Talk:Bombardier CRJ700 series

Infobox Image change

We should this image: File:Bombardier CRJ-900LR Lufthansa Cityline (LCL) D-ACKG - MSN 15084 - Named Glücksburg (9741131924).jpg

• 
  Current image in the Infobox
• 
  Image that will replace the old (current) image

As A) it is still the 900 series. B the livery is a lot nicer and up to date. And C) the angle of the aircraft. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Any reason why you didnt wait for a consensus before changing the image? MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This change seems like it just leans more toward WP:Bold than WP:CAUTIOUS (which can sometimes be in tension with each other right?). My 2 cents is that in this case it's fine and appropriate to swap in an updated image. The new content doesn't seem very controversial unless I've missed something. In the future of course, a brief explanatory note here in 'talk' as to the reasoning of the change might help avoid a quick revert edit.

It's worth noting too that (in my understanding) reverting without consensus might be frowned upon by some editors. Although it is not strict WP policy to forbid the practice, I think it's discouraged. Reference Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" if interested. N8 19:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Gives people a comparison. Well I did just realise I can post them here. I’ll do that. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The livery aesthetics (a personal taste) is not a reason for change. Either pictures are bland sideways images and does not show the wing. I would use a main pic change to see more of the wing in a 3/4 view like this:--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• 

I would agree with Marcs suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, the image Marc proposes is best. - Samf4u (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree: Side and planform views are available in the specifications section for "deep" readers. The perspective shown in this suggestion is an appropriate "overall" viewpoint suitable for a lead image. - N8 19:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ll find an image like that with a different livery. The orange makes the crj-700 look old and man whoever thought that livery was good, goddamn. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The livery makes the aircraft look old. It’s outdated. Secondly the side view form the Lufthansa 700. Has a batter view. And with the lovey being mostly white you can see the aircraft in its ‘stock’ colour without any ugly colours on. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@N8wilson and N8:How about this one? File:Bombardier CRJ-702 'N546FF' American Eagle ′(14192211342).jpg OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• 

I think this would also be a good candidate. The wings and fuselage are both nicely visible. Although the gear is up, seeing both sides of the tailplane in this photo gives a clear communication of the empennage shape compared to a single-side view in the other photos. - N8 17:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The -900, as the midsize and most delivered variant, may be more representative of the CRJ-700/900/1000. Using the previous Iberia livery may date appropriately the aircraft as a 2000s airliner, unlike a more recent one who never could use the old livery. It does look like you want to remove the old iberia livery for personal taste, I'm not sure it's the best way to build consensus.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Let’s use this one! I’m into that one man. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the livery, it’s old and outdated. Best to keep with the good looking modern liveries. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Found a 900!! Yes I’m so happy! @MilborneOne: @Samf4u:

• 
  A Delta Connection CRJ-900

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Still think that EC-JTU suggested by Marc is the best candidate. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: I still disagree, look I like the angle I won’t hide that. But I hate the colour orange on a plane. It just doesn’t bring out the modern vibes. I will still oppose those oranges pictures until we find a good one. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

How about this one?

• 

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that EC-JTU suggested by Marc is the best one. A 3/4 front view is preferred. Livery/colors not really important. - Samf4u (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay then, I’ll add the image on the. No worries. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Here are some CRJ900 3/4 views of Mesa Airlines, its largest operator:

• 
  N914FJ
• 
  N915FJ
• 
  N921FJ

• 
  N902FJ, clean
• 
  N927LR, clean
• 
  N956LR, almost clean

With gear/flaps down, I like N914FJ, and N902FJ is really dynamic.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No they’re not any better then the last, mainly the angle. @MilborenOne: how about this one N915FJ? The American eagle one. Oh again we cannot use defunct airlines, us airways is one. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC) OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course we can use defunct airlines, in fact it conveys a sense of an era.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No you can’t? I did that for the 757 and if you look at the talk page it’ll tell you otherwise. Look I don’t want to ride doing all this. But the US airways images are bad because of the angling. The American eagle is a very good one. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You certainly can. This is an encyclopedia, there are no requirement for pictures to be of the latest and greatest. Personal preference for an airline livery is also not a good arguement for wanting to change an image. I see no issue with the current image, but given the above images, 914FJ or 921FJ do a good job of showing body style and undercarriage. Garretka (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No requirements? So why is it that I get critisied for using a us airwyas 757 as the main image but get denied because the airliner is out of service? Yes, that makes all the sense. But again I disagree with you. Those pictures are bad. Why use an airliner that’s defunct? No point, it’s not like you’ll see the airliner nor a livery similar to it. I’m ending the discussion for the CRJ-700 as the photo was updated so I don’t even know why I’m still here, the image has been updated so that’s all good, I don’t think it should be changed anymore. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I don’t think it should be changed until something happens such as a new livery. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Article title

By analogy with Bombardier CRJ100/200, should this article be renamed to something like Bombardier CRJ700/900/1000, because it's not only about the 700? -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

more explicit indeed --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that is probably too many slashes for an article title. What about "Bombardier CRJ Series" the best candidate name or something else? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A "Bombardier CRJ Series" would need to include the initial 100/200. A merge would perhaps be a good thing, but it should be a separate debate.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bombardier CRJ already exists as a set index article. Now that production has basically ended, it might be time to consider a full merge. - BilCat (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - rather than renaming this article now, it seems to me that discussion of a full merge would be opportune. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Alleged name change of Mitsubishi

The assumption change the name Mitsubishi jets:

• Source 1:https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/lufthansa-uses-mitsubishi-jets

Appears the name:Mitsubishi CRJ

• Source 2:http://www.endeavorair.com/content/endeavor-air/en_us/about-us/our-fleet.html

Appears the name:MHI RJ CRJ

They are the ones who are involved in the name change of the Mitsubishi jets Galizz (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

But the Flightradar24 incorrected change the name Mitsubishi CRJ Galizz (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Please proof read before saving your changes, and try to make some sense, thanks. Aerotelegraph is quoted stating "An official change of name has not yet been made, however", so it's quite the opposite of a name change. One operator using an alternate, non official, naming scheme is not sufficient. You can read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Naming for more insight.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But the program CRJ series was acquired by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI RJ Aviation Group) and the type of certification,marketing,etc. Galizz (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Mitsubishi acquired the programme, but Mitsubishi isn't interested in continuing to market the aircraft. Bombardier is in the process of assembling the final aircraft on the order backlog, and once that is complete, marketing and manufacturing will cease. This is why the aircraft has not been rebranded as "Mitsubishi CRJ"; even on the MHI RJ website it is simply referred to as the "CRJ Series". As various analysts pointed out at the time of the takeover, the main thing that Mitsubishi gets out of this deal is a competent customer service business that it can subsequently repurpose for its own regional jet, the Mitsubishi SpaceJet. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But if the Bombardier CRJ production assembly ends, will the name be changed to Mitsubishi CRJ? Galizz (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Mitsubishi isn't going to continue production. Once Bombardier finishes the current backlog, production will cease definitively. Mitsubishi will service existing aircraft, and that's it. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Bone without change of name of the Mitsubishi CRJ? Galizz (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you please proof read before saving? You don't make sense.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But the production ended of the CRJ Series without change the name? Galizz (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Mitsubishi bought the programme but will not continue manufacturing the aircraft. It has no reason to change the name of an aircraft that will shortly be out of production. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But you have to wait until the authorities (MHI RJ Aviation Group) decide on the name change? Galizz (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The aircraft name has not changed and is not expected to change. In the unlikely event that Mitsubishi were to change its mind, then yes, we would wait for an official announcement before changing the page. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The source:https://mhirj.com/en/trademarks [Copyrighted text removed.] Galizz (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Appear the logotype of the company (MHI and MHI RJ Aviation Group) Galizz (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Mitsubishi CRJ" does not appear on that list of trademarks. The aircraft is trademarked as the "CRJ", "CRJ series" or "CRJnnn". The company logos are separate items on the list. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the source www.endeavorair.com appears the name: MHI RJ CRJ? Galizz (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Example:In istagram appears the name in:#mitsubishicrj Galizz (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

An instagram account name means nothing. One airline website doesn't count for much in the absence of corroboration, and in any case it indicates a different name to the one you are claiming. The most reliable of your sources, aerotelegraph, has a quote from Mitsubishi clearly saying that the name has NOT changed and that Flightradar were wrong to use the name the way they did. Aerotelegraph even points out another airline (Lufthansa) still referring to their aircraft as "Canadair RJ 900", yet the Canadair name only ever applied to the CRJ100/200 series! And MHI RJ's own website confirms that it doesn't use the purported name. Enough said! Rosbif73 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks and sorry for the inconvenience Galizz (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW folks, the name on the Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCCA A21EA-1, for example) shows "MHI RJ Aviation ULC" HyeProfile (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Delta Air Lines Flight 4951" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Delta Air Lines Flight 4951. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Delta Air Lines Flight 4951 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Orders and deliveries" section

Now that production has ended, the "Orders and deliveries" section (near the end of the article) needs to be updated with the final production numbers. Can someone provide those? —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I added "(and CRJ550)" after the "CRJ700" in the table, to make it clear that all existing CRJ550 were originally delivered as CRJ700. HyeProfile (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Restart production

My sources at Leeham news confirm that the Mitsubishi will restart CRJ Series production, is it possible that if the mitsubishi restarted production Mitsubishi will be the new manufacturer of the CRJ Series? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The Source:https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/06/exclusive-mitsubishi-ponders-restarting-crj-production/ BeirutMa2021 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but that article only says "Mitsubishi is considering restarting production". A more definite statement is needed before that should be added in the article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're asking if we will move the article in put Mitsubishi in place of Bombardier in the title, the answer is probably not for many years, if ever. But we will add to the lead and infobox if production is actually restarted, so you don't have to worry about that. BilCat (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

OK but the restart production the new manufacturer is Mitsubishi? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if it does happen. But the article title would not change anytime soon. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

But according to User BilCat:"If you're asking if we will move the article in put Mitsubishi in place of Bombardier in the title, the answer is probably not for many years, if ever. But we will add to the lead and infobox if production is actually restarted" BeirutMa2021 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has a common name policy. Because of that, this CRJ700 series will use the more common manufacturer name, which is Bombardier now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

But in the future when restarting the production of the CRJ Series on Wikipedia will the name Mitsubishi CRJ change instead of the "Bombardier"? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That's already been answered here. Good day. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok Thank you Fnlayson. BeirutMa2021 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirection

My sources in Wikipedia confirmed the article Bombardier CRJ redirected as "Mitsubishi CRJ" and Bombardier CRJ700 series redirected as "Mitsubishi CRJ700" (example:Bombardier crj1000 redirected as "Mitsubishi CRJ1000") BeirutMa2021 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No, and please try to write in proper English.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Redirects already exist from Mitsubishi CRJ to Bombardier CRJ, and so on. It has already been explained multiple times that the articles will not be moved to the Mitsubishi name. So, what was the question? Rosbif73 (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) - aka CRJ550

A few people have been undoing my edits adding the CRJ550 variant, arguing it's a "paper variant". Let's just say that I'm pretty connected in these things, and it's not a paper variant. It's listed as it's own aircraft model on the TCCA Type Certificate and TCDS A-276, as well as the FAA Type Certificate A21EA-1. Therefore, the aircraft bears a seperate model on its aircraft identification plate (located at the bottom of the aft fuse on the aircraft, if you're curious). In fact, MHIRJ is marketing it as a separate variant, so if MHIRJ were to restart production, it could produce a CRJ550 new out of the factory. HyeProfile (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this in talk. The 550 is the same aircraft as the 700, only marketed with fewer seats to comply with an aritrary scope clause. There may be some minute details and it can have its own TC subsection, but it's still a CRJ700. Giving it a column is an editorial decision between editors, there is no right or wrong way to include it, only editorial consensus. As we are only 2, we need inputs from other editors. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Also, see WP:EXPERT

Marc, the 550 is NOT the same aircraft as the 700.

It might look the same physically to a CRJ700, but legally speaking it's a new aircraft model on the Type Certificate and Type Certificate Data Sheet, with different limitations. Your argument is like saying the Boeing 737-400 (Classic) and Boeing 737-800 (NextGen) are the same aircraft.

The CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700/701/702) has an MTOW of ~75,000lbs, whereas the CL-600-2C11 (CRJ550) has an MTOW of 65,000lbs. That's more than a 15% higher MTOW for the CRJ700 vs the CRJ550.

The CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700/701/702) has a max pax capacity of 75 pax, whereas the CL-600-2C11 (CRJ550) can only carry a max of 50 pax. More than 50% difference...

In fact, when you walk to the aircraft identification plate, the model # is different. So it's a different aircraft.

Per wp:brd, my edits are BOLD and fact-based, and there's a consensus with everyone but you, so please stop reverting them. You should refine the edits if you don't like the way I present the facts. HyeProfile (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• The CRJ550 is essentially a derated CRJ700 with limited seating. I'm OK with the current specs table now that shows their common specs values. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References