Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MRJ Delayed By Over 1 Year  
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2618 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6254 times:

After a long absence of news and and a suspicious lack of delay announcements, the MRJ first flight has been officially delayed from Q2 2012 (a date nobody believed anymore) to Q4 2013.

The airframer says it needs to "confirm respective fabrication processes" and "provide sufficient time for technical studies."
The company adds that development of the MRJ's power plant is "progressing smoothly," with the Pratt & Whitney PW1217G geared turbofan due for its first flight "from the end of [April]."


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ver-12-months-to-late-2013-371094/

So it seems the GTF engine is going reasonably well, but the airframe isn't. Pending any possible CSeries delays, it could very well occur that the CSeries enters service before the MRJ as the first GTF-aircraft (EIS for CSeries is still scheduled at Q4 2013).

Once again, long program delays in the aerospace industry remain the standard. Contrary to the 6-month by 6-month attitude of A&B, Mitsubishi has chosen to wait until the last minute and then annouce a huge 1.5year delay. Either way, it does not help the credibility of the MRJ program, and will surely scare away any potential orders they could have been working on...

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While I like the MRJ, it is *very* vulnerable to a re-engines E-jet.  
Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
So it seems the GTF engine is going reasonably well

That should be easy. An understressed core due to a lower pressure ratio low spool. Down-thrusts are low risk.

Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
and will surely scare away any potential orders they could have been working on...

Unless potential customers were told under NDA. Enough of my rumor mill was talking about delays that this wasn't being kept a 'state secret.'



Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11646 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

I wonder how this affects potential orders like KLM's. My understanding is that they were considering the ERJ 175 and MRJ, this could be bad news for the latter.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
So it seems the GTF engine is going reasonably well, but the airframe isn't. Pending any possible CSeries delays, it could very well occur that the CSeries enters service before the MRJ as the first GTF-aircraft (EIS for CSeries is still scheduled at Q4 2013).

CSeries is likely to slip 3-6 months as well. Official BBD statements have indicated that contingency time has been used up. But 1.5 years is huge. Might actually kill the program for future sales and possibly loss of existing ones.

Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
Contrary to the 6-month by 6-month attitude of A&B, Mitsubishi has chosen to wait until the last minute and then annouce a huge 1.5year delay. Either way, it does not help the credibility of the MRJ program, and will surely scare away any potential orders they could have been working on...

Long-standing Japanese tradition to hold off on delivering bad news until the last possible moment. See Fukushima.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8961 posts, RR: 40
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5843 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
That should be easy. An understressed core due to a lower pressure ratio low spool. Down-thrusts are low risk.

Does it not mean new moving parts, though?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 4):
Does it not mean new moving parts, though?

Yes. But the highest risk parts, the high spool, are derivatives. Since they are stressed less, the risk is lower.

Note: I'm talking the engine. The airframe has its own risks.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5728 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
While I like the MRJ, it is *very* vulnerable to a re-engines E-jet.  

That was my first thought as well. If Embraer can be the odd one out and develop their plane without delays, what would be the time difference between the two? Not a lot, and Embraer has an established production line and service plan. I think airlines can't afford to look past them.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1585 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5244 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
I wonder how this affects potential orders like KLM's. My understanding is that they were considering the ERJ 175 and MRJ, this could be bad news for the latter.

Correct, but KL was ready to wait until the re-engined E175 was ready, and extending the service life of the F70's until 2017-2018. But Embraer was trying to bring the introduction of the RE earlier, which indeed could be bad news for the MRJ.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
CSeries is likely to slip 3-6 months as well. Official BBD statements have indicated that contingency time has been used up

If it's limited to 3-6 months delay, it would be regarded as good news nowadays  
Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 6):
If Embraer can be the odd one out and develop their plane without delays

If they go the same route as Airbus with the NEO (just a re-engine, nothing further), it could be the same situation as A320NEO vs C-series: a clear advantage for the new E-jet. If Embraer goes the 747-8 way, and try to incorporate all kinds of fancy things like CFRP wings, I can see delays for them as well.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1142 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5197 times:

What will this do to the TSA order and what are they going to use them on?

User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2618 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5112 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
While I like the MRJ, it is *very* vulnerable to a re-engines E-jet.

Indeed. Time to market is key to the MRJ - getting a few years of sales and a customer base ahead of the reengined Ejet. And this huge delay does not help. FF in Q4 2013... add a year of flight tests at least... and a realistic EIS is Q1 2015. If Embraer can manage to bring out a simple reengined Ejet by 2016ish, you could as well wait...   


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 6):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
While I like the MRJ, it is *very* vulnerable to a re-engines E-jet.

That was my first thought as well. If Embraer can be the odd one out and develop their plane without delays, what would be the time difference between the two? Not a lot, and Embraer has an established production line and service plan. I think airlines can't afford to look past them.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 9):
Indeed. Time to market is key to the MRJ - getting a few years of sales and a customer base ahead of the reengined Ejet. And this huge delay does not help. FF in Q4 2013... add a year of flight tests at least... and a realistic EIS is Q1 2015. If Embraer can manage to bring out a simple reengined Ejet by 2016ish, you could as well wait...

Embraer have indicated that a re-engined E-jet could be available for EIS by late 2016, but more realistically 2017. So there is a window for all the other RJ/super RJ (i.e., CSeries) aircraft to establish themselves before the new E-jet comes onto the scene.

But this is a major setback for the whole MRJ program. Boeing was able to get away with it on the 787 file since a) they are so big in the marketplace, and b) airlines were drooling over the putative savings in operating costs. Mtisubishi has no real presence in the civilian market and as far as the potential operators go, there are real alternatives. So they are now I think massively exposed.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

AvWeek indicates this is a quality issue and the documentation for engineering analysis and manufacturing processes is "not in order".

They have 25% of the first plane parts built and will have to scrap them and start over.

They also mention the FAA is "helping" the JCAB during the certification. This was brought on by the Koito seat falsification fiasco.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3101 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
So there is a window for all the other RJ/super RJ (i.e., CSeries) aircraft to establish themselves before the new E-jet comes onto the scene.

For the C-series, sure. The MRJ is not yet on a course to be fully 'set up.' One issue is that the E-jets were just that well done. The C100 competes against the E-195 and C300 enters new territory. So I see less risk for the C-series.

Everyone I know who has come off an MRJ vendor program has complained that the ICDs are tardy and incomplete. IMHO, the whole 787 debacle is due to incomplete ICDs (interface control drawings, or in other words, poor interface definition). Better to address the problems now than post a 'Potemkin Rollout."

I see the need for this delay and it is a wise technical correction on Mitsubishi's part. However the time delay is to Embraer's advantage. The question is, how will they use that delay? Announce the re-engine or wait?

Quoting ADent (Reply 11):
AvWeek indicates this is a quality issue and the documentation for engineering analysis and manufacturing processes is "not in order".

It sounds like they have an automotive shop that doesn't realize pedigree is as important as making the part.

Quoting ADent (Reply 11):
They also mention the FAA is "helping" the JCAB during the certification. This was brought on by the Koito seat falsification fiasco.

In this industry, 'help' is painful and extends timelines.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 7):
Correct, but KL was ready to wait until the re-engined E175 was ready,

I've heard rumors only the E190/E195 would be re-engined too. What is really going to happen? I believe that is still under negotiation with Embraer and their engine vendor(s).


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2618 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

More MRJ updates:

- MRJ90 EIS in Q3 2015
- MRJ70 one year later
- MRJ100X 100-seat stretch confirmed, EIS 2017-18

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...18-to-deliver-100-seat-mrj-372207/

My comments:
- MRJ90 EIS almost 2 years after FF in Q4 2013... that is a long flight test program! Perhaps they are being overly cautious, to have plenty of buffer for delays in FF or surprises during flight test. 2015 EIS still gives them about 1.5-2 years head start over possible reengined Ejets, but every month they can gain ahead of the Ejet "NEOs" is crucial

- MRJ70 in 2016... will there still be a market for 70-seat RJ's then? Look at E170 sales... the market is clearly shifting towards 90/100-seaters. IMO Mitsubishi should cancel or indefinitely postpone the -70 and concentrate all efforts after the -90 EIS on the:

- MRJ100X: a good idea... but will it be too late? By 2017-18, EMB can have a reengined E19x out, and Mitsubishi will have a very hard time as a newcomer against a well-established manufacturer...


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2618 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

One good news however is that the PW1217G engine has already begun flight tests on the PW FTB. The engine should be certified by apr 2013, meaning it will be ready well ahead of the aircraft. This should completely de-risk the GTF, as with so much time to spare it can be reasonably assured that the engine will be on spec, if not better, at EIS.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ing-despite-aircraft-delay-371372/

Quoting r2rho (Reply 13):
- MRJ100X 100-seat stretch confirmed, EIS 2017-18

a dedicated thread has started for this:
Mitsubishi 100-seat MRJ By 2017-2018 (by LAXDESI May 22 2012 in Civil Aviation)


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...
787 First Delivery Delayed By Three Months Due To Trent 1000 Issues posted Thu Aug 26 2010 22:03:59 by KFlyer
It's Official: BER Delayed By 7 Months posted Fri Jun 25 2010 05:19:20 by Tobias2702
LH First A380 To Be Delayed By Several Months posted Tue Nov 24 2009 06:09:52 by Ssublyme
Delta Airlines 17 BOM - JFK Delayed By 9 Hours posted Sun May 25 2008 21:37:03 by Ojas
Continental CO 49 BOM-EWR Delayed By 20 Hours posted Mon May 12 2008 11:30:10 by Karan69
Durango, CO Taxiway Delayed By Eagles posted Mon Jan 15 2007 19:04:31 by WA707atMSP
ATW: A350 EIS May Be Delayed By A380 Problems posted Fri Sep 29 2006 08:07:29 by Leelaw
Airbus Raises A380 Price By Over 4% posted Sun Jun 25 2006 09:00:37 by Joni
CO Flight Delayed Well Over 24 Hours posted Tue May 2 2006 02:00:48 by Klwright69
Help With A Delayed BY Flight? posted Sun Mar 5 2006 23:47:28 by Dogfighter2111