Goblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 5740 times:
I posted a similar topic before if any of you recall in regards to airbus. This time, upon the new release of the CRJ-1000 for BritAir, what reason did Canadair-Jet have for skipping over the 800? Not to mention -300-500. this is not a criticism of canadair under no circumstances.
challengerdan From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4925 times:
All about marketing.
Here is the family tree:
100: Original CRJ100. Basically, based on Challenger 601, with a major update (systems and avionics) and fuselage extensions.
200: CRJ200 better performing engines (CF34-3B), and other details (weights, parts, etc)
300: Challenger 300 Corporate jet (no actual relation to Challenger family of airplanes, only for marketing puposes)
400: CRJ440. Floor plan for 44 pax, in response to scope clauses in effect at the time.
500: never used yet, other than unverified rumors in the mid 2000s about a CRJ200 format based on the CRJ700 engines and wing.
600: Challenger 600/601/604/605 The original corporate jet that spawned it all.
700: CRJ700/701/705 Updated technology Regional Jets for the growing markets and needs(wing, engines, avionics, etc). 705 is a reduced seating 900
800: Challenger 850/870/890 Corporate conversions of CRJs. Based on CR2/7/9. Current 850 has notable differences from CRJ, exit configuration, fuel capacity, baseline equipment, etc.
900: CR7 with fuselage extensions, upgraded systems when needed.
1000: CR9 with Fuselage extensions, slightly bigger wing, carbon brakes, rudder-by-wire, introduction of Collins Proline21 avionics systems. Stop gap measure while bringing the C-Series to the market.
if your flight goes MX in YUL, I might be called to fix it!