i think. MadScot (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The 700 and 900 are also on the same type certificate so essentially the same aircraft, the 1000 is not certified yet if it gets a seperate certificate then it may be worthy of a separate article in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Same/Different TC shouldn't be the defining criteria for standalone articles, otherwise all the Challenger 60x would be on the same article, as well as all the CRJs. CRJ1000 will be on the same TC, but will be a different ID# - CL-600-2Esomething, I believe. MadScot (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have worked on both the CRJ700 and CRJ900. The CRJ900 is extremely similar to the CRJ700. Differences are an added fuselage plug, 2 extra escape hatches, uprated engines, 2 extra fins on the tail section for lateral stability. The CRJ700 also has FADECs and the improved environmental pack, I suggest that the first paragraph describing the CRJ900 be moved or copied to the CRJ700 section, as theses upgrades appeared on the CRJ700 first. The avionics suite is from Rockwell Collins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.240 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CRJ1000 crash

Date: February 14 2008 Time: 04:15 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Operator: Belavia AC Type: Canadair CRJ100ER Reg: EW-101JP cn: 7316 Aboard: 21 Fatalities: 0 Ground: 0 Route: Yerevan - Minsk Details: While attempting to take off the aircraft flipped over and burst into flames. Ten people were taken to the hospital.

saw video footage i guess its the first hull loss of the 1000? no one killed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.49.22 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• CRJ-1000 isn't certified never mind in airline service yet. Accident was to a CRJ-100, not -1000. MadScot (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

MTOW

What about MTOW and Takeoff Run at MTOW --195.110.6.3 (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a source for that detailed data? -Fnlayson (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Manufacturer's website seems to have a detailed breakdown of specifications (including MTOW) for the CRJ700, CRJ705 and CRJ900. The data seems more comprehensive than that already listed in the article. If no-one else fancies updating it with references I am happy to do it. SempreVolando (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't expect the takeoff distances to be provided there and wanted the requester to check, i.e. do share of effort. I was going to help and will. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier does not have a page for the CRJ1000 yet. But it does have a fact sheet for that on its site. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maximum safe speed?

What is the maximum safe speed of a CRJ700? I see the "basic cruising speed" listed, but is there a maximum safe speed? By "safe," I mean that the plane could be expected to operate at this speed for an extended period of time, safely. I was recently tracking a friend's flight on FlightAware.com; she was aboard a CRJ700, and the top speed during the flight was 625 MPH, which seems quite a bit faster than the 503 MPH basic cruising speed listed in this article. Just wondering if this is normal or if it's some kind of rare occurrence. I know very little about aviation so please forgive me if this is a stupid question. —BMRR (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that Fnlayson updated the table with basic cruise speeds and maximum cruise speeds. The max cruise speed for the CRJ700 is listed as 544 MPH. Is it unusual, then, that a CRJ700 would have been flying considerably faster than that? I just took another look at the track log for my friend's flight. The plane spent about 10 minutes in the 560 MPH to 570 MPH range; then it spent a couple of minutes between 600 MPH and 625 MPH, followed by 10 or so minutes in the 560 to 570 range again. Is this typical? Again, I apologize if these are stupid questions. —BMRR (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I fly all 3 variants of the plane. MPH is persay not limiting. All aircraft of this type are Mach limited at altitude. For a given Mach, MPHs of true airspeed TAS will vary based on the temperature variation at altitude. The CRJ700 max speed in Mach is .85 also known as MMO (Max Operating Mach.) The CRJ900 max Mach is .84, the CRJ200 max Mach is .85. Now the CRJ200 is a dog compared to the newer versions so in all practicality .85 is really usually only attainable in a decent. Also there are other limitation often in the real world. Over the USA.....most jets operate in what is call RVSM airspace at cruise altitudes. For instance the CRJ700 can safely fly .85, but has an RVSM limit of .83. Not 100% sure but I geuss this might be an auto/pilot pitot static limitation in the RVSM airspace. 24.210.214.62 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary Operators

What defines a primary operator? Currently Bomba lists the following operators: (http://www.crj.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/operators.jsp?langId=en&crjId=900) Air Canada Jazz: 16 Adria: 4 Air Nostrum: 11 Alitalia: 10 Arik Air: 4 Atlas Jet: Does not indicate any CRJ900s on webpage. Delta: 54 Lufthansa: 12 Macedonian: ? Mesa Airlines: 38 Myair: 4 Launch customer for CRJ900 was Mesa Airlines. User:Aneah 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The top 4 users of the aircraft are listed as the Primary users in the Infobox. Users and their fleet numbers should be listed in the Operators section with references. See Boeing 777 and Boeing 717 for examples. The top 4 from that are listed in the Infobox. I have this data in the Flight International magazine and can do the list is a day or two. -fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess since I went to Bombardier site and got the information on the CRJ900 (which is what my company uses), I have found that the Bomba web site was incomplete. Other companies using the 900 (which I was specifically referring to) also include ASA, Mesaba, and Skywest. Of course, this article is not limited to the CRJ900 but also the CRJ700 and CRJ1000.

Is it possible that the article could/should be broken up into three articles? Essentially the CRJ 700, the CRJ 705/900, and the CRJ 1000. Granted the SRM for the CRJ700 and 900 are the same, however, the IPC are different, due to configurations. The three aircraft are similar, but different. User:Aneah 18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Operators have been updated using fleet data on CRJ700s (all kinds) and CRJ900s combined. A couple users keep removing Skywest for some reason though. -fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Article move

I have reverted a move of this article to Bombardier CRJ700/900/1000 as it needs to be discussed particularly as it is a non-standard format. Any comments. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely non-standard, but there seems to be no easy way to do this either. For the most part, we don't double up the designations in WP:AIR, but their are a few exceptions, such as North American FJ-2/-3 Fury and Bell 204/205. We could split off the CRJ1000, and move the article to Bombardier CRJ700/CRJ900 or similar, or we could move the whole article to something like Bombardier CRJ700 family or Bombardier CRJ (long-body family). Again, there's no easy way to do this, so perhaps we should take it up at WP:AIR/NC, and see if we can brainstorm a consensus on how we can best handle these types of article names. - BilCat (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Bombardier CRJ700 family" seems the best of those to me. The CRJ1000 could be split off anytime with that name, if needed. -fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed CRJ700 family seems the most natural of these (and won't require changing if Bombadier introduce further related models).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with family as we have used that before. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "family" is what we're using in most similar cases, and seems to be accepted without much, if any, opposition. Should we go ahead and move it now, or wait for some more comments? What about the CRJ100/200 article? It's at Bombardier CRJ200 now. - BilCat (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to "family"—it is, at least, better than the current name, although I am not sure that anybody calls these three airliners a "family". Ruslik_Zero 19:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What about "series"? As in "Bombardier CRJ700 series"? That's how the various MD-8x planes are referred to in the trade press, e.g. the "McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series." I've seen CRJs referred to as the "Bombardier CRJ series" but obviously we don't want to lump the 100 and 200 in with the 700/900/1000, as there are enough differences to keep them separate. –BMRR (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

'Series' is better than 'family'. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Any more views before the move is made? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably safe to go ahead with the move, eh? –BMRR (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, looks like it. FYI: With the DC-9/-10/MD-80 articles, "series" seems to be a Douglas/McDonnell Douglas term. But that's not relevant here. -fnlayson (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bombardier does refer to these aircraft as the "CRJ Series" on their web site. –BMRR (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Right! Q-Series and CSeries are 2 others used by the company. -fnlayson (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved this article to "Bombardier CRJ700 series". -fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

11 April 2011

• On April 11, 2011, Delta Connection Flight 6293 / Comair Flight 553, a Comair Bombardier CRJ700, was struck by the wing of Air France Flight 007, an Airbus A380, while on a taxiway at JFK airport. No injuries were reported.

importance? -- Fnlayson; 12:45, 12 April 2011

Well, I added it since it seems like a significant incident. That was a dramatic collision, as it spun the CRJ 90-degrees from its previous orientation. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)