Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MRJ On Track For First Flight In 2012  
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13430 posts, RR: 100
Posted (3 years 3 months 10 hours ago) and read 7085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is one of the four airframes Pratt's GTF will sit on. Of the 2013-2016 scheduled EIS, the MRJ is scheduled for EIS in 2014.

http://www.aviationweek.com

On the front page, the link has so many spaces it isn't working... (3rd article as I type)

"This will give Mitsubishi Aircraft sufficient time for first roll-out and first flight in 2012 as planned, notes Iwasa, adding that the manufacturer is confident it can have first flight soon after the roll-out ceremony."

Wow... roll out to first flight 'soon after.' Would would think?   

Lightsaber

[Edited 2011-08-26 11:37:31]

Edited as the aviationweek link is messing up!


[Edited 2011-08-26 11:38:49]


Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 6876 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Thread starter):
Wow... roll out to first flight 'soon after.' Would would think?

That's just crazy talk...they're just saying that to give us a laugh...



What the...?
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 6784 times:

Comparing the MRJ-90LR to E-190STD( its closest competitor) it seems to me that MRJ-90 should do well against E-190 given its 20% lighter weight, larger wingspan, and more efficient GTF engines. I expect the seat count difference to be smaller than the 10 seat(1 class) given that MRJ is only 18" shorter than E-190. I wonder if there are plans for MRJ-110.

General Specifications(rounded and from wikipedia):
....................................MRJ-90.......................E-190
Fuselage Length..............117.5..........................119 feet
Cabin Width........................9................................9 feet
Wingspan.......................101.4..........................94.25 feet
Seats..............................86-96..........................94-106

MTOW......................94,400....................105,400 lbs.
OEW........................49,800.......................61,900
Design Range................1,770.....................1,800 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
Engine Thrust..............17,000....................18,500 lbf

Ratios
OEW/MTOW.....................0.53...........................0.58
MTOW/Thrust....................2.77...........................2.85 (MRJ has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13430 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 6671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm much more impressed with the larger MRJ than the smaller. Hmmm...    Sales seem to agree.  
Progress is much better than two years ago. Now my rumor mill is quiet; that usually means work in progress is nominal.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
Wingspan.......................101.4..........................94.25 feet
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
OEW........................49,800.......................61,900

First, thank you. I would love to see a muti-way analysis in tech-ops comparing the MRJ, CR7/9, E-jets, and superjet. Take your time. I know I just asked for a lot!

Now what I was going to type:
Gotta love that CFRP wing!    Nice wingspan and lower weight.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
MTOW/Thrust....................2.77...........................2.85 (MRJ has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

A sin easily overcome by lower wing loading.    However, I'm not able to find the wing area of the MRJ. Does anyone have a link?

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
Design Range................1,770.....................1,800 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)

I'm much more confident that the C-series will beat promise than the MRJ. Nothing against Mitsubishi, they'll just have a tougher time meeting promise weight (due to the relatively shorter timeline to re-engineer parts for weight. Partially Mitsubishi was agressive on timeline, partially the MRJ details were changed 2 years ago!).
If the MRJ beats fuel burn by just 2%, it matches the E-jet fully on range. (Albeit, fractionally lower number of passengers). It will be interesting to compare the economics of the E-jets to the MRJ.

I personally compare the MRJ more to the CR7/CR9. The later as the passenger numbers line up a little better. Also, with trans-America flying the CR7 and with the MRJ90 on order, it looks as natural that the MRJ90 was bid against the CRJ-900.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months ago) and read 6504 times:

regardless of what manufacturer says, who do you think will roll-out and fly first, Cseries or MRJ?

Dash9


User currently offlineABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

With QF, JL and Mitsubishi looking at establishing a new joint airline - Jetstar Japan, could we expect some MRJ's in the fleet and would that lead to a first manufecturer being involved in running an airline too?

User currently offlinejoelyboy911 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2009, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6453 times:

Quoting ABpositive (Reply 5):
With QF, JL and Mitsubishi looking at establishing a new joint airline - Jetstar Japan, could we expect some MRJ's in the fleet and would that lead to a first manufecturer being involved in running an airline too?

"Mitsubishi" is rather a lot of different companies. Wikipedia calls it a conglomerate of several autonomous businesses, which legally speaking is probably more accurate. I do not know which part of Mitsubishi will be involved with the Jetstar Japan venture, but it is entirely possible that it won't be the Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation that is building the MRJ.

At any rate, United Airlines was once known as Boeing Air Transport, and the manufacturer and the airline were later both owned by the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation. I suppose Boeing as a manufacturing company never owned United as an airline company but they were certainly quite tied up.



Flown: NZ, NY, SJ, QF, UA, AC, EI, BE, TP, AF
User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6299 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
Gotta love that CFRP wing!

If my memory doesn't cheat me, I think the MRJ has a conventional wing, no CFRP.

What a shame if true...


User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 730 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6265 times:

Quoting kmz (Reply 7):

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
Gotta love that CFRP wing!

If my memory doesn't cheat me, I think the MRJ has a conventional wing, no CFRP.

What a shame if true...

In addition, with the updated design the MRJ will feature an aluminum wing box, which will make it easier to manufacture the optimal wing structure. Easier optimization means enhanced competitiveness across the MRJ family: the MRJ70, the MRJ90 and the MRJ stretch version, a 100-seat jet, which is a recently announced potential addition that we are excited to tell you about in greater detail below.

The aluminum wing box will allow for a shorter lead-time to make structural changes, and with an aluminum wing box, the wings can be optimized to match the attributes of each member of the MRJ airplane family. This will maximize the performance of all MRJ models, including the possible stretch version.


http://www.mrj-japan.com/press_releases/news_090909.html


User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6224 times:

thanks, queb!

I personally still do believe that the reasons mentioned by Mitsubishi for selecting an aluminum wing might not all be the real reasons.... If there is a structure which is 'made for' using CFRP then it is the wing. There are bigger and small aircraft with CFRP wings, so the size of the MRJ can not be the reason. ..but then again, what do I know!


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13430 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6087 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kmz (Reply 9):
I personally still do believe that the reasons mentioned by Mitsubishi for selecting an aluminum wing might not all be the real reasons.... If there is a structure which is 'made for' using CFRP then it is the wing.

I concur. The wing box is usually the 1st place to use CFRP. So I do wonder at the real reason myself.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
I concur. The wing box is usually the 1st place to use CFRP. So I do wonder at the real reason myself.

Time to market, maybe. With CFRP, they need autoclaves and other infrastructure that can have some long lead times. By sticking with Al, they can use existing tooling and infrastructure.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5951 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
First, thank you. I would love to see a muti-way analysis in tech-ops comparing the MRJ, CR7/9, E-jets, and superjet. Take your time. I know I just asked for a lot!

I have put it on my very long "to do list", but it would be an interesting exercise. As suggested below, there is likely to be a MRJ-110, and I will estimate numbers for this version and compare it to E-190.


Quoting queb (Reply 8):
the MRJ stretch version, a 100-seat jet, which is a recently announced potential addition that we are excited to tell you about in greater detail below.
Quoting kmz (Reply 7):
If my memory doesn't cheat me, I think the MRJ has a conventional wing, no CFRP.

Any chance if MRJ will use the new lighter Alcoa material?

MRJ-90's nearly 650 cubic feet cargo volume is 150 cubic feet less than that of E-190. One would expect the MRJ-110 to fully match the E-190 in both seat and cargo capacity.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13430 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
As suggested below, there is likely to be a MRJ-110, and I will estimate numbers for this version and compare it to E-190.

I thought Mitsubishi's work on the 787 contractually limited them to 100 seats. However, I do not *know* that... It is just discussion that could by myth.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5605 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):

Time to market, maybe. With CFRP, they need autoclaves and other infrastructure that can have some long lead times. By sticking with Al, they can use existing tooling and infrastructure.

I find it ironic that Mitsu is doing the composite wing for the 787 but chose aluminum for their own plane.



What the...?
User currently offlinejoelyboy911 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2009, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5601 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
I find it ironic that Mitsu is doing the composite wing for the 787 but chose aluminum for their own plane.

Why? The cost/benefit of composite versus aluminium is totally different between a medium/large widebody and a regional jet.



Flown: NZ, NY, SJ, QF, UA, AC, EI, BE, TP, AF
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 730 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

Quoting joelyboy911 (Reply 15):
Why? The cost/benefit of composite versus aluminium is totally different between a medium/large widebody and a regional jet.

Bombardier has chosen a crfp wing for the Learjet 85.

http://www.learjet85.com/en/technology/composite-structure.html


User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5454 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
I find it ironic

maybe ironic

i think it is a wasted chance...what's so great about the MRJ now? Anyone can build an aluminum aircraft. System-suppliers are mostly the same for all jets; engines, too. Their true core competence (CFRP)...they don't seem to trust it...hmmmm...


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2737 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5387 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
I concur. The wing box is usually the 1st place to use CFRP. So I do wonder at the real reason myself.

Time to market, maybe. With CFRP, they need autoclaves and other infrastructure that can have some long lead times. By sticking with Al, they can use existing tooling and infrastructure.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
I find it ironic that Mitsu is doing the composite wing for the 787 but chose aluminum for their own plane.

Remember that composite structures do not scale down as well as metallic ones. And the design trade-off for a high-cycle RJ is different than for a long-range aircraft. Furthermore, when Mitsubishi decided against the CFRP wing box, one of the reasons stated was that it was not well suited to accomodate a stretch model. IMO Mistubishi did the right thing by choosing the best suited material rather than going along with the composite hype.


User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 730 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

In addition, MHI has selected standard aluminum , no Al-Li.



"Mitsubishi Aircraft’s studies led it to choose the heaviest but cheapest material for its MRJ regional jet, traditional 7050-alloy aluminum."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_i...04/18/AW_04_18_2011_p32-310886.xml


[Edited 2011-08-28 08:22:28]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13430 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5297 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting queb (Reply 16):
Bombardier has chosen a crfp wing for the Learjet 85.

Which is one further reason I question the MRJ beer can wing.   

Quoting r2rho (Reply 18):
Remember that composite structures do not scale down as well as metallic ones. And the design trade-off for a high-cycle RJ is different than for a long-range aircraft.

The more cycles, the greater the advantage for CFRP.

I suspect the ability to grow the MTOW is more the reason. The way CFRP would be beefed up can change the dimensions of the wing box more than with aluminum. While that might have been a choice, I suspect Mitsubishi went for time to market.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
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...
FAT On Track For MX Flight Start On April 1 posted Tue Feb 14 2006 07:04:13 by FATFlyer
Boeing 787 Good To Go For First Flight. posted Thu Dec 10 2009 17:15:16 by NYC777
Emirates Still On Track For More Than 100 A380s posted Wed Jul 30 2008 09:14:09 by FCKC
Boeing Says 787 On Track For June Power-on posted Tue May 20 2008 00:18:09 by Oykie
Upgraded Tu-204. First Flight In 2008. posted Wed Jan 2 2008 11:12:06 by SIBILLE
Boeing 787 On Target For First Delivery-Mike Bair posted Tue Jun 19 2007 15:12:03 by NYC777
QR Carries 8m. And On Track For 12m By 2009 posted Mon May 28 2007 10:05:19 by QatarA340
Gabon Airlines: First Flight In January 2007 posted Wed Jan 3 2007 16:28:28 by MaverickM11
NYC Airports On Pace For 103M Pax In 06 posted Sat Sep 2 2006 19:46:01 by EADC8
Engine Alliance GP7200 Readying For First Flight O posted Tue Mar 21 2006 17:38:10 by Lightsaber