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?
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 4619 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)
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10686 posts, RR: 100 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 4506 times:
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.
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.
ABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 7 hours ago) and read 4312 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?
joelyboy911 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2009, 244 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 7 hours ago) and read 4288 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.
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 4100 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.
kmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 133 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months ago) and read 4059 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!
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10686 posts, RR: 100 Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3922 times:
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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3840 times:
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.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3786 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.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10686 posts, RR: 100 Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3575 times:
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.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5031 posts, RR: 29 Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3440 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.
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3328 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.
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...
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3222 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.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10686 posts, RR: 100 Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10686 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5031 posts, 
Sales seem to agree. 
Nice wingspan and lower weight.
However, I'm not able to find the wing area of the MRJ. Does anyone have a link? 
From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 221 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Oct 2009, 244 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 133 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
