Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13138 times:
Also the cabin becomes a bit heigher, wider.
Makes it a more direct competitor of the most succesfull Embraer 170/190 variant, the E190. No doubt Embraer will have to come up with a better engine (GTF?).
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2278 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13075 times:
If they're still making changes to the fuselage cross-section and wing box, it means the design is much less mature than what I initially thought.
It is also worth mentioning that they are going for an aluminum wing, rather than composite as initially planned. I guess they realized that composites don't bring the same benefits to a regional jet than they do to a long-range widebody, and have changed towards using CFRP as a means, rather than a goal in itself.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13045 times:
That's interesting, considering the discussions about a fully composite replacement for the 737, and makes you wonder how much different this plane will be from the current E Jets apart from the engines...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13008 times:
Quoting R2rho (Reply 3): If they're still making changes to the fuselage cross-section and wing box, it means the design is much less mature than what I initially thought.
That's why the final design freeze has been delayed as well, because of these changes.
From what I understand, the changes appear to be for the better, a lighter MRJ70, optimised wing for the MRJ90 and MRJ100 and a (slightly) bigger cabin. I also assume that using less CFRP means lower cost (they indicated shorter lead times for example). Very interesting... I really hope this jet sells very well, and IMHO the 100 seat variant is a very good move.
Sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 286 posts, RR: 22 Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12955 times:
We saw the potential for a 100+ seater when we analyzed the MRJ in May 2007 for the first time. The wing is sized big enough to have a very good performance, other than the CRJ1000 wing, which is a little bit too small.
It will be interesting what will be the final number of seats, I guess it will be closer to 110 and if they will raise the MTOW compared to the MRJ90. Range without increased MTOW would be in the 1200nm range for a 110 seater, the same range the CRJ1000 has.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12863 times:
I think the really interesting part of this story is that Mitsubishi is joining the delay party. EIS is now officially delayed from 4Q 2013 to 1Q 2014. I guess Mitsubishi wants to play together with the big guys and has the impression that delays are needed to be a member of the gang?
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1320 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12700 times:
So how many players are in the 100 + seat party now?
China with the 121
Russia with the Superjet
Canada with the C series
Brazil with the E series
Japan with the MRJ
Someone is going to loose a packet. I guess that all manufacturers will sweep up their own/local markets. That (very broadly speaking) leaves the US and Europe (plus India? - unless someone gives them some of the manufacturing - very likley IMHO). But even here one might expect Bombardier to have a "home" advantage in the US.Leaving just Europe.
There just is not the space.Embraer are the only ones who have gone out and really cracked the market. (Indeed I flew down on one only last week from Scotland -BMI). They will I believe continue to sweep all before them as right now there is no competition.
So Europe (and US). Interesting that it is precicely these two markets that MRJ has been talking to - surprise surprise!
Even more interesting are the changes that they are making in response to those talks.
Personally I am a great believe in the fundamental change that people like Ryanair are bringing to short haul aviation. It is all about cost reduction and they clearly wish to eliminate baggage handling - leaving this to the passangers or their own staff. I note with interest that the changes are threefold. One bringing the aircraft size up to a point that the LCC's would consider it. Two changing the configuration so that Range (they need) is not compromised. Thirdly changing the interior and exterior space so that more carry on luggage is possible (foe 100 pax) and any outsised baggage is easy to ship on board.
What does all this mean? It means that A&B better start getting theor act together fast and start producing the aircfaft that the LCC's are demanding or risk loosing their custom. So no warmed up post was design with new engines. It's a new aircraft with new engines.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12598 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 11): So how many players are in the 100 + seat party now?
China with the 121
Russia with the Superjet
Canada with the C series
Brazil with the E series
Japan with the MRJ
I think the ARJ and Superjet have their own markets. The CSeries are bigger. So Embraer is the King off the hill after the kings of the previous 25 yrs left (BAE and Fokker) and Dornier terminated early. With vision, persistance and government support Embraer pushed through & won the market for itself. I doubt if the Japanse have the marketing, sales and aftermarket process to challenge them on a global scale. New engines for the Embraers are inevitable IMO. I can not see them avoid talking to Pratt 7 whitney..
Sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 286 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12509 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): I can not see them avoid talking to Pratt 7 whitney..
I see them more as a first customer of a LEAP X. GE won't stand aside letting PW on their regional monopoly. PW managed to get onboard the CSeries and the MRJ, so there is a lot at stake for GE now...
Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 15): I though Boeing has signed on to provide marketing, sales and aftermarket support for the MRJ.
Never really! And they gave MHI a 100 seat limit - now that they are on the way to start a 100+ seater, it's over with their supprt, I guess - but I could be wrong, of course.
Kmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 138 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12448 times:
In my opinion this is the biggest mistake they could make.
The wing is absolutely well suited for the use of CFRP. With CFRP you can easily influence the aerolastic and structure characteristics especially with the layer build-up. State-of-the-art aerodynamic characteristics of the wings can be achieved more easily than by using aluminum.
The change of material could be a reaction to the B787 wing problems; if true this could raise even more questions about the B787 design maturity (but that is another issue).
It seems that the regional aircraft manufacturers can only improve efficiency by relying on new engine technology. Mmmmm, extremely boring
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1320 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12383 times:
As I mentioned I flew a 195 up and down to Scotland on business last week.
The plane is perfectly suited for this (primarily business) "day" traffic. The seats were fine -I banged my head on the bin compartment.My fault of course! I guess my mind was more used to the 320/737. But there were 2 "buts".One we had to "put on seat belts" 3 times on the flight going back (once on the way up). Of course this proves nothing in itself but I did wonder if a "light" aircraft such as this is more subject to turbulence.
Secondly the size of the interior very much restricted "carry on" baggage so such an aircraft would be no good for any holiday journey. Which is why I think MRJ have made the changes they have (for LCC's).
But as stated above it's going to loose them the support of Boeing I imagine.
Re re engine this aircraft. I thought that the 190 and 195's had quite "state of the art" engines already - but maybe I am wrong on this.
Sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 286 posts, RR: 22 Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12328 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 18): Re re engine this aircraft. I thought that the 190 and 195's had quite "state of the art" engines already - but maybe I am wrong on this.
Well, the CF34-10 is not quite the best when it copmes to SFC and thus fuel burn - but if it is as reliable as the CF34-8 is, then it's a good engine. Nothing is worse than an unreliable engine, no matter how good SFC is...
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4572 posts, RR: 28 Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12186 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 18): But as stated above it's going to loose them the support of Boeing I imagine.
Perhaps. I wonder, though, if Boeing - feeling the pinch of the 787 program - might be accepting that they wil likely not be designing an <140 seater, and instead will allow the MRJ to grow with their support?
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2031 posts, RR: 56 Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12131 times:
Quoting Kmz (Reply 17):
The wing is absolutely well suited for the use of CFRP. With CFRP you can easily influence the aerolastic and structure characteristics especially with the layer build-up. State-of-the-art aerodynamic characteristics of the wings can be achieved more easily than by using aluminum.
That is certainly the conventional wisdom... and yet, here we have engineers who are taking this from theory into practice, from design into manufacturing, and evidently finding that this is not the case after all. Why else would they switch to aluminum?
Mitsubishi is no newcomer to composites, and this change in their design approach is a significant repudiation of the supposed ease of mass producing cost-engineered CFRP aerostructures. IMHO this is the most noteworthy portion of this story.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12084 times:
IMO think the changes made by MHI are to better be able to make all three versions competitive more easily, decreasing the well known short version weight penalties.
Improving the cabin to be noticeable bigger then the Embraer's is a smart & important marketing move I think.
Interesting picture IMO :
Maybe some of these selling points relate to NOT using composites..
IMO they need a strategic partner for a credible after market process. They have little experience & face a cultural / language barrier. They are smart so probably know & will take action.
Tod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1687 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12007 times:
The wing will still be CFRP. Only the wingbox is switching to aluminum.
The MRJ has always been more aluminum than CFRP.
As of October 2008 it was 58% aluminum and 28% CFRP.
Now its even more aluminum.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16935 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11313 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): I doubt if the Japanse have the marketing, sales and aftermarket process to challenge them on a global scale
NEVER doubt the Japanese. They are marketing, sales, aftermarket, and industrial giants. If they think they can take down Embraer, they probably can.
25 Slider: They were the only manufacturer at the Regl Airline Assoc convention with a full cabin mockup. The MRJ already had wider seats, some other dimensiona
26 Rheinbote: "Easily" is quite an overstatement. Apart from that, there's a trade between aerodynamic efficiency, weight, and manufacturing cost. That's the reaso
27 PanAm788: I don't think Boeing will just give up the 100-150 seat market without a fight. They've already committed to the Y1. I think Mitsubishi is really tak
28 LipeGIG: Embraer has a bigger advantage right now: their product is now available, tested and is very reliable to airlines. How to fight this ? The others wil
29 Rheinbote: You can't give up something you don't have. Boeing disposed off the MD-95/717 because for them the 100-125 seat market was (and still is) comparably
31 Sirtoby: Exactly - the CRJ's are not that bad compared to the MRJ as they are light, due to their narrow cabin and small wing - but that's also their disadvan
32 AirbusA6: I can see a bloodbath in the 80-100 RJ market, BAe and Fokker lost money 20 years ago in this sector, and although the market has grown, the sheer num
33 Alangirvan: How will the 100 seater fit in with airlines which have scoping clauses? If AA has MD-80s and 738s as the smallest size in the main fleet, will it be
34 R2rho: Sad for airplane fans, but that's the current situation. The aircraft designs in this segment are pretty much optimized already. Systems upgrades, we
35 Tod: Center wing box = Aluminum Wing structure outboard of the fuselage = CFRP
37 Amicus: Both Kmz and Tod are not accurate and are making misstatements. The MRJ total wing and wing box have both been changed to aluminum per Mitsubishi and
38 Keesje: Flexibility to easier/faster optimization of different sub types. Boeing's tried to market the 787-10 for yrs but an easy upgrade seems an illusion (
39 Tod: My post was base on MRJ newsletter Vol. 5 September 2009. If the info they published was inaccurate, then I apologize for spreading misleading inform
40 Amicus: Thank you, Tod, for your post, it is much appreciated. The Flight Global article that I quoted was yesterday, (09-09-09). Thank you again and I deem i
41 Planemaker: Some harsh blogging found (Extracted from... http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/ ) In a very loud wake up call to Boeing, Mitsubishi Heavy Indust
42 Keesje: Apart from replacing CRFP / stretching other changes include : - Lowering speed to save fuel / (increase range ?) - A higher cabin for easier moving a
43 Kmz: Amicus, maybe there is a misunderstanding. All I wanted to say is that in my opinion, the wing structure is well suited to be made out of CFRP. As Mi
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6747 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6835 posts, 
I guess they realized that composites don't bring the same benefits to a regional jet than they do to a long-range widebody, and have changed towards using CFRP as a means, rather than a goal in itself.
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1932 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1228 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1687 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
