Author Topic: MRJ100-SPACEJET  (Read 177 times)

LuckyPierre

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
MRJ100-SPACEJET
« on: September 08, 2019, 10:32:14 pm »
Can we add the Mitsubishi Regional Jets? The new new SPACEJET family? Please and thank you much!

https://www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team/22738-mitsubishi-renames-mrj-as-spacejet-unveils-spacejet-m100

and specs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_SpaceJet

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Like Like x 1 View List

TAR18A

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: MRJ100-SPACEJET
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2019, 08:56:34 am »
+1. I'd love to see the SpaceJet family in this. Question is if we would see all configs (M70 (which is US scope cause compliant), 90, and 100), or only see one or two of them. Considering we have all four of the A320 family, and three parts of the B737 family (7C, 8, and MAX 9), I don't see any problem having both the M90 and M100.

EDIT: Forgot all about the M70. THAT's the scope cause compliant one. Whoops.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2019, 04:28:10 am by TAR18A »

IQuit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: MRJ100-SPACEJET
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2019, 08:59:25 pm »
Yeah, adding A319 & A321 open a can of worms for other fanboys to push for inclusion of their personal favorites which serve the same purpose, triggering rounds of massive aircraft replacement as newly added models obsolete existing models. Can there be a mechanism to slowly remove models no longer useful such as ARJ21 from the game?

TAR18A

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: MRJ100-SPACEJET
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2019, 04:25:42 am »
The ARJ21 is only useful to Chinese, NK, and Russian based airlines it seems. Any airline in a western country (or country with good relations with the west) would go for the Boeings, Embraers, and Airbuses of the world over Comac. But I do think that the SpaceJet could end up having a good role. For its seating capacity and its theoretical fuel burn rate, at the unit cost it's at, it could end up being a major player in the "short, regional hopper" market.

Personally, if we're going to end up having all aircraft of a certain family at some point, the "Airplane" tab can be streamlined to simply have collapsable lists of families instead. Instead of seeing four Airbuses from the same family separated, it would be neat to have them bunched up into a collapsable that says "A320 Family" or something. Same for the 737.

But then you have to ask, what of all the other one-off planes who're left alone? Like the B763ER for example. Then it might just be better to have each airplane manufacturer have their own list... but then you wind up having to do more clicks to compare one plane to another...

What were we talking about again?  ::)

neez

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: MRJ100-SPACEJET
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2019, 05:16:57 pm »
Personally I also think we should bother to not end up with 100s of options. Thus in my opinon it would make sense to define certain criteria. One that IMHO would definitely make sense is that the airplane in question has been delivered to customers and is (or was!) in active service...