Talk:Mitsubishi SpaceJet

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mitsubishi Regional Jet. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710004619/http://en.ce.cn/World/biz/ to http://en.ce.cn/World/biz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

main picture change
neither are inflight, the proposed one is similar except for a cleaner background.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A flying one would be nice but I dont have a problem with your proposed change. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Paper variants specs
Hi Marc, You've made a lot of informative contributions to the Mitsubishi MRJ page. I was a little surprised, however, to see my edits to the Spec Table removed, as I believe information on the MRJ variants is pertinent. The information comes from the official Mitsubishi MRJ brochure so it is up-to-date and accurate. Why not keep it in, as it adds context to the aircraft's development and capabilities — range, etc. Some may find the information useful. --unsigned, 19:21 UTC+2, 18 May 2019 TheGrayLion [moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste]


 * Because those are too detailed and are details for paper variants (for tax reasons), not real variants, see WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:WEIGHT--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is better and clearer to cover the basics of this type info in article text instead. Mitsubishi seems to be moving away from the MRJ90 also according to these some articles such as this one. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More like refining the MRJ70, anyway, we'll see next month.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

To an extent I see your point. However, other pages, such as the Boeing 787 and the Bombardier CRJ100/200, provide similar spec information in chart form. Regarding the 787 Dreamliner, specs are shown for 1-class and 2-class seating, as well as maximum and exit limit. The CRJ100/200 page provides range, MTOW, and takeoff, for both the ER and LR versions. The Boeing 767 page is another that provides similar info: 1-class, 2-class, 3-class, and limit, as well as MTOW, max payload, OEW, fuel capacity, and range, for the standard and ER versions.

May I ask why the LR specs for the MRJ variants were chosen, instead of Standard or ER? -- unsigned : 01:16, 19 May 2019‎ TheGrayLion


 * CRJ weight variants could be deleted too. Different 787 class seating are more relevant for a long haul widebody than for a regional jet, but 1 and 2 class could be included for the MRJ also. The 767 has a special history and the std/ER variants were really different (larger fuel tanks...). Paper variants may come as the manufacturer can sell a cheaper, MTOW restricted version in paper to have lower ATC charges if the operator don't need the range. Otherwise identical. For the MRJ, the LR is the heaviest, others are restricted versions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

SpaceJet rename
"This entire paragraph reads like a marketing brochure (with Embraer-knocking copy) - is this appropriate?"


 * It is necessary to explain how MAC managed to better cope with scope clauses, and the comparison with the E2-175 is useful for that. It's taken from the linked source, with is neither a MAC neither an embraer outlet. Feel free to rewrite the paragraph to sound less "marketing" (but take care of not removing information). thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Spec table
I'm wondering if it's still pertinent to keep the specifications of the MRJ70 in the table. MITAC, as many of you know, decided to move forward with the SpaceJet100 model, in effect cancelling the MRJ70. The MRJ70 is no more, will never be commercially produced, so maintaining specs in the table seems redundant. Thoughts? Feedback?

Also, a couple of small sub-sections are pretty rough reading-wise. If I can find time, I'll try to edit for readability. Almost always with my edits, I make efforts not to cut out any information; my goal is simply to improve readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrayLion (talk • contribs) 05:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a change to the tables, especially now that the M100 has firm orders. I tried to make an edit earlier, but it was reverted. I'll get a stronger source and re-attempt it later. Specter Koen (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Air Mandalay Order Not Cancelled
Information to be added or removed: Please remove Air Mandalay from the Cancelled Orders table. Explanation of issue: Air Mandalay is still a customer and their order is not cancelled. References supporting change: I work for Mitsubishi Aircraft. We were contacted by Air Mandalay specifically about this error. There has been no announcement about a change in their order and they have asked us to rectify.  202.248.143.84 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the reference you gave indicates the order is still standing. The only press release regarding Air Mandalay is from July 2014. There is no way to verify that you work for Mitsubishi, or that whoever contacted you works for Air Mandalay (which is supposed to have stopped operating anyway). I don't see why anyone should edit based on what you said.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * air mandalay was put in the cancelled orders table with the reason Ceased operation in 2018 and a 5 Sep 2018 ref. It stands as a good reason and a good ref, but maybe you have a ref for the operations restart?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

E175?
If there is a reason for the comments about the Embraer E175 in this document, it is not clear what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.137.28 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to be for comparison of performance with a similar aircraft (E175-E2) that has also had issues with complying with US scope clause requirements. The comparisons are sourced from a Leeham News article (a reliable source for aviation news analysis) and so should be retained.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Entry into service dates
Firstly, it's not clear what "NET" means in the date. Secondly, it doesn't seem that any of the dates in the table are accurate anymore. The references given (with the exception of Mesa) are from five or more years ago. In recent times, Mitsubishi has halted development on both the M90 and M100, with no target dates for type certification or entry into service. It's also not clear why, given the previously stated 2023 entry date for the M100, the only order for Mesa was not scheduled to be delivered until 2024, although I suppose that may have been Mesa's preference.

I'd suggest either removing the column from the table, or removing the individual dates with a global "development currently suspended" message, with appropriate references.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The planes are sitting engineless and abandoned in a hangar. They didn't even preserve (mothball) them nor have any plans to. I think 'development currently suspended' would be a good change. This article might turn into a 'was' instead of an 'is' if you know what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.94.133 (talk)

I second the change to reflect the suspended state of the development to change article to was from is and to replace the delivery dates. Should Mitsubishi revive the development the article can be changed back. Jbarthel (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * References are needed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

See the update to the Prototype section. I can tell you the others will be scrapped.

Orders table update?
Since the MRJ has been suspended indefinitely, the program will not be restarted, and one plane has already been scrapped, technically there are no current orders anymore. The reference for Mesa Airlines link no longer works either. This plane is dead. Can the table be changed to reflect that these aren't current orders but 'planned orders' or 'intended customer orders' or 'orders prior to program suspension' or something like that? 207.225.44.90 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)