Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ANA Reported To Launch MRJ This Month  
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6441 posts, RR: 34
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

ATI reports that MHI plans to officially launch the MRJ - the 86 to 96 seat MRJ90 and the 70 to 80 seat MRJ70, by the end of this month "on the back of an order from an airline, widely tipped to be ANA." On the same day MHI will announce some new investors in the programme (possibly Toyota as one of them).

MHI is in talks with Saab for product support in Europe and the Americas according to the MHI PR rep. Currently, signed up are Parker Aerospace to provide the hydraulic systems; Rockwell Collins and Nabtesco the flight control system; Sumitomo Precision the landing gear; Pratt & Whitney the Geared Turbofan; Hamilton Sundstrand the electric power systems, air management system, auxiliary power unit, inert gas system, high lift actuation system and fire and overheat protection system; and Rockwell Collins to provide its Pro Line Fusion avionics system.

Surprising is that target EIS has been moved up to 2012 from 2013.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8769 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4699 times:

For those like me who didn't know, the MRJ is the:

Mitsubishi Regional Jet.

* Significant composites in fuselage and wing
* Mitsubishi is a major Boeing 787 contractor
* 70 and 90 seat capacities

See their very nice flash site: www.mrj-japan.com

Very interesting new aircraft! With all the "noise" in the RJ world, I had not learned about this one. Looks great.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4538 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Thread starter):
Surprising is that target EIS has been moved up to 2012 from 2013.

Good news indeed! Nice to see a project moving up, iso the string of delays we have become used to (a380 and 787)

Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
Very interesting new aircraft! With all the "noise" in the RJ world, I had not learned about this one. Looks great.

I agree, this aircraft has IMHO lots of potential. I hope they will also produce a MRJ 110, giving them a nice family of aircraft. This one has more potential IMHO that the Superjet and ARJ, which are not as "new tech" as the MRJ. Time will tell I suppose...



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 386 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4453 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 2):
I hope they will also produce a MRJ 110,

Unfortunately Boeing does not allow them to go beyond 100pax. The wing would be good enough for a 110seater - other than the SSJ wing - but when I sopke to MHI people at Le Bourget last year they ruled out building a bigger jet than the -90.


User currently offlineAmtrakGuy From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4395 times:

If you look at the link, I don't think they have baggage cargo under the floor -- it's in back of the plane similiar to CRJ/ERJ.

And, one of the charts -- they claims they'll be lower cost in running the plane -- from looking at it, it seems they're saying approximate 50% lower cost. I wonder how could they really come up with that estimate savings.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6441 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4236 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 2):
This one has more potential IMHO that the Superjet and ARJ, which are not as "new tech" as the MRJ. Time will tell I suppose...

If ANA and JAL do order the MRJ then it will obviously have a good intial launch. However, there could be some very interesting market dynamics... the 70-110 seat field could be quite crowded... and with not enough room for all to be profitable.

Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 4):
If you look at the link, I don't think they have baggage cargo under the floor -- it's in back of the plane similiar to CRJ/ERJ.

The MRJ is like the CRJ700/900/1000... it has belly and rear baggage/cargo

Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 4):
And, one of the charts -- they claims they'll be lower cost in running the plane -- from looking at it, it seems they're saying approximate 50% lower cost. I wonder how could they really come up with that estimate savings.

MHI is claiming approximately 30% lower fuel not 50% lower costs.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAmtrakGuy From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4051 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 5):
Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 4):
If you look at the link, I don't think they have baggage cargo under the floor -- it's in back of the plane similiar to CRJ/ERJ.

The MRJ is like the CRJ700/900/1000... it has belly and rear baggage/cargo

Well, the drawing didn't say the belly is also a baggage/cargo. Looking at the plane drawing, there are no doors. I'll take your word for it.l

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 5):
Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 4):
And, one of the charts -- they claims they'll be lower cost in running the plane -- from looking at it, it seems they're saying approximate 50% lower cost. I wonder how could they really come up with that estimate savings.

MHI is claiming approximately 30% lower fuel not 50% lower costs.

Okay, thanks for the correction. But do you think they'll really be 30% lower than today's Ejet 70/90?


User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4039 times:

Crowded market for sure. You have to wonder how long BBD will milk their current RJ platform with major improvements or development of a new advanced regional program in the 50 to 90 seat market.

If the MRJ is really that much more efficient, is it conceivable that the aircraft will make strides with current CRJ operators looking to reduce operating costs?


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4030 times:



Quoting Sirtoby (Reply 3):
Unfortunately Boeing does not allow them to go beyond 100pax.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does Boeing have to do with the MRJ?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 5):
However, there could be some very interesting market dynamics... the 70-110 seat field could be quite crowded... and with not enough room for all to be profitable.

Agreed, but if the savings on the MRJ turn out to be as significant as projected, they will have a clear edge over Bombardier and Embraer. Interesting dynamics indeed...



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

I am guessing that MHI's business agreeement with Boeing prevents them from going into that market. Does anyone know?

Of course MHI coould disolve there relationship with Boeing like they are doing with Bombardier if they so choose.  Smile


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3956 times:



Quoting Aeronut (Reply 9):
Of course MHI coould disolve there relationship with Boeing like they are doing with Bombardier if they so choose

Certainly in the actual context of never ending delays on the B787.
Mitsubishi Heavy only receives its real money when the aircraft start to be delivered and can seek compensation from Boeing if they aren't ordering the amount contracted.

I think it's more Boeing needing Mitsubishi Heavy than the opposite, really.

The MRJ will be a great machine, great to hear that EIS may be a year sooner than initially planned.


User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 9):
Of course MHI could disolve their relationship with Boeing like they are doing with Bombardier if they so choose.

Oh, I was only joking in the short-term to medium term, but MHI has seemed to have used knowledge its gained with Bombardier and Boeing to now confidently enter the regional market. Their strategy is now apparent, and it should not surprise anyone, MHI is a HUGE company compared to the Bombardiers and Embraers.. The real question is: who is gonna make the 787 replacement in 20 years.... Boeing? I sincerely doubt it.

How does that phrase go. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Unlike Fairchild-Dornier, MHI has has the financial resources to see this project through, and now Bombadier is going to have to step it up a notch else it will be a supplier to MHI

[Edited 2008-03-09 13:27:53]

[Edited 2008-03-09 13:28:29]

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6441 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3799 times:



Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 6):
Okay, thanks for the correction. But do you think they'll really be 30% lower than today's Ejet 70/90?

No, the graph MHI presents is a very inaccurate marketing tool. MHI is using the E190 as the baseline for their claims of "approx. 30% reduction" but that is versus the MRJ70 and what is the point of comparing the MRJ70 to the E190 on trip costs?!?!? BBD does the same in their marketing material. Imagine the trip cost delta of a C172 vs an A380.  Wink (Just making an obvious but no less incorrect comparison).

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 7):
You have to wonder how long BBD will milk their current RJ platform with major improvements or development of a new advanced regional program in the 50 to 90 seat market.

It really is cost effective to milk the current RJ platform versus developing a new RJ program.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 7):
If the MRJ is really that much more efficient, is it conceivable that the aircraft will make strides with current CRJ operators looking to reduce operating costs?

Not to down play the MRJ efficiencies (which might be in the order of only 10%)... but the MRJ isn't really that much more efficient to divert most CRJ operators.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 11):
The real question is: who is gonna make the 787 replacement in 20 years.... Boeing? I sincerely doubt it.

The 787 will not need replacing in 20 years... it is CFRP.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 11):
and now Bombadier is going to have to step it up a notch else it will be a supplier to MHI

BBD will never be a supplier to MHI... too high cost. To try to keep their own costs down BBD has set up a plant in Mexico.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineUA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1741 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3659 times:



Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 4):
And, one of the charts -- they claims they'll be lower cost in running the plane -- from looking at it, it seems they're saying approximate 50% lower cost. I wonder how could they really come up with that estimate savings.

Leave it to the Japanese to take our technology and make it better. Also, as someone else mentioned, its 30% lower.


User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Interesting aircraft. Will be interesting to see if they go past the YS-11s success of an ANA and Piedmont (equiv) order.


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6441 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3529 times:



Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 13):
Leave it to the Japanese to take our technology and make it better.

Actually, they didn't. For example, the CFRP for the 787 is from a Japanese company (Toray).

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 13):
Also, as someone else mentioned, its 30% lower.

But that is very misleading as it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. MHI is pitting their 70-seater against a 90-seat competitor. Furthermore, it is under conditions favouring the 70-seater.

Quoting Voodoo (Reply 14):
Interesting aircraft.

It is indeed for an RJ... from the virtually all CFRP design to the geared fan engine.

Quoting Voodoo (Reply 14):
Will be interesting to see if they go past the YS-11s success of an ANA and Piedmont (equiv) order.

Well, JAL is also evaluating the aircraft, so between ANA and JAL there would be a reasonable number to launch the program. Furthermore, I see the 90-seater as having far more potential than the C110 in terms of cracking mainline carriers in the US for several reasons.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

ILFC is reported to be taking a close look.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...as-it-ponders-100-seater-move.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3474 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 8):
Pardon my ignorance, but what does Boeing have to do with the MRJ?

Boeing seems to be implicitly backing the MRJ as the product which would slot in below Y1. They have been providing engineering and technical support.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6441 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3425 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 16):
ILFC is reported to be taking a close look.....

What is really attractive to ILFC is that they would not have any competition from GECAS in leasing the MRJ out to airlines, which makes the economics of the MRJ far more interesting... especially if the there is a loosening of Scope and/or airlines start to follow an Air Canada model at the low end of the size spectrum.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1672 posts, RR: 49
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

I foresee much fun at the WTO.

User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3323 times:



Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 4):
If you look at the link, I don't think they have baggage cargo under the floor -- it's in back of the plane similiar to CRJ/ERJ.



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 5):
The MRJ is like the CRJ700/900/1000... it has belly and rear baggage/cargo

And unlike those a/c, the bins are on the starboard side of the a/c, much like with the E-Jets.

What's interesting is that the MRJ looks similar to the E-Jets, the FD-728JET, the CSeries (and it's canceled predecessor the BRJX), and the Superjet.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6441 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3243 times:



Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 19):
I foresee much fun at the WTO.

From what I have read MHI hasn't contravened any WTO guidelines. Certainly, with the launch of the MRJ almost a foregone conclusion, there would have been sabre rattling by now by any offended parties.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 20):
What's interesting is that the MRJ looks similar to the E-Jets, the FD-728JET, the CSeries (and it's canceled predecessor the BRJX), and the Superjet.

That will happend with wing mounted engines but the nose profile and cockpit windows are all quite different... after all the CSeries, BRJ-X & FD were all quite a bit wider with 5 abreast seating. I think that what is interesting is that the external fuselage diameter is very close to the CRJs but the interior cabin dimensions are close to the E-Jets.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
ANA Ready To Launch 767-300BCF posted Tue Oct 25 2005 11:23:25 by Bells
Project Lauren (BA) To Launch This Week? posted Mon Jan 7 2008 08:03:46 by LHR777
ANA 'to Launch Low-cost Carriers' posted Sun Sep 10 2006 23:05:26 by Carnoc
CX To Receive A SA 744 This Month posted Sat Feb 11 2006 03:00:40 by N754PR
New PIA Uniforms To Debut This Month With 777 posted Wed Jan 7 2004 20:37:32 by Airmale
ANZ Pilots To Strike For 2 Days This Month (July) posted Tue Jul 2 2002 08:51:02 by Singapore_Air
Cathay To Operate 7 744's To AKL This Month! posted Sun Feb 3 2002 00:45:14 by ZK-NBT
FedEX To Order 10 A380s By This Month posted Wed Dec 19 2001 21:27:33 by Raggi
EVA Finally To Launch TPE-PNH This October posted Sun Aug 12 2001 21:21:39 by Jiml1126
G-VROS To Be Received By VS This Month? posted Fri Apr 6 2001 21:16:03 by Englandair