Crj-1000

[Draginass]

Still looks like a POS RJ with narrow tiny seats, even if there's more of them crammed in the tube.

 

[RemoveB4Flght]

Still looks like a POS RJ with narrow tiny seats, even if there's more of them crammed in the tube.

Agreed.. who cares where the engines are mounted.. at least when the boys in Brazil built the 170/190, they didn't stick with the 2+1 seating in a stretched tube. The 'double bubble' 170/190 cabin concept is not too uncomfortable on short routes.

Although the CRJ has the advantage of a common type rating, how much further can they stretch the fuselage without a redesign?

 

[ehaecker]

Agreed.. who cares where the engines are mounted.. at least when the boys in Brazil built the 170/190, they didn't stick with the 2+1 seating in a stretched tube. The 'double bubble' 170/190 cabin concept is not too uncomfortable on short routes.

Although the CRJ has the advantage of a common type rating, how much further can they stretch the fuselage without a redesign?

I think the 170/175 is more comfortable than any mainline airplane I have ever flown on. It seems like the seats are wider. I think the cabin is plenty wide for 2+2 but not quite wide enough for 3+2, hence the nice wide seats.

 

[siucavflight]

I think the 170/175 is more comfortable than any mainline airplane I have ever flown on. It seems like the seats are wider. I think the cabin is plenty wide for 2+2 but not quite wide enough for 3+2, hence the nice wide seats.

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.

 

[ehaecker]

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.

No need to be a smart ass about it. Im sure that if you measure the width of the seats, they are wider than mainline coach seats. Riding in a DC-9 (3+2) is much more uncomfortable than a 170/175 (2+2), even though it is a bigger plane. THAT is what I meant with the reference to 2+2 vs 3+2. I can see how my previous post is a little misleading though...

 

[siucavflight]

Ha, I know I was just giving you crap, they do seem to be a bit more comfortable, maybe just newer, I dont know.

 

[ehaecker]

I have only been on one once. I swear the coach seats are as wide as 1st class on the CRJ.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

They are and I love the ride in a E-series jet. It is comfortable with the wife and the lap child.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Although the CRJ has the advantage of a common type rating, how much further can they stretch the fuselage without a redesign?

I'm sure when they designed the CL-600 back in the late 70's/early 80's they probably would have laughed if you said, "That's going to evolve into a 100 seat airliner." It'll be interesting to see if the C-Series takes shape in the near future.

CRJ1000 = Cha+plug+plug+plug+llen+plug+plug+ger.

 

[buscap]

Bill Lear rolled over in his grave about this years ago!!!!