Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mitsubishi Stretches MRJ To 100 Seats  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14441 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?).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ajor-changes-to-mrj-programme.html

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14421 times:

Good looking plane, too...  drool 

User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14402 times:

Hope it will sell some copies to Europe (Air Berlin)  Wink


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2601 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14378 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.  Wow! 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.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14348 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)
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14311 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.



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, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14258 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.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14187 times:



Quoting Sirtoby (Reply 6):
We saw the potential for a 100+ seater when we analyzed the MRJ in May 2007

Who is we ??



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2243 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14166 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?  duck 


Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14127 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 7):
Who is we ??

Me and my colleague...


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14078 times:



Quoting Sirtoby (Reply 9):
Me and my colleague...

at a large German airline or an even larger German airline  Wink



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1560 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14003 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.


User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13954 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 10):
at a large German airline or an even larger German airline

No airline!  Smile
But aerospace industry!


User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13952 times:



Quoting Parapente (Reply 11):
China with the 121

121? You mean the ARJ21? But that's a 90 seater and I do not think that the -900 version will be built - probably died for the 919...


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13901 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..



User currently offlineSxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13879 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
I doubt if the Japanse have the marketing, sales and aftermarket process to challenge them on a global scale.

I though Boeing has signed on to provide marketing, sales and aftermarket support for the MRJ.


User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13812 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.


User currently offlineKmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 161 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13751 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  worried 


User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1560 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 13686 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.


User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 13631 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...


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5501 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 13489 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?

Doubtful, but possible?

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 13434 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.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 13387 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.


User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13310 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.

Tod


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19510 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12616 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.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 25, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12507 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
NEVER doubt the Japanese. They are marketing, sales, aftermarket, and industrial giants. If they think they can take down Embraer, they probably can.

They were the only manufacturer at the Regl Airline Assoc convention with a full cabin mockup. The MRJ already had wider seats, some other dimensional advantages over competitors. I too would not underestimate them.

Boeing & Airbus would be wise to not cede this whole segment of the market. Looks like each are too late to the party in many respects.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12783 times:



Quoting Kmz (Reply 17):
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.

"Easily" is quite an overstatement. Apart from that, there's a trade between aerodynamic efficiency, weight, and manufacturing cost. That's the reason why aerodynamicists never get the extra span they ask for.

Quoting Sirtoby (Reply 19):
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...

Depends on how much SFC had been traded in for lower maintenance cost when the CF34-8 was conceived. 5% may have been okay back then, but in the meantime, with the rise in fuel cost, the balance has significantly changed.

Quoting Tod (Reply 23):
The wing will still be CFRP. Only the wingbox is switching to aluminum.

Do you mean wing = outer wing and wingbox = center wing box?  scratchchin 


User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11356 times:



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 20):

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 taking a risk here. They are really risking losing Boeing's support, but if they really succeed with this plane, they could quickly make it A vs. B vs. M.



heroes get remembered but legends never die
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11429 posts, RR: 58
Reply 28, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11265 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
No doubt Embraer will have to come up with a better engine (GTF?).

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 will have to offer better financing and less profits.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
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..

Japan can challenge Embraer but it's not that cheap and easy. I would say everyone's mission is the same as Embraer against Bombardier, but i don't expect Embraer to keep waiting just with the E-jets and they might come with something new and better.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 29, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10948 times:



Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 27):
I don't think Boeing will just give up the 100-150 seat market without a fight.

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 low-yield. Nevertheless, both Boeing and Airbus made half-hearted forays into this very market with the A318 and the 737-600. But this was at a time when their respective CEOs thought they could win a war of attrition and engagaged in disastrous peeing contest for market share in marginal segments - each in the hope the other competitor would loose even more money. I think competition is much more healthy now.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10591 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
NEVER doubt the Japanese. They are marketing, sales, aftermarket, and industrial giants. If they think they can take down Embraer, they probably can.



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 29):
You can't give up something you don't have.

I think it is slowly becoming clear <150 seats will not be a priority for Airbus and boeing. As rheinbote said their stakes in this segment have evoparated during the last decade.

I wonder how this aircraft will compare up to the CRJ700/900/1000 NextGen, the other 70-100 seat competitor. Maybe the CRJ's will need new engines too?



One wonders what GE will do. They own the RJ market new with the CF34 & need to offer a NG34 with eCore technology soon IMO.


User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 31, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10532 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
One wonders what GE will do. They own the RJ market new with the CF34 & need to offer a NG34 with eCore technology soon IMO.

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 disadvantage: the cabin of the MRJ now is marginally roomier than the EJets and takeoff performance of the MRJ is much better than both competitors.
But BBD is busy with the CSeries, wants to bring to market the Q400X and has to do something with their Global's to compete against the G650 - so they probably won't have the ressources to do something very quick on the CRJ front...


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10501 times:

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 number of suppliers and 'national pride' considerations make this an area of the market A and B will be happy to avoid! The following seem to cater for all tastes, offering varying benefits in economics, comfort, ruggedness and range...

AN148
Superjet

E Jets

CRJ1000
C Series

MRJ

ARJ21

E Jets

Someone is going to get their fingers burnt, and with the relatively small domestic market, lack of existing customer base and higher labour costs than many of the other competitors, I fear for the MRJ



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 10460 times:

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 acceptable to have 100 seats?

User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2601 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10342 times:



Quoting Kmz (Reply 17):

It seems that the regional aircraft manufacturers can only improve efficiency by relying on new engine technology. Mmmmm, extremely boring

Sad for airplane fans, but that's the current situation. The aircraft designs in this segment are pretty much optimized already. Systems upgrades, weight savings here and there, aerodynamic tweaks etc bring incremental improvements, but no step change. Even in the A320/737 segment, A&B have stated that new engine technology is a must for any significant efficiency improvement.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 26):
Do you mean wing = outer wing and wingbox = center wing box?

Not too clear from the article. Looks like the center wing box for sure, the rest is hard to say from the info available.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21):

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.

Congrats to them for being practical and not going for CFRP as a sort of "religion". They asked themselves the question: "does CFRP make sense in this area or not?", did the trade off study, and the answer for this particular case was no.


User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10077 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 26):
Quoting Tod (Reply 23):
The wing will still be CFRP. Only the wingbox is switching to aluminum.

Do you mean wing = outer wing and wingbox = center wing box?

Center wing box = Aluminum

Wing structure outboard of the fuselage = CFRP


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10013 times:



Quoting Tod (Reply 35):
Wing structure outboard of the fuselage = CFRP

I don't think so.


User currently offlineAmicus From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9996 times:

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 flight global, to quote the flightglobal article:

Mitsubishi Aircraft has introduced a stretched variant to its MRJ regional jet family and unveiled extensive design changes, including using aluminium instead of carbonfibre composites for the aircraft's wings.
The changes are being made after discussions with potential customers in Europe and the USA, and the final design will now be frozen in mid-2010 instead of the third-quarter of 2009.
As a result, the first flight is delayed from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2012. Launch customer All Nippon Airways will receive its first aircraft in the first quarter of 2014 instead of the fourth quarter of 2013.

"Although first flight is delayed by two quarters, the number of flight test aircraft will be increased from four to five, which will shorten the flight test period," says Mitsubishi Aircraft. The changes are necessary to ensure that the company comes up with a competitive regional jet, it adds.
Mitsubishi could add a 100-seat model to the already announced 92-seat MRJ90 and 78-seat MRJ70, potentially putting it in contention against Bombardier's CRJ1000 and Embraer's E190.
"The MRJ stretch model is added to the family to respond to customer needs. The launch is subject to demand and business case," it says.
With the aluminium wings, the company moves away from its earlier aim of using significant amounts of composite materials for the airframe. The result is that the only remaining composite parts will be the empennage, horizontal tail and vertical tail, amounting to 10-15% of the total airframe.
"Conceptually, this is a very big change," admits Mitsubishi Aircraft. "Structural changes are easier and require shorter lead-time with aluminium wings. With an aluminium wing box, the wing structure can be more easily optimised for the MRJ70/90 and the stretch model, which enhances the overall competitiveness of the MRJ family."

Note that Mitsubishi themselves state "only remaining composite parts will be the empennage, horizontal tail and vertical tail, amounting to 10-15% of the total airframe".
Clearly this is a major change, as Mitsubishi themselves state, and I would hope that both Knz and Tod correct their totally inaccurate previous posts. Now why did Mitsubishi drop composite wings is a more much interesting topic as would be the views of Boeing concerning this change by their major 787 composite wing partner.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9988 times:



Quoting Amicus (Reply 37):
With an aluminium wing box, the wing structure can be more easily optimised for the MRJ70/90 and the stretch model, which enhances the overall competitiveness of the MRJ family."



Quoting Amicus (Reply 37):
w why did Mitsubishi drop composite wings is a more much interesting topic as would be the views of Boeing concerning this change by their major 787 composite wing partner.

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 (contrary to "just another layer" theories).


User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9982 times:



Quoting Amicus (Reply 37):
I would hope that both Knz and Tod correct their totally inaccurate previous posts.

My post was base on MRJ newsletter Vol. 5 September 2009.

If the info they published was inaccurate, then I apologize for spreading misleading information.


User currently offlineAmicus From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9941 times:

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 it a very significant change both for Mitsubishi and has some potentially adverse implications re second line for 787 also.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 41, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 9915 times:

Some harsh blogging found (Extracted from... http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/ )

In a very loud wake up call to Boeing, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which makes the carbon fibre wings for its troubled 787 Dreamliner project, has cancelled plans to use composites in major sections of its own MRJ regional jet project, including its wing.

The 787 project was plunged into disarray after a Mitsubishi built wing broke prematurely during a stress test involving a static assembly of the Dreamliner in May.

.....


This 787 con, which featured the roll out of a shell of a jet in July 2007, and was the subject of so many seriously deficient claims by Boeing, was sucked up to by a compliant media that has only just started to ask the hard questions.

What exactly did Boeing expect to get from tame reporting? It didn’t help the project, and
probably delayed to some extent the onset of reality.

Neither Qantas nor any other customer on public record, is shown to have commissioned expert independent analysis of the claims for high composite structural usage such as proposed for the 787.

Instead the college kids who look like they should have been Mormon missionaries, stomped the world talking up the 787 as a ‘game changer.’

These are the two most dishonest words in aviation language. The only game changed by the 787 has been that of getting away with fantasy claims for a 767 replacement that on all the real indications will be larger, heavier, more expensive to maintain, and with shorter range.

Boeing is a company where hype has suppressed reality right up to the last possible moment. And not been challenged in general by the mainstream media, until now.

Scott Carson, who was relieved of his ‘leadership’ role at the 787, was replaced as president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes by James Albaugh, whose previous achievements include the failure of the Connexion by Boeing sky internet product, and the failure to get a fully functioning Wedgetail airborne command and early warning aircraft ready for delivery to the RAAF at anything remotely resembling the original specifications or timetable.

Boeing is a case study of how rhetoric, spinning, and media cultivation can critically weaken if not destroy an enterprise.

Can it now provide a similar case study in how to repair itself? That depends on its customers, who had ordered over 900 Dreamliners, and are battling the GFC, as well as its own ability to make the 787 work.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9304 times:

Apart from replacing CRFP / stretching other changes include :

- Lowering speed to save fuel / (increase range ?)
- A higher cabin for easier moving around (western passengers, it was 2.01 m))
- Widening the cabin for comfort and possibly structural efficiency of longer versions
- Enlarging overhead bins 12%
- Combining 2 cargo compartments / lowering the cargo floor for easier logistics



User currently offlineKmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 161 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9249 times:



Quoting Amicus (Reply 37):
I would hope that both Knz and Tod correct their totally inaccurate previous posts

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 Mitsubishi obviously has a lot of experience with CFRP, questions emerge what the real reason is why they decided to use Aluminum instead of CFRP:

- Is a CFRP wing at the end of the day inferior to an AL wing (taking into account development, production, fleet upgrade, aerodynamic efficiency, maintenance, etc)?
- If yes, then what will future aircraft form A and B look like?
- Or have the feet of Mitsubishi started trembling after the B787 experience and they simply want to reduce risks?

So only my thoughts and no need to take them back.


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...
Alaska And 100 Seats posted Fri Jul 3 2009 14:53:55 by Flyboy80
Etihad To Order Up To 100 Aircrafts In 2 Months posted Sat May 10 2008 05:09:25 by Aviationbuff
LGW Will Be Down To 100 BA Flights This Summer. posted Sat Feb 16 2008 09:07:44 by 8herveg
AWAS: Place Order For Up To 100 Airbus A320s posted Tue Jan 8 2008 22:22:02 by PanAm_DC10
AF Fined For Forcing 175 Kg Pax To Buy 2 Seats posted Fri Nov 23 2007 00:27:57 by Helvknight
Emirates Closer To 100 X A350 / 787 Order posted Tue Jun 12 2007 21:31:36 by EI321
Asked To Move Seats On A WN 737 posted Thu May 31 2007 21:49:22 by SkyHarborsHome
Some See Boeing Shares Climbing To $100 - Jul. 18, posted Wed Jul 19 2006 03:40:14 by Jepstein
Air Deccan (India) To Offer Seats For Rs. 1/- posted Thu May 5 2005 10:33:59 by Mrniji
DL Plan To Eliminate Up To 100 Planes posted Thu Sep 16 2004 15:33:11 by Western737
LGW Will Be Down To 100 BA Flights This Summer. posted Sat Feb 16 2008 09:07:44 by 8herveg
AWAS: Place Order For Up To 100 Airbus A320s posted Tue Jan 8 2008 22:22:02 by PanAm_DC10
AF Fined For Forcing 175 Kg Pax To Buy 2 Seats posted Fri Nov 23 2007 00:27:57 by Helvknight
Emirates Closer To 100 X A350 / 787 Order posted Tue Jun 12 2007 21:31:36 by EI321
Asked To Move Seats On A WN 737 posted Thu May 31 2007 21:49:22 by SkyHarborsHome
Some See Boeing Shares Climbing To $100 - Jul. 18, posted Wed Jul 19 2006 03:40:14 by Jepstein
Air Deccan (India) To Offer Seats For Rs. 1/- posted Thu May 5 2005 10:33:59 by Mrniji