Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Crj-1000

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
siucavflight said:
:rolleyes:
I am sure you are right, they probably designed the thing without really looking at the size of the seats first, and had planned on going with a 3+2 configuration, then after they had the whole thing made and started putting the seats in they realized that 3+2 would not work so they just said the heck with it and put really wide 2+2 seats.
Click to expand...

Actually that is NOT the case.

The E-jets were designed from the start as comfortable 2+2 aircraft. There is no comparison to the CRJ series, infact those comparisons are a sore spot for Embraer.

The operating economic favor the E-Series over the CRJ if you give passengers the same seating pitch.


It's only when the pax are "sardinecanned-in" that the CRJ per seatmile cost is below the E-series.

And yes Bill Lear even before the grave tried to stop the 601. At least the CRJ1000 is visually more in line with all of Bill Lear's other designs...

Cheers
George
 
GeorgeTG said:
...And yes Bill Lear even before the grave tried to stop the 601. At least the CRJ1000 is visually more in line with all of Bill Lear's other designs...

Cheers
George
Click to expand...

Bill Lear hated any plane you could stand up in :D He just wanted go fast and climb like hell. His designs were like toothpicks with horizontal stabilizers for wings.

Lears are amazing airplanes for speed and efficiency, comfortable? Not so much. I still remember the jokes about Lear drivers, like how you could tell which one was the CA/FO by what directions their necks were permanently bent. The 601 was probably like the antichrist for him.

Guy was in the wrong business-shoulda been building rockets.
 
Wanderlust said:
Bombardier should be embarrassed of the 1000. It's like building a 400 seat airplane based on the DC-9.
Click to expand...

Except for that small simple fact that it is by far the most economical 100-seater. Think passengers prefer the EMB-195? They may, but they aren't willing to pay more for it. It's all about $$$, and the CRJ-1000 makes them.
 
bvt1151 said:
Except for that small simple fact that it is by far the most economical 100-seater. Think passengers prefer the EMB-195? They may, but they aren't willing to pay more for it. It's all about $$$, and the CRJ-1000 makes them.
Click to expand...

Great post and right on the money..(sorry could not resist)

I "prefer" to ride in a limo on my commute ....but I wont pay for it.
 
I don't get the CRJ bigotry.

The diameter of the fuselage is roughly that of the Concord.
 
N2264J said:
I don't get the CRJ bigotry.

The diameter of the fuselage is roughly that of the Concord.
Click to expand...
And 1/3rd the speed and none of the boner factor, tell a chick you fly the Concord, and she peels her clothes off, tell her you fly an RJ and she throws up a little in her mouth.
PBR
 
PBRstreetgang said:
...tell her you fly an RJ and she throws up a little in her mouth.
Click to expand...

I can understand you're having that affect on women.

Nevertheless, the subject has never been about speed. The dismissal of the CRJ as inferior on this board has, thus far, been all about cabin dimensions, no?

The Concord seated passengers 2 by 2 in a tube with almost the same cross section.
 
Are you guys really comparing the CRJ to the Concorde?

Absolutely classic....
 
PBRstreetgang said:
And 1/3rd the speed and none of the boner factor, tell a chick you fly the Concord, and she peels her clothes off, tell her you fly an RJ and she throws up a little in her mouth.
PBR
Click to expand...
Do you go out to the bar and tells girls you are a jet pilot?
 
They are justifying the diameter of the CRJ fusalage (comfort level) by saying its about the same as the Concorde. The concorde would cross the Atlantic in just a few hours (compared to 7+) and was a very presigious airplane to travel on.


Trust me, I'm still in step....just aghast at the comparison.
 
The cockpit of the space shuttle is about the size of a Pinto. Are you aghast at that comparison too? Doesn't make it any less true.

If you're lurking for a reason to bad mouth RJ drivers on other boards, perhaps you should spend more time understanding the facts rather than blowing everything out of proportion.
 
Alright... here's the "world o'cross-sections" of things about 8 feet in diameter comparison list...

CRJ-200 8'5"
Concorde 8'8"
Dash 8 8'3"
GM Corbeil "Short Bus" 8'
Standard rail boxcar 8'10"
NASA Delta 1000 Rocket 8'
Elgin Road Wizard Sweeper 8'
LoveSac "BigOne" bag chair 8'
 
I'm not sure, but I'd imagine a bean bag chair, 8 feet across has to be pushing 12,500 lbs.
 
SpauldingSmails said:
Alright... here's the "world o'cross-sections" of things about 8 feet in diameter comparison list...

CRJ-200 8'5"
Concorde 8'8"
Dash 8 8'3"
GM Corbeil "Short Bus" 8'
Standard rail boxcar 8'10"
NASA Delta 1000 Rocket 8'
Elgin Road Wizard Sweeper 8'
LoveSac "BigOne" bag chair 8'
Click to expand...
I got another one that is long and wide.
 
bvt1151 said:
Except for that small simple fact that it is by far the most economical 100-seater. Think passengers prefer the EMB-195? They may, but they aren't willing to pay more for it. It's all about $$$, and the CRJ-1000 makes them.
Click to expand...

Well, the most efficient airframe would likely be a flying wing, but the consensus is passengers aren't willing to give up windows to save money. The CRJ is the most uncomfortable airplane I've ever ridden in the back of (and that list includes the 1900, Brasilia, Navajo, Islander, etc). You can't even look out the window unless you're five.
 
Wanderlust said:
Well, the most efficient airframe would likely be a flying wing, but the consensus is passengers aren't willing to give up windows to save money. The CRJ is the most uncomfortable airplane I've ever ridden in the back of (and that list includes the 1900, Brasilia, Navajo, Islander, etc). You can't even look out the window unless you're five.
Click to expand...

They fixed the window issue on the 900 so I would imagine the 1000 is the same.
 
SpauldingSmails said:
I'm not sure, but I'd imagine a bean bag chair, 8 feet across has to be pushing 12,500 lbs.
Click to expand...

Well, my good friend who works for the FAA said that I CAN log PIC on the LoveSac even though I'm not the captain! So, you're all wrong cuz my friend said so!
 
Wanderlust said:
Well, the most efficient airframe would likely be a flying wing, but the consensus is passengers aren't willing to give up windows to save money. The CRJ is the most uncomfortable airplane I've ever ridden in the back of (and that list includes the 1900, Brasilia, Navajo, Islander, etc). You can't even look out the window unless you're five.
Click to expand...
The 700/900 is like completely different airplane in the back. The 200 does suck, but I don't think the 700/900 is uncomfortable at all. Much better than sitting in the middle seat on a 737!
 
Raskal said:
Well, my good friend who works for the FAA said that I CAN log PIC on the LoveSac even though I'm not the captain! So, you're all wrong cuz my friend said so!
Click to expand...

True, but it does call into question how that time logged would look in an interview if it were all "cowgirl" time.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom