![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I added the specs for the aircraft, any comments? Planes&mustangs510 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
What about MTOW and Takeoff Run at MTOW -- 195.110.6.3 ( talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bombardier CRJ700 series/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The word "scoped" with regard to the variations in seating capacity should be hotlinked and discussed elsewhere. 74.138.37.7 ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
Substituted at 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I moved this article to "Bombardier CRJ700 series". - fnlayson ( talk) 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
I too think it should be added. Many other articles have lists of incidents. There could be such a list here, and this could be the only one. At this point there should be more info from NTSB too.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Libyan Airlines CRJ900.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
This and all passenger aircraft articles should state the number of seats across in standard coach configuration. I believe that for this series of aircraft, seating is 4 across, but I don't have a source. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 05:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this article really only for the information that makers and commercial flyers of airplanes publish? I am told that the # of bathrooms is not generally publicized in the “specs” and so my addition of that info for one plane has been removed. But I have cited a thoughtful commentary on the # of bathrooms (1) for a 90+ -seat craft (and ensuing discomfort on the part of some flyers). Am I being told that using the “specs” template box for # of bathrooms is a misuse of the format? I worked hard to figure how to fit it in; gave my citation; and thought it was a good addition. I’m not saying I’ll research every model of airplane to find # of bathrooms. But it’s a bona fide expansion of what the article says ‘’about’’ the plane, from my viewpoint, and could prompt more attention to the specification (which of course is substantive; just happens not to have been a focus or a “selling point” I guess to date).
I think of seat size and even more, distance between seats, as a much more publicized point of contention between airplane manufacturers and operators, on the one hand, and flying consumers on the other; of course luggage configurations are another; and I was glad to see seating as a discussion topic on this page just now. I’m not crusading, here. I’m just saying that an article about an airplane, it seems to me, ought to be open enough to handle consumer reporting and feedback on valid, substantive subjects as well as industry info.
I will also say I broke another boundary, for myself as editor, in my edit because the source was a posting on Facebook. However, the commenter on Facebook had a substantial “following” (in the tens or hundreds of thousands, I think) and was clearly a “journalist” of a sort. I thought maybe that would be grounds for ejection. I hope before it is brought out as basis for a peremptory eviction, the merits of the case will be considered. (Yes, one must probably be a “member” or whatever of Facebook (as I am; also a shareholder as it happens) to access the source. But plenty of news citations (to the WSJournal for instance; where I'm also a shareholder but not a subscriber) are restricted to paid subscribers, I suspect; Facebook is free of charge to “members”. And yes, the FB posting could be dismissed as “like a blog”; but, again, such an objection seems petty when considered in context. And finally, for the record, all I cited from the FB post was the number of bathrooms, including none of the subjective or customer comment. It seemed solid. Swliv ( talk) 23:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-06/delta-buys-40-regional-jets-from-bombardier-in-rebuff-to-embraer{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-06/delta-buys-40-regional-jets-from-bombardier-in-rebuff-to-embraerWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-centre/newsList/details.bombardier-aerospace20131212bombardierandamericanairlinesexecute.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
One thing I noticed that was not included in the specs are the planes' temperature operating/flying range.
I live in Phoenix, AZ, and there are days when the temperature exceeds 115° and has reached 122°. Many planes cannot fly in temps above 118° and I do not know what the lower limits may be.
Since this is important to the planes' ability to fly and operate, I think that there should be an "Operational Temperature Range" category as part of the specifications.
And not just for this article, but for ALL aircraft articles.
Opinions? 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 03:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I find the seats in the main cabin to be sized for children, and the bathroom difficult to be used by an adult. Can anyone provide a source for my claims so that they could be included in the article? I flew on a CRJ700 today and hope I never have to do so again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Link ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I added the specs for the aircraft, any comments? Planes&mustangs510 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
What about MTOW and Takeoff Run at MTOW -- 195.110.6.3 ( talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bombardier CRJ700 series/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The word "scoped" with regard to the variations in seating capacity should be hotlinked and discussed elsewhere. 74.138.37.7 ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
Substituted at 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I moved this article to "Bombardier CRJ700 series". - fnlayson ( talk) 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
I too think it should be added. Many other articles have lists of incidents. There could be such a list here, and this could be the only one. At this point there should be more info from NTSB too.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Libyan Airlines CRJ900.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
This and all passenger aircraft articles should state the number of seats across in standard coach configuration. I believe that for this series of aircraft, seating is 4 across, but I don't have a source. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 05:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this article really only for the information that makers and commercial flyers of airplanes publish? I am told that the # of bathrooms is not generally publicized in the “specs” and so my addition of that info for one plane has been removed. But I have cited a thoughtful commentary on the # of bathrooms (1) for a 90+ -seat craft (and ensuing discomfort on the part of some flyers). Am I being told that using the “specs” template box for # of bathrooms is a misuse of the format? I worked hard to figure how to fit it in; gave my citation; and thought it was a good addition. I’m not saying I’ll research every model of airplane to find # of bathrooms. But it’s a bona fide expansion of what the article says ‘’about’’ the plane, from my viewpoint, and could prompt more attention to the specification (which of course is substantive; just happens not to have been a focus or a “selling point” I guess to date).
I think of seat size and even more, distance between seats, as a much more publicized point of contention between airplane manufacturers and operators, on the one hand, and flying consumers on the other; of course luggage configurations are another; and I was glad to see seating as a discussion topic on this page just now. I’m not crusading, here. I’m just saying that an article about an airplane, it seems to me, ought to be open enough to handle consumer reporting and feedback on valid, substantive subjects as well as industry info.
I will also say I broke another boundary, for myself as editor, in my edit because the source was a posting on Facebook. However, the commenter on Facebook had a substantial “following” (in the tens or hundreds of thousands, I think) and was clearly a “journalist” of a sort. I thought maybe that would be grounds for ejection. I hope before it is brought out as basis for a peremptory eviction, the merits of the case will be considered. (Yes, one must probably be a “member” or whatever of Facebook (as I am; also a shareholder as it happens) to access the source. But plenty of news citations (to the WSJournal for instance; where I'm also a shareholder but not a subscriber) are restricted to paid subscribers, I suspect; Facebook is free of charge to “members”. And yes, the FB posting could be dismissed as “like a blog”; but, again, such an objection seems petty when considered in context. And finally, for the record, all I cited from the FB post was the number of bathrooms, including none of the subjective or customer comment. It seemed solid. Swliv ( talk) 23:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-06/delta-buys-40-regional-jets-from-bombardier-in-rebuff-to-embraer{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-06/delta-buys-40-regional-jets-from-bombardier-in-rebuff-to-embraerWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-centre/newsList/details.bombardier-aerospace20131212bombardierandamericanairlinesexecute.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
One thing I noticed that was not included in the specs are the planes' temperature operating/flying range.
I live in Phoenix, AZ, and there are days when the temperature exceeds 115° and has reached 122°. Many planes cannot fly in temps above 118° and I do not know what the lower limits may be.
Since this is important to the planes' ability to fly and operate, I think that there should be an "Operational Temperature Range" category as part of the specifications.
And not just for this article, but for ALL aircraft articles.
Opinions? 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 03:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I find the seats in the main cabin to be sized for children, and the bathroom difficult to be used by an adult. Can anyone provide a source for my claims so that they could be included in the article? I flew on a CRJ700 today and hope I never have to do so again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Link ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)