Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DenverTed wrote:Is the core diameter the same on all the GTF engines on the A320, A220, and M90?
The PW800 programme has benefited from the service experience of Pratt & Whitney's geared turbofans, which power several commercial aircraft. PW814s and PW815s share the core of the Airbus A220's PW1500G geared turbofan.
The PW812D shares the same core as the Mitsubishi Aircraft MRJ's PW1200G.
lightsaber wrote:...
The high spool, gearbox, and many accessories are straight from the PW1500G on the PW1200G.
The high spool is also shared by the PW814/5 on the G500/600 and PW812D on the 6X.
The downside for the MRJ is a high spool with a high flow number. This means the low spool must intentionally underfeed the high spool. This means a low pressure ratio and a reduction in efficiency.
The large gearbox interferes with flow into the low spool (small efficiency hit). But mostly a low bypass ratio of 9:1 as there isn't the pressure ratio for the PW1100G of 12.5:1, or PW1500G of 12:1.
The original MRJ was to have a more dedicated engine with a PW810 for the Cessna Columbus business jet. When Cessna cancelled the Columbus and the C-series was launched, the MRJ received a PW1500G derived engine.
Lightsaber
keesje wrote:If the improvement program of 2016-2019 was successfully implemented MHI is now probably looking for a aerospace conglomerate to take a share, restore market confidence, rationalize the aircraft specification and move on. MHI accepting write-offs would have to be part of the deal. The amount of potential partners is limited of course, Boeing, Airbus/ATR, Raytheon-Collins, AVIC Xi'An, Comac, Saab, HAL. CSeries showed it can work, despite doubts, some even assuring us, Airbus were out solely to kill a competitor. (which Boeing tried a little later).
“I like to remind Tom [Enders] when we’re celebrating that we’ve now got the A220 that we launched the A320neo with the express purpose of killing the CSeries,” says Williams.
Revelation wrote:keesje wrote:If the improvement program of 2016-2019 was successfully implemented MHI is now probably looking for a aerospace conglomerate to take a share, restore market confidence, rationalize the aircraft specification and move on. MHI accepting write-offs would have to be part of the deal. The amount of potential partners is limited of course, Boeing, Airbus/ATR, Raytheon-Collins, AVIC Xi'An, Comac, Saab, HAL. CSeries showed it can work, despite doubts, some even assuring us, Airbus were out solely to kill a competitor. (which Boeing tried a little later).
We have a definitive source saying Airbus launched A320neo to kill A220, former Airbus COO Tom Williams:“I like to remind Tom [Enders] when we’re celebrating that we’ve now got the A220 that we launched the A320neo with the express purpose of killing the CSeries,” says Williams.
Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-at- ... 17.article
Time to put away your doubts on that one...
keesje wrote:Revelation wrote:keesje wrote:CSeries showed it can work, despite doubts, some even assuring us, Airbus were out solely to kill a competitor. (which Boeing tried a little later).
We have a definitive source saying Airbus launched A320neo to kill A220, former Airbus COO Tom Williams:“I like to remind Tom [Enders] when we’re celebrating that we’ve now got the A220 that we launched the A320neo with the express purpose of killing the CSeries,” says Williams.
Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-at- ... 17.article
One small detail: they didn't. They invested lots, build a new FAL and sold hundreds.. But hey, someone digged up a qoute from an (unaccesible) old page, that's better proof I guess. Reality is fake news these days..
CFRPwingALbody wrote:But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions. The whole weight limit trouble might be gone if this happens.
So though unfortunate, pausing the M90 development might be a very smart move given the current situation.
Revelation wrote:CFRPwingALbody wrote:But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions. The whole weight limit trouble might be gone if this happens.
So though unfortunate, pausing the M90 development might be a very smart move given the current situation.
Mitsu's initial customers are JAL and ANA with no such scope clauses in effect. If they really wanted to get a product out on the market and get through the initial teething issues they have no excuse not to.
CFRPwingALbody wrote:But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions.
767333ER wrote:My hunch is that the pandemic is a convenient excuse for not having to admit that they’ve failed once again.
Revelation wrote:CFRPwingALbody wrote:But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions. The whole weight limit trouble might be gone if this happens.
So though unfortunate, pausing the M90 development might be a very smart move given the current situation.
Mitsu's initial customers are JAL and ANA with no such scope clauses in effect. If they really wanted to get a product out on the market and get through the initial teething issues they have no excuse not to.
Revelation wrote:Indeed!And now their operation in Moses Lake is to be closed. I presume this will make any hypothetical future restart even more difficult.
VV wrote:Can someone please explain the usefulness of CRJ acquisition without the SpaceJet program?
Thank you.
lightsaber wrote:VV wrote:Can someone please explain the usefulness of CRJ acquisition without the SpaceJet program?
Thank you.
None. The cash flow from spares management did not justify the sales price.
MIflyer12 wrote:lightsaber wrote:VV wrote:Can someone please explain the usefulness of CRJ acquisition without the SpaceJet program?
Thank you.
None. The cash flow from spares management did not justify the sales price.
If you wanted to play investment banker for a day, what do you think the next five years of CRJ spares sales might be?
lightsaber wrote:Let us say 1,000 flying over 5 years. That should be perhaps $1,000 billion in revenue to $2 B. Profit should be 30% to 40% of revenue (as this is the high profit support) so $400 to $800 million. So maybe, just maybe if flying gets back to higher utilization, Mitsubishi breaks even. More than likely, a few hundred million dollar loss, which was OK for the value of the distribution network and support expertise. There also would have been probably $1B to $1.25 B more revenue without Covid19.
battlegroup62 wrote:There were probably clauses regarding cancelation penalties for backing out of the CRJ deal that they didn't want to pay. And as evidenced by other Japanese companies like Toyota and their accelerator pedals they don't seem to like to admit they made an error. Which is sort of what backing out of a deal would be.
docmtl wrote:So, what would be Embraer's next move without a competitor for next foreseeable future :
1: Milk the cow and keep the S&M team selling E1s ?
2: Invest in their new Turboprop to replace the E1s in the next 5 years ?
3: Re-design the E2-175 as discussed elsewhere to comply with the US market ?
4: All of the above
5: None of the above
It seems we turn this around a thousand times and the result seems to be the same...
docmtl
docmtl wrote:So, what would be Embraer's next move without a competitor for next foreseeable future :
1: Milk the cow and keep the S&M team selling E1s ?
2: Invest in their new Turboprop to replace the E1s in the next 5 years ?
3: Re-design the E2-175 as discussed elsewhere to comply with the US market ?
4: All of the above
5: None of the above
It seems we turn this around a thousand times and the result seems to be the same...
docmtl
VV wrote:docmtl wrote:So, what would be Embraer's next move without a competitor for next foreseeable future :
1: Milk the cow and keep the S&M team selling E1s ?
2: Invest in their new Turboprop to replace the E1s in the next 5 years ?
3: Re-design the E2-175 as discussed elsewhere to comply with the US market ?
4: All of the above
5: None of the above
It seems we turn this around a thousand times and the result seems to be the same...
docmtl
Why would they change E175-E2? There is no competition anyway. There is none against the E175 (E1) and none for the E175-E2.
If Pratt&Whitney continues to support E175-E2 development then there's absolutely no reason to change course.
c933103 wrote:https://biz-journal.jp/2020/11/post_189245.html
An aviation commenter in Japan say that the ultimate reason behind the failure is Mitsubishi want to develop a passenger aircraft and attain type certificate from the US using only experience in military aircraft production, and when they realize it's too late and that opinion from foreign experts with experience in getting type certificate is needed, it's already too late in year 2016 which resulted in large amounts of design changes late in the design phase.
It also noted that there are consistently dispute in the use of foreigners while developing the aircraft
c933103 wrote:https://biz-journal.jp/2020/11/post_189245.html
An aviation commenter in Japan say that the ultimate reason behind the failure is Mitsubishi want to develop a passenger aircraft and attain type certificate from the US using only experience in military aircraft production, and when they realize it's too late and that opinion from foreign experts with experience in getting type certificate is needed, it's already too late in year 2016 which resulted in large amounts of design changes late in the design phase.
It also noted that there are consistently dispute in the use of foreigners while developing the aircraft
Jungleneer wrote:What they were thinking when they defined the service ceiling as 39 kft and MMO as 0.78M? That’s the ERJ145 specs.
Jungleneer wrote:A320 and 737 has cruise mach of 0.78 and MMO of 0.82. A Mmo of 0.78 means that the cruise Mach is around 0.74. That’s too low for today’s standards.
c933103 wrote:https://biz-journal.jp/2020/11/post_189245.html
An aviation commenter in Japan say that the ultimate reason behind the failure is Mitsubishi want to develop a passenger aircraft and attain type certificate from the US using only experience in military aircraft production, and when they realize it's too late and that opinion from foreign experts with experience in getting type certificate is needed, it's already too late in year 2016 which resulted in large amounts of design changes late in the design phase.
It also noted that there are consistently dispute in the use of foreigners while developing the aircraft
c933103 wrote:Jungleneer wrote:A320 and 737 has cruise mach of 0.78 and MMO of 0.82. A Mmo of 0.78 means that the cruise Mach is around 0.74. That’s too low for today’s standards.
Mach 0.78 cited in the article is cruising speed, according to the text.
ordell wrote:
ordell wrote:
VV wrote:The acquisition of CRJ program has always been a mystery for me. It continues to be one with the above story about the freezing of the SpaceJet program.
MHI acquired the CRJ program, including more than 800 million US dollars of liability. The total cost is about one billion US dollars.
JayinKitsap wrote:VV wrote:The acquisition of CRJ program has always been a mystery for me. It continues to be one with the above story about the freezing of the SpaceJet program.
MHI acquired the CRJ program, including more than 800 million US dollars of liability. The total cost is about one billion US dollars.
Well, BBD came out quite well as to timing. They could not have sold the Q400 nor Shorts nor the CRJ if the sales happened some 6-9 months later than they did. MHI is probably wondering why in the heck they bought this turkey.
lightsaber wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:VV wrote:The acquisition of CRJ program has always been a mystery for me. It continues to be one with the above story about the freezing of the SpaceJet program.
MHI acquired the CRJ program, including more than 800 million US dollars of liability. The total cost is about one billion US dollars.
Well, BBD came out quite well as to timing. They could not have sold the Q400 nor Shorts nor the CRJ if the sales happened some 6-9 months later than they did. MHI is probably wondering why in the heck they bought this turkey.
Unless there us a plan to restart SpaceJet certification, the CRJ purchase is a large loss. The value was the distribution chain and experienced staff.
I find it interesting that Mitsubishi is continuing to fund processing if flight test data. With 3700 hours (going from memory, correct me if wrong), there is a lot if information there. But due to redesigns, at least 400 hours, in my opinion, need to be repeated.
I'm honestly not sure if the program is in stasis with a chance of a restart or not.
Enough vendor talent us being retained to restart... But is there a plan?
Lightsaber
JayinKitsap wrote:
It is crazy.
c933103 wrote:https://www.asahi.com/sp/articles/ASNDJ4W46NDCOIPE01S.html
Their flight test center in the United States will be closed in the upcoming spring. But there will still be minimal amount of people taking care of the four aircraft staying in the US.
Flight tests in the United States have been suspended since this spring due to the spread of the new coronavirus. Furthermore, it is not expected to be resumed the next three years
VV wrote:Can someone please say something about what would happen to the foreigners hired for SpaceJet development?
c933103 wrote:https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20201216/k10012766271000.html
Mitsubishi will cut the enount of employees working on the SpaceJet down to 5% of original level, starting from 2021 April, with only about 150 staffs continue working on the project. In principle those staff will be reused in rest of the Mitsubishi group.