Mitsubishi Regional Jet

Teller1900

Teller1900

En-Route
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,644
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
I am a dad!
After reading Ken's description of his first flight in the Mitsubishi MU-2, I happened to stumble upon this:

The Mitsubishi Regional Jet.

It looks a lot like the Embraer 170/190, but I'm betting it'll be about 140 times louder, if the MU-2 is any indication.

From Thirtythousandfeet.com:

A planned 70 to 90 passenger aircraft powered by Pratt & Whitney’s next generation Geared Turbofan™ engines. This Flash-based site provides an animated tour of the MRJ interior and exterior, specifications, and a description of the "slim seat" which uses a net fabric in seat bottoms and backs, producing wider leg room for a given seat pitch. Entry into service is planned for 2012.
Click to expand...
 
It can't be any worse than the Canadian conspiracy to make American's extremely uncomfortable - CRJs. I mean, really, do they think all flyers weigh 180 lbs? Plus, I've never been able to look at anything except the tarmack on the ground - what's up with the elbow-height windows?
 
nddons said:
It can't be any worse than the Canadian conspiracy to make American's extremely uncomfortable - CRJs. I mean, really, do they think all flyers weigh 180 lbs? Plus, I've never been able to look at anything except the tarmack on the ground - what's up with the elbow-height windows?
Click to expand...

I've heard the cockpits are really comfortable...they must have just stopped designing them once they got aft of the security door. I hate those airplanes.
 
Teller1900 said:
I've heard the cockpits are really comfortable...they must have just stopped designing them once they got aft of the security door.
Click to expand...
I think that's because someone had the bright (?) idea to turn the Challenger business jet into an airliner. :dunno:
 
Net fabric seat bottom and backs? :hairraise: Is this a military transport?

I read the description on the website - I'd have to sit in it to believe it. If it's meant to allow more legroom, I'm sure operators will just shove the seats closer together to make up for it.
 
Last edited:
nddons said:
It can't be any worse than the Canadian conspiracy to make American's extremely uncomfortable - CRJs. I mean, really, do they think all flyers weigh 180 lbs? Plus, I've never been able to look at anything except the tarmack on the ground - what's up with the elbow-height windows?
Click to expand...
I hate the windows. I'm 5'4" and have to duck down to see anything.
 
JohnR said:
Net fabric seat bottom and backs? :hairraise: Is this a military transport?

I read the description on the website - I'd have to sit in it to believe it. If it's meant to allow more legroom, I'm sure operators will just shove the seats closer together to make up for it.
Click to expand...
Notice how they also said "slim" seats. Thats fine for small people but not everyone is small. They honestly don't look that comfortable to me.
 
Haha well I know I will, just not sure about other people.
 
Don't feel bad, they didn't design any airplane larger than the 152 for small people like me. I have to have a cushion in our 172s and up.
 
Tristar said:
I hate the windows. I'm 5'4" and have to duck down to see anything.
Click to expand...

I'm 6'3" about 230...if I manage to shoehorn myself into a CRJ, I give myself a headache trying to duck down to see ANYTHING other than the taxi lines out those damnedable windows. I'm curious to see what kind of midget seating the Mitsu. RJ has.

And don't even talk to me about 152s :hairraise:
 
I'm 5'3" and EVERY time I have flown on a CRJ, I have hit my head on the overhead baggage bins. Of course I'm always sitting by the (elbow height) windows, so when I see everyone else standing up to get off the plane, I stand up and.... clunk! Even though I have been on these planes several times. I must not learn.

About the Mitsubishi jet web site, I love how it has detailed diagrams of how they plan to reduce the pain on your posterior. Made me laugh. They should put that on their future briefing cards. :goofy:

Doesn't something other than the fabric itself dictate how thick an airliner's seat needs to be? Such as FAA regulations? Otherwise why haven't all other airliners gone to thinner seats?
 
skyflyer8 said:
Doesn't something other than the fabric itself dictate how thick an airliner's seat needs to be? Such as FAA regulations? Otherwise why haven't all other airliners gone to thinner seats?
Click to expand...

Probably because it costs too much to replace them. Also, I think the seat fabric needs to pass all kinds of tests for fires and such.
 
skyflies said:
Probably because it costs too much to replace them.
Click to expand...

Well, all seats go get reupholstered and repaired during an aircraft's D-check... would it cost much more to replace the padding with thinner material during this process? Not that I want them to... I prefer the thicker padding in the 737 than the park bench they make you sit on in an ERJ.
 
nddons said:
It can't be any worse than the Canadian conspiracy to make American's extremely uncomfortable - CRJs.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't know. Just when I think the airlines can't get any worse/stupid they seem to do just that...

Narrow, cloth seats don't sound like an improvement over the CRJ's.

The ERJ's are not bad though, as long as you can get the exit row on the one seat side.
 
Interesting site. I liked the barrier-free lavatories. Wonder what those are? Thanks for the post.

Best,

Dave
 
t0r0nad0 said:
Well, all seats go get reupholstered and repaired during an aircraft's D-check... would it cost much more to replace the padding with thinner material during this process? Not that I want them to... I prefer the thicker padding in the 737 than the park bench they make you sit on in an ERJ.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the granite slabe ERJ seats... I used to ride on one for ORD down to Bloomington, IL... about 20 minutes, which was about 15 minutes to long.

I'd be sitting in the Concourse looking at American Eagle flights loading that were and 1+30 in length feeling sorry for those poor people...
 
skyflyer8 said:
I'm 5'3" and EVERY time I have flown on a CRJ, I have hit my head on the overhead baggage bins. Of course I'm always sitting by the (elbow height) windows, so when I see everyone else standing up to get off the plane, I stand up and.... clunk! Even though I have been on these planes several times. I must not learn.

About the Mitsubishi jet web site, I love how it has detailed diagrams of how they plan to reduce the pain on your posterior. Made me laugh. They should put that on their future briefing cards. :goofy:

Doesn't something other than the fabric itself dictate how thick an airliner's seat needs to be? Such as FAA regulations? Otherwise why haven't all other airliners gone to thinner seats?
Click to expand...
Boy and I thought it was just me. I hit my head on those bins all the time!

You know, most of our complaints have been about the CRJ, but honestly, I think the ERJs are pretty small!! 2 seats on the right, one seat on the left. I traveled once on an ERJ with a right window seat. The guy sitting next to me, no offense to him, was rather large to the point where he had trouble fitting in laterally and longitudinally. If we had an emergency, I'm not sure I could have done much as quickly as I would like and I'm sure he would have had just as much trouble getting unstuck from the cramped seats. He ended up being an interesting person though, we had a somewhat fun conversation about the 747 he flies (he had on a captain's outfit). I love hearing the interesting stories they have to tell.
 
Last edited:
I've been on a CRJ-200 from IAH to YYZ (about 4 hrs) and an ERJ-145LR (not the XR model with the winglets and extra seat padding) from MSP to IAH (about 3 hrs)... those are waaaaaay too long of flights for those aircraft. I do agree that the exit row is the only way to go on those planes, and the side with one seat is preferable. Also, the windows on the ERJ's are much larger and actually at a decent height, so I'll choose the ERJ over the CRJ any day of the week.

A little tip on the ERJ's - on the underside of the aisle and window armrests, towards the rear by the seatback, there is a little tiny button that releases the armrest and allows you to flip it up. That makes it a little more comfy as well.
 
Wow are you guys hard to please. Back in the day, when I was a corporate jet-setter, rather than a stay-at-home dad, I had the opportunity to schedule a flight on 2 planes I'd never flown before. (It was my dirty little secret -- I'd schedule my trips based on equipment!!! That's how I flew the 777 a mere 7 days after it went in-service). Well at any rate, I flew a CRJ from DCA to YYZ, then a 340 to Calgary. I, for one, was thrilled with the speed of the CRJ. The cabin space was comparable to the Dash8, but it was for such a shorter time that I was very happy with the CRJ/Dash8 swap.

Anyone (male) who's tried to use the pot in a J41 would also cheer the CRJ, I should think.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Well at any rate, I flew a CRJ from DCA to YYZ, then a 340 to Calgary. I, for one, was thrilled with the speed of the CRJ. The cabin space was comparable to the Dash8, but it was for such a shorter time that I was very happy with the CRJ/Dash8 swap.

Anyone (male) who's tried to use the pot in a J41 would also cheer the CRJ, I should think.
Click to expand...
The speed of the CRJ is good, but the I'll take a Dash 8 interior any day over the CRJ.
As for the J41, I consider any time I don't have to fly one of those POS's is a good day. It is one of the worst airplanes ever foisted on the flying public. IIRC it rotated at 125 knots, climbed at 150, cruised at 190 and every pilot I talked to hated the thing.
 
I'd take the Dash-8 as well... very quiet and roomy compared to the RJ's...

Actually, if we had our choice of of dream :eek: short haul airplanes, I'll take a Convair 580... a real airliner... :yes:
 
Sleek-Jet said:
I'd take the Dash-8 as well... very quiet and roomy compared to the RJ's...

Actually, if we had our choice of of dream :eek: short haul airplanes, I'll take a Convair 580... a real airliner... :yes:
Click to expand...
Agree.

Had a good time coming back from Madison, WI yesterday. Unfortunately had to go through Chicago - almost never good. :no:

Sat on the runway in Madison for two hours before returning to the gate, no being able to get to a jetway, then taking off to Chicago for a 25 minute flight. Three hours on a CRJ 100. Then another one hour wait in another CRJ before taking off on a 1.5 hour slight back to RDU. Bordered on cruel and inhumane.
 
NC Pilot said:
Agree.

Had a good time coming back from Madison, WI yesterday. Unfortunately had to go through Chicago - almost never good. :no:

Sat on the runway in Madison for two hours before returning to the gate, no being able to get to a jetway, then taking off to Chicago for a 25 minute flight. Three hours on a CRJ 100. Then another one hour wait in another CRJ before taking off on a 1.5 hour slight back to RDU. Bordered on cruel and inhumane.
Click to expand...

You might well have been able to drive it faster! :goofy:
 
NC Pilot said:
Had a good time coming back from Madison, WI yesterday. Unfortunately had to go through Chicago - almost never good. :no:

Sat on the runway in Madison for two hours before returning to the gate, no being able to get to a jetway, then taking off to Chicago for a 25 minute flight. Three hours on a CRJ 100. Then another one hour wait in another CRJ before taking off on a 1.5 hour slight back to RDU. Bordered on cruel and inhumane.
Click to expand...

Wow.

Thanks to ORD, I often hear "Eagle flight xxxx, taxi to north holding bay, expect release at ....." at MSN.

FWIW, driving from MSN to ORD is about 130 miles/2 hours, or Van Galder runs a very nice bus service from downtown Madison to ORD.

Mark, MSN->RDU is only 4.5 hours in a 182RG... What on earth were you doing on the spam cans?
 
Interior aside, at least Mitsubishi created something that doesn't look like every other regional jet flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top