Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3513052/

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Keesje
Posted 2007-07-17 13:57:01 and read 22158 times.

Background of this new short haul twin
As discussed in other threads EIS of new narrowbody Aircraft is not foreseen before 2013-2015 and Embraer expressed ambitions to enter this segment. High fuel prices and pressure to reduce cost level are making the airlines look for aircraft that provide significantly lower operating costs while satisfying changing environmental and public acceptance requirements.

A trend towards bigger regional aircraft becomes visible in the various models under development by Embraer, Bombardier, Sukhoi, AVIC and Mitsubishi.


Enlarge: http://www.kaktusdigital.com/images/large/LRJ_02.jpg

Boeing - Embraer Joint Venture
In a unique joint venture Boeing decided to team up with Embraer. Embraer is market leader in the 70-120 seat segment and decided to become a 30% risk sharing partner along with Pratt & Whitney (20%), ILFC (15%) and Boeing
(35%).

Position within Boeing product portfolio
Boeing decided to focus on the 150-250 seat short/ medium range market better fitting their market positioning, as discussed in another thread. The overlap of the new twin with Boeings new 797 narrowbody family is limited because of the very different markets / pay load range performance.

Some basic specifications
- Max cruising speed: Mach.7
- Max range with full passenger load: 2200 nm
- Operating Empty Weight: 22,000kg ( 50.000lb)
- 70% Advanced materials CRFP / Alu-Li
- Capasity: 110-165 seats in single class 32 inch pitch


2200nm ranges from DFW, FRA and HKG.

Engine Technology
New engine technology includes a 1:12 BPR, a GTF optimized for Mach 0.7 cruise and light carbon fanblades / engine cowling. Other engine technology includes noise absorbing materials, scarfed inlets and noise
reducing exhaust pipes.

Cabin Comfort
The wide cabin is dimensioned for a comfortable 2-3 + 2-2 lay-out with every seat having two individual armrest. On top of this the aisle is 30inch wide, allowing passengers to pass each other / cabin staff with trolleys. A first are the small roof top windows that spreads a friendly natural light in the cabin, giving every passenger a perception of space. Large windows and luggage bins further enhance passenger comfort.



Stability and Control
Original designs included digital flight controls programmed to fly without a vertical stabilizer (B2, F117 etc) reducing weight and height. Later on it was decided to ad 2 vertical stabilizers for passive lateral stability and noise deflection. Differential thrust provides any missing directional stability.


Enlarge: http://www.kaktusdigital.com/images/large/LRJ_01.jpg

Market Potential
Among the string of undisclosed launch customers are two very large Texas based 737 and MD80 operators. Boeing and Embraer are considering setting up additional assembly lines in Asia and Europe.

Entry into service is estimated to take place in 2012 / 2013.

  alt="Wink"> Just playing around folks. Some time ago Henry Lam created a Large Regional Jet design based on my idea. A lot of usefull comments here on a.net required a LRJ mark II. It´s a stretch from the old design with some of the flaws corrected. Henry has a studio down under www.kaktusdigital.com and helped me out with some quick and excellent artist impressions of existing & non existing aircraft liveries / designs for various purposes.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: ERJ170
Posted 2007-07-17 14:03:05 and read 22127 times.

Interesting..

my two points...(1) the range is too small.. they need to add another 1300nm for coast-to-coast flights.. and (2) the engines on the main body.. interesting.. is that much better than underwing engines? seems that Embraer went from rear mounted engines to the underwing.. now they going back?

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: AIR MALTA
Posted 2007-07-17 14:06:30 and read 22083 times.

The airplane looks very bad!!!

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Thorben
Posted 2007-07-17 14:19:23 and read 22020 times.

I'd love to see them develop this plane.  bigthumbsup 

Aviation has become so boring, E-Jets, A32X, 737, 787, A350, 777 - they all look the same to me. This would really be a nice design, I hope this becomes reality.  praise 

And it would also be nice to have a third party besides A & B building planes with more than 100 seats.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Stitch
Posted 2007-07-17 14:25:55 and read 21987 times.

I think 2200nm range would be quite good for such a small plane and would increase the "region" such a "regional jet" could fly. It could make an excellent MD-8x and MD-9x replacement offering much lower operating costs and allowing Boeing to scale the 737RS from the 737-800 to 757-300 space and optimize it for that mission.

My only real change would be to move the engine back to between the rear stabilizers, which I would make larger. That way, you can go to UDF engines and use the stabilizers to muffle the noise, or go to shrouded UDFs and make it even quieter.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: DAYflyer
Posted 2007-07-17 14:27:38 and read 21980 times.

A very nice profiile of the aircraft and good presentation Keesje. It looks pretty sweet.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Tavong
Posted 2007-07-17 14:34:28 and read 21907 times.

It´s the new A-10 for commercial service.....

Gus
SKBO

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2007-07-17 14:34:32 and read 21907 times.

The concept is clearly descended from Fozzie and the Kermit Cruiser. If you're going "huh?" right now read this http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...e/2002973147_boeingconcepts05.html

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
The wide cabin is dimensioned for a comfortable 2-3 + 2-2 lay-out with every seat having two individual armrest. On top of this the aisle is 30inch wide, allowing passengers to pass each other / cabin staff with trolleys.

Hehe. I will remind you all that the 380 was supposed to have a spa, a store, a swimming pool, a bowling alley and a go-kart track.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1):
(2) the engines on the main body.. interesting.. is that much better than underwing engines? seems that Embraer went from rear mounted engines to the underwing.. now they going back?

There are advantages and disadvantages to tail mounting. To summarize a few.
- Less noise in cabin.
- Shorter, lighter gear.
- Cleaner wing.
- Heavier fuselage, especially the rear.
- Engines cannot be gravity fed.
- Wing needs to be stronger since there are no wing mounted engines to provide bending relief.
- Engines harder to service, although for this size plane that's not a big deal.
- Fin(s)/Rudder(s) can be smaller since there is less sideways torque in engine out situations.

I think this aircraft is clearly going for low noise like the Kermit Cruiser. Also, the fins/rudders can be made small due to the engine location.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-07-17 14:47:17 and read 21863 times.

the 100-seater segment is where all the fun will be in the coming years.

I'm not surprised by this developement

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: CygnusChicago
Posted 2007-07-17 15:35:42 and read 21698 times.

What are the black rectangles on top of the fuselage? Ejection seat hatches?  Wink

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: CM767
Posted 2007-07-17 15:36:24 and read 21691 times.

I strongly believe that what Kesjee has posted is the best way for the 737/320 replacement market, A or B should go for a partnership with E o B, and offer two fuselages, one in a 2+2 configuration for 70-100 passengers and another for 120-180 passengers give or take, both fuselages with basically the same cockpit and pilot rating. similar to the concept of 757 and the 767.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2007-07-17 15:58:06 and read 21568 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
the fins/rudders can be made small due to the engine location.

True, but the horizontal stabilizer and elevator must be larger (or add a canard.)
Is this just a proposal at this time? How serious is it? Boeing seems adept at coopting potential competitors by joining forces with them-a good strategy, IMHO. As to the range issue, a vast number of 737/A32X flights are within its range; it makes sense to offer an airliner with limited range, as it is inefficient to have a lot more range than you need. Boeing can then build Y1 with 150-220 seat capacity and longer range.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-07-17 16:10:27 and read 21504 times.

well, Boeing taking over MD did not hand them that part of the market.

I'm curious whether this cooperation will work out better.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Mrocktor
Posted 2007-07-17 16:13:01 and read 21490 times.

The market placement makes no sense. Embraer already sells aircraft with 110 seats (@32"), the overlap between the two would be silly. An operator would end up with E-jets, this thing and the supposed 797 to cover his regional and narrowbody markets. Going with only E-jets and 797s makes a lot more sense - even if you end up with a small gap between the E195 and the shortest 797 (which could seat 132).

In reality, I believe Boeing will go for the whole narrowbody segment with one aircraft family, even if there are two distinct variants. Whether partnerships with Embraer or others will be involved remains to be seen.

That said, some comments on the specs and design:

1. Seat range does not fit in with E-jets, a design with Embraer involved would probably have a seating range starting at 120 to 130 seats (@32").

2. Range is too short. A 150 seater needs to be able to do transcon flights (or have an extended range version with the capability).

3. Cruise speed is too slow. There is zero chance of an airliner that cruises slower than M.75 being made. Interoperability with older aircraft would be crazy from a scheduling point of view and flying more than 10% slower than the rest of the traffic would be very bad from an operational perspective.

4. 2-3 layout does not make sense if the airframe is to fit into both Embraer and Boeing's portfolios. A single airframe to cover the ~130 to ~250 seat range has to be 3-3.

5. Engine thrust control reacts far too slowly to be used for stability augmentation

6. The engine nozzles should be installed above the horizontal tail, reducing the noise footprint by reflecting sound upward. This allows the engine to be moved back, increasing the "useful length" of the fuselage.

7. The wing seems to be too far forward for balance.

8. If the horizontal stabilizer is fully trimmable, does the variation in the vertical rudder's position affect their effectiveness? If not, how do you trim the aircraft?

That's it, for now  wink 

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2007-07-17 16:13:47 and read 21490 times.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 9):
What are the black rectangles on top of the fuselage? Ejection seat hatches?

As noted in the thread starting post:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
A first are the small roof top windows that spreads a friendly natural light in the cabin, giving every passenger a perception of space.

I like it for no other reason than it is different.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Mrocktor
Posted 2007-07-17 16:19:12 and read 21449 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 11):
Is this just a proposal at this time? How serious is it?

It's FICTION.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Drgmobile
Posted 2007-07-17 16:26:24 and read 21406 times.

This post is irresponsible. Please don't post fantasies.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2007-07-17 16:34:33 and read 21367 times.

So wait.....Boeing and Embraer aren't teaming up...???? Damn I kinda got excited  biggrin 

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2007-07-17 16:42:34 and read 21317 times.

I feel like I've seen pics of this aircraft on A.net more than the new 787. Is Keesje overseeing marketing of this thing?  Smile

-Dave

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: TSS
Posted 2007-07-17 16:51:34 and read 21272 times.

While the "Boeing/Embraer" proposal is cool-looking, it's drawbacks have been enumerated in this and every other thread it's photos have appeared in.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
There disadvantages to tail (engine) mounting. To summarize a few.
- Heavier fuselage, especially the rear.
- Engines cannot be gravity fed.
- Wing needs to be stronger since there are no wing mounted engines to provide bending relief.
- Engines harder to service, although for this size plane that's not a big deal.
- Fin(s)/Rudder(s) can be smaller since there is less sideways torque in engine out situations.



Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
Cruise speed is too slow. There is zero chance of an airliner that cruises slower than M.75 being made. Interoperability with older aircraft would be crazy from a scheduling point of view and flying more than 10% slower than the rest of the traffic would be very bad from an operational perspective.

In my opinion the BBD C-Series, while a more conventional design, has all the benefits and none of the technical drawbacks of the "Boeing/Embraer" proposal plus it's ready to go...except for the lack of a launch customer.  Sad
Should Boeing decide to split the Y1 into two distinct sub-platforms (a "Y.75" for 110-150 pax and "Y1.25" for 150-200 or so pax), they could do a lot worse than to team up with Bombardier to produce the smaller of the two variants.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2007-07-17 17:07:38 and read 21190 times.

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 16):
This post is irresponsible. Please don't post fantasies.

It's a discussion forum. Chill...

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: N328KF
Posted 2007-07-17 17:22:02 and read 21099 times.

I know this is one of Keesje's fantasies, but how fortuitous that such as move is now possible since EADS dumped its EMBRAER stake:

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/...db/EADS/20070214_eads_embraer.html

Was that a strategic or portfolio stake?

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Stitch
Posted 2007-07-17 17:25:46 and read 21083 times.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
Seat range does not fit in with E-jets, a design with Embraer involved would probably have a seating range starting at 120 to 130 seats (@32").

One would expect this might replace the EMB-190 series, as well as preclude EMB extending that series even higher in terms of size and seating capacity.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
2. Range is too short. A 150 seater needs to be able to do transcon flights (or have an extended range version with the capability).

I would expect the 737RS would start at 150 seats and serve the transcon market.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
3. Cruise speed is too slow. There is zero chance of an airliner that cruises slower than M.75 being made. Interoperability with older aircraft would be crazy from a scheduling point of view and flying more than 10% slower than the rest of the traffic would be very bad from an operational perspective.

For short-haul (1500nm or less missions), M 0.75 may not be that bad, since it would help offset the high CASM such small planes naturally have. Honestly, I don't see this plane being used for mid-con, trans-con or trans-oceanic services.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
4. 2-3 layout does not make sense if the airframe is to fit into both Embraer and Boeing's portfolios. A single airframe to cover the ~130 to ~250 seat range has to be 3-3.

Which is why I think a single range going that far is too much.

I think two families: one with 100-115-135 in 2+3 and one 150-175-200-225 in 3+3 could work.

[Edited 2007-07-17 17:27:29]

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: MastaHanky
Posted 2007-07-17 17:33:19 and read 21037 times.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Among the string of undisclosed launch customers are two very large Texas based 737 and MD80 operators.

I really did laugh out loud at this line.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-07-17 18:05:11 and read 20911 times.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
The market placement makes no sense. Embraer already sells aircraft with 110 seats (@32"), the overlap between the two would be silly. An operator would end up with E-jets, this thing and the supposed 797 to cover his regional and narrowbody markets. Going with only E-jets and 797s makes a lot more sense - even if you end up with a small gap between the E195 and the shortest 797 (which could seat 132).

The thing is, Embraer and Bombardier have not been able to convincingly take over this market segment (110+), with Fokker and MD disappearing.

A lot of MD80/F100/etc. operators are not happy with their products, so it ain't a surprise that Sukhoi, the Japanese, and now embraer are trying to bring something new to the market, to dig into this specific market segment.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
3. Cruise speed is too slow. There is zero chance of an airliner that cruises slower than M.75 being made. Interoperability with older aircraft would be crazy from a scheduling point of view and flying more than 10% slower than the rest of the traffic would be very bad from an operational perspective.

Fokker 100 cruises at M 0.72 and is still the best performing aircraft in this segment... (I must admit I'm a bit biased here  Wink )

Quoting TSS (Reply 19):
In my opinion the BBD C-Series, while a more conventional design, has all the benefits and none of the technical drawbacks of the "Boeing/Embraer" proposal plus it's ready to go...except for the lack of a launch customer.
Should Boeing decide to split the Y1 into two distinct sub-platforms (a "Y.75" for 110-150 pax and "Y1.25" for 150-200 or so pax), they could do a lot worse than to team up with Bombardier to produce the smaller of the two variants.

Bombardier has postponed developement on the CCS for now, because they don't have the funds and might have other difficulties. I'm not a big fan of Bombardier all the same, as they try to sell you a CRJ 1000 for the price of an A320, while the're rivetting them together in a dark noisy factory, like they did in the '50s

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: CygnusChicago
Posted 2007-07-17 18:59:50 and read 20765 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 9):
What are the black rectangles on top of the fuselage? Ejection seat hatches?

As noted in the thread starting post:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
A first are the small roof top windows that spreads a friendly natural light in the cabin, giving every passenger a perception of space.

Ah. Thanks. Missed that. However, I still think my hypothesis is way cooler!  Smile

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: United787
Posted 2007-07-17 19:19:23 and read 20677 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
Is Keesje overseeing marketing of this thing?

Keesje is the one that keeps posting these pictures. I respect Keesje a lot, but he is definately pushing this concept hard...

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Keesje
Posted 2007-07-17 23:51:59 and read 18717 times.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1):
...(1) the range is too small..

Not for the feeder / regional services that had F100 / BAE146, DC9, 732 service in the past.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1):
(2) the engines on the main body.. interesting.. is that much better than underwing engines? seems that Embraer went from rear mounted engines to the underwing.. now they going back?

New materials make bigger lighter fans and fan cowling possible, espacially if fan RPM is significantly lower on a GTF. Currently a 1:12 BPR seems possible. The engines is lighter then it seems to be, the core is relative thin, thrust range in the 65kN (14,750lb) - 80kn (17,000lb) class, not comparable to e.g. the CFM´s.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
My only real change would be to move the engine back to between the rear stabilizers, which I would make larger. That way, you can go to UDF engines and use the stabilizers to muffle the noise, or go to shrouded UDFs and make it even quieter.

Moving the geared turbo fans between the rear stabilizers could increase noise levels. The exhaust noise is aimed backwards, contrary to e.g. an UDF (sidewards). A reason not to use UDF could be the high frequency noise that is perceived more irritating then low frequence turbo fan noise.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
Hehe. I will remind you all that the 380 was supposed to have a spa, a store, a swimming pool, a bowling alley and a go-kart track.

I made some pictures of cinema´s and upperdeck lounges on the 787, I haven´t seen them on the frontpages and I doubt many will be surprized / dissapointed if they aren´t introduced, maybe the mass media will... http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...Tboeing787bbjcinemaebacegeneva.jpg http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g787bbjcrosssectionebacegeneva.jpg

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
There are advantages and disadvantages to tail mounting. To summarize a few.

True I think every configuration has its up and downs. Very large BPR turbo fans under the wings require high landing gears with all the bending moments / weight that come with it.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
1. Seat range does not fit in with E-jets, a design with Embraer involved would probably have a seating range starting at 120 to 130 seats (@32").

Yes, this aircraft too.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
2. Range is too short.

Then many succesfull short range aircraft had a problem. Remember Boeing is e.g planning a 3000nm 320 seat 787-3 and aircraft like the 717 and F100 had less range. The ERJ-195 has a standard range with max passengers at long range cruising speed 2593km ((1400nm), LR range at same conditions 3334km (1800nm)..

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
3. Cruise speed is too slow.

As mentioned existing aircraft don´t go much faster. Lower cruising speed makes it possible to make the aircraft construction lighter, seriously reduce fuel burn with an optimized GTF and it doesn´t hurt to much on short range. Airlines are replacing regionals with props again on short haul. Ask ATR / Bombardier. Cash counts. http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...vival/?no_cache=1&cHash=485df2ee81

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
4. 2-3 layout does not make sense if the airframe is to fit into both Embraer and Boeing's portfolios.

This sounds like it must be a 737 or Emb190 to fit in.. 3-3 would make to big/ heavy, 2-2 to long for the segment. Sukhoi and Bombardier, AVIC, the F100, MD80, 717, all 2-3, there must be something right.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
5. Engine thrust control reacts far too slowly to be used for stability augmentation

FBW aircraft have been flying around with it for 20 years now (F117, B2).

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
6. The engine nozzles should be installed above the horizontal tail, reducing the noise footprint by reflecting sound upward.

The exhaust noise profile must be above the horizontal tail, like many studies seem to agree on..


European study


Boeing study

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
7. The wing seems to be too far forward for balance.

The tail / engines are smaller / lighter then one would expect from e.g a 717 or F100.. Notice there isn´t an APU. Fuel cells in front of the CG could change things. Boeing & Airbus are collaborating on it. The wings have a serious angle, moving the lift backwards. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5=e1c00018b7808e82dcf8b82f6576d528

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
8. If the horizontal stabilizer is fully trimmable, does the variation in the vertical rudder's position affect their effectiveness? If not, how do you trim the aircraft?

Who says it is fullyy trimmable?

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 16):
This post is irresponsible.

 Wow! Irresponsible ?!

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Just playing around folks. Some time ago Henry Lam created a Large Regional Jet design based on my idea. A lot of usefull comments here on a.net required a LRJ mark II. It´s a stretch from the old design with some of the flaws corrected.

I could think we have some pretty conservative minds here on the forum. Not the open approach we need to keep aerospace innovative IMO.

Quoting TSS (Reply 19):
In my opinion the BBD C-Series, while a more conventional design, has all the benefits and none of the technical drawbacks of the "Boeing/Embraer" proposal plus it's ready to go...except for the lack of a launch customer.

Maybe the conventional C-series with again CF34 engines isn´t good enough for EIS after 2014.. Airlines expect more & they know it´s possible. Would you like to be in the Bombarier camp if Boeing and Embraer put their resources on something like this twin?

Quoting United787 (Reply 27):
Keesje is the one that keeps posting these pictures.

I can open a few posts on airline A considering opening up city B or a Dutch Aviation Thread: Part 57, but hey, perhaps not everybody is dying to have more of them..

[Edited 2007-07-18 00:14:00]

[Edited 2007-07-18 00:16:37]

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: PC12Fan
Posted 2007-07-18 02:22:42 and read 17460 times.

The front is very "Comet-esk".  thumbsup 

I agree with the idea that such an aircraft needs to be a 100 seat 737NG, if you will. 100 seat capacity with transcon capability. Point to point is the future. This would fit the bill for a market of say, West Palm Beach to Boulder, CO. or similar routes. I like the idea.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Keesje
Posted 2007-07-18 10:06:10 and read 14926 times.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 28):
The front is very "Comet-esk".

It looks a bit like the old Comet / Caravele noses. The original idea however was to use an existing nose section to reduce costs / lead time and to speed up production...


Source: http://nl.airliners.net/photos/photos/5/2/1/0777125.jpg

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 28):
100 seat capacity with transcon capability. Point to point is the future.

IMO unit / trip costs of a 100 seater aircraft able to make only 1.5 return trip a day would be so high airlines prefer scale over frequency, lowering CASM, improving utilization, lowering ticket prices.. I the transcon market will be dominated by larger more flexible / conservative Boeing 797 and A360 like variants seating 150 up to 240 passengers..

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2007-07-18 10:30:13 and read 14828 times.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1):
the range is too small.. they need to add another 1300nm for coast-to-coast flights

Adding another 1300nm of range would increase CASM substantially. It's probably better to leave transcon range to 6 abreast aircraft.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):
Cruise speed is too slow. There is zero chance of an airliner that cruises slower than M.75 being made.

In a short-range airliner, speed is not so important. The wide aisle will improve turnaround times enough that it could be scheduled inter-operably with 737s and A320s.

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Cricket
Posted 2007-07-18 10:48:07 and read 14733 times.

One word - Engines!

There have been no massive developments in narrow-body engines since the late-70's when the CFM family came swept the JT8D away. While the CFM5/7 series of today are completely different from the CFM engines of the past as the IAE V2500 engines are extremely efficient, I still believe the key to next generation small planes will lie in the powerplants above all else. After all, a lot of the gains the 787 is making are thanks to the GEnx and Trent 1000.

Along with Embraer and possibly a Chinese player making it to this segment of the market within the next decade, something that can easily happen given the latent demand in that country, I should expect some massive improvements in engine tech by then. Imagine the engine sales potential - you're looking at over 10,000 sets in the next twenty years!

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Keesje
Posted 2007-07-18 11:29:37 and read 14557 times.

Quoting Cricket (Reply 31):
I still believe the key to next generation small planes will lie in the powerplants above all else.

 checkmark 

That's what's could have the engines move up the fuselage. Very high bypass ratio's ~ 1:12 make it nearly impossible to fit them below the wings.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Engine Technology
New engine technology includes a 1:12 BPR, a GTF optimized for Mach 0.7 cruise and light carbon fanblades / engine cowling. Other engine technology includes noise absorbing materials, scarfed inlets and noise reducing exhaust pipes.



Quoting Cricket (Reply 31):
CFM family came swept the JT8D away.

That's what happened. I assumed UTC is willing to fight it's way back into the NB market & has the (Dod) dollars to do so. They have been breeding on their Geared Turbo Fan technology for years & want some ROI. IMO it is a technology that could perfectly match the requirement for superefficient high speed core engines while providing a fan RPM optimized for super efficient 0.7 mach cruise speed.

http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templa...c63af33110VgnVCM100000c45a529f____


Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
risk sharing partner along with Pratt & Whitney (20%),


Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gaerospace/2003187675_pratt10.html

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Columba
Posted 2007-07-19 17:24:10 and read 13259 times.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Among the string of undisclosed launch customers are two very large Texas based 737 and MD80 operators.

Southwest and American ?????????

Topic: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Keesje
Posted 2007-07-19 21:13:34 and read 13138 times.

Quoting Columba (Reply 33):
Southwest and American ?????????

American has a large MD80 that has to be replaced. The 737NG is a good aircraft. Howver AA probably doesn´t want to be the last airline to place substantial orders, like it was the case with the MD80..

Well, that could be the case. Southwest has asked Boeing come come up with proposals and would be good for hundreds of aircraft initially replace the more then 200 737 classics..

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
a comfortable 2-3 + 2-2 lay-out with every seat having two individual armrest. On top of this the aisle is 30inch wide

Now remove the 4 extra armrests winning 8 inch and bring back the aisle to 20inch and we have a couzy 6 abreast cabin for low cost short flights.. hello Ryanair..

Topic: RE: Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2007-07-19 22:34:25 and read 13051 times.

Airlines and leasing companies (not to mention the OEMs) would be scrambling to your doorstep in no time if that >20% fuel reduction were imminently achievable!  Wink

Quoting Keesje (Reply 34):
Howver AA probably doesn´t want to be the last airline to place substantial orders,.....
[.....]
Well, that could be the case. Southwest has asked Boeing come come up with proposals and would be good for hundreds of aircraft initially replace the more then 200 737 classics..

Well, if 25 frames can qualify as substantial, it could be said that Southwest is still diligently working at being that last airline.....

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

Quote:
"Added 36 new orders: 25 Southwest Airlines 737s, three unidentified 737s, two unidentified 777s, and six unidentified 787s. Identified one previously unidentified order: one 737 as Southwest Airlines."

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 35):

Agreed.. this thread should be nuked.. and frankly Keesje should be warned/banned..

Now, deleting the thread and banning him might be a little rash and harsh. Threads such as this provide a welcome diversion when there is a dearth of good, worthwhile topics being posted. After all, a goodly portion of stuff on here are fiction and fantasies. I trust the membership can separate the chaff.  Smile

Topic: RE: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Osiris30
Posted 2007-07-19 22:44:01 and read 13037 times.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Now, deleting the thread and banning him might be a little rash and harsh. Threads such as this provide a welcome diversion when there is a dearth of good, worthwhile topics being posted. After all, a goodly portion of stuff on here are fiction and fantasies. I trust the membership can separate the chaff.

When I posted that comment the word hypothetical was NOT in the topic of the thread.. the topic read:

"Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction "

I'm sure you can see why that was out of line.

Topic: RE: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction
Username: Keesje
Posted 2007-07-19 23:59:11 and read 12973 times.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Airlines and leasing companies (not to mention the OEMs) would be scrambling to your doorstep in no time if that >20% fuel reduction were imminently achievable!

Probably. I think 5-7% could be achieved by a GTF (at least that is what PW says), the 10% lower cruising speed should be good for at least 10% (drag increases exponentially with speed), the clean lean wing should help a few percent and the narrower fuselage compared to existing NB´s. Then there is a lower weight because of new materials & lower speeds. Most of the technology is there. Being much quieter might have advantages now that authorities are starting to regulate the amount of noise around big hubs especially during the evening / night.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
=  Wink Just playing around folks. Some time ago Henry Lam created a Large Regional Jet design based on my idea. A lot of usefull comments here on a.net required a LRJ mark II. It´s a stretch from the old design with some of the flaws corrected. Henry has a studio down under www.kaktusdigital.com and helped me out with some quick and excellent artist impressions of existing & non existing aircraft liveries / designs for various purposes.



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 35):
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 1843 posts, RR: 8

.. this thread should be nuked.. and frankly Keesje should be warned/banned..

The thread is giving an overview of new technology that could be introduced, including sources.

Osiris30 suggesting other members to be banned without violating the rules is a new low IMO.

The hundreds of viewers before him didn´t get that idea. What gives him the authority?

Check out rules 1, 2, 4 & 6. http://www.airliners.net/discussions/rules.main?confirm=no

Maybe it is better he withdraws his post himself, before the mods intervene.

Topic: RE: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduct
Username: Osiris30
Posted 2007-07-20 02:10:38 and read 12909 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
The thread is giving an overview of new technology that could be introduced, including sources.

Osiris30 suggesting other members to be banned without violating the rules is a new low IMO.

Your original thread title did not include 'hypothetical'. It read and still does by and large as an intentional mis-representation of the state of affairs.. to the point wher SEVERAL readers have taken the post seriously. Intentionally posting misinformation is against the rules.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
Maybe it is better he withdraws his post himself, before the mods intervene.

Actually withdrawing a post gets you banned around here for 'editting after the fact'.

I stand by my statement. And this isn't the first time you've tried to pass off that "design" of yours as something a little more than fiction.. only to back track later on and admit it's made up. The fact that I'm the only one to call you on it.. well I don't think that speak poorly of me.

You can threaten me with mod intervention all you want Keesje. Your post had it's title ammended by a moderator.. so don't play the innocent card. You should be happy the thread was left standing.

[Edited 2007-07-20 02:12:12]

Topic: RE: Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduct
Username: Rampart
Posted 2007-07-20 03:04:21 and read 12872 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 27):

I could think we have some pretty conservative minds here on the forum. Not the open approach we need to keep aerospace innovative IMO.

And how! I've said several times before that if we had followed the incrementalists, we'd still be flying DC-4 and -3 derivatives. Along the same lines, I would hope for more revolutionary improvements in the conservative "797" and "A360" you proposed in earlier threads. Good god, those two mockup drawings in reply 29 are fraternal twins, pun intended, separated by a mere ocean, and offspring of 787-A350 cousins! Maybe that's too harsh. 787 is indeed revolutionary, even if the outward appearance isn't a huge departure. But I digress.)

I enjoyed reading the pro and con arguments from everyone here -- this has truly been an interesting and educational thread. Thank goodness the sour grapes crowd weren't successful in ditching the discussion. Most everyone seems to have good points, but your reasoning and logic for this design wins me this time. I'd love to see this type of plane happen.

-Rampart

[Edited 2007-07-20 03:08:42]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/