Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190  
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Posted (9 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 9832 times:

FI reports today that EMB unveiled extended range E190 and E195 variants and announced that jetBlue was switching their 100 E190 orders to the increased range model.

The formal announcement will be made later this week.

The advanced range variants - to be designated the Embraer 190AR and 195AR - will have strengthened bulkheads and wing structures to support about 1,360kg (3,000lb) of extra fuel, raising maximum takeoff weight to 51,170kg, according to executive VP for civil aircraft Frederico Fleury Curado.

Both new variants will be offered to all buyers, but were launched at the request of jetBlue, which has converted its full order to the advanced-range variant.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 9738 times:

what's the new range? Very interesting.. depending where they the put those E190 and the new range.. they could become transcon capable now.. currently the E190 can make it from 2000 nm..

I do know that RDU-LAX is about 2100 or 2200 nm.. with this extended range.. they could do some serious coast-to-coast from smaller airports.. could push the jetBlue game into a whole new category that other carriers might not have even thought of!



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineSumma767 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2561 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 9704 times:

Embraer are always eager to satisfy its customers. Great that they have come up with these variants. What will be the typical new range of the 190AR and 195AR compared to the original versions?

[Edited 2005-01-25 18:37:13]

User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 9651 times:

>currently the E190 can make it from 2000 nm..<

The 2100nm number is in still air. An RDU-LGB/LAX example would have to stop if the plane had anything less than say a 2600-2700nm still air range



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 9638 times:

I do know that RDU-LAX is about 2100 or 2200 nm.

RDU-LAX is 1945nm.

N


User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2172 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 9627 times:

Didn't B6 get increased range with the last deliveries of 320's as well? I know firsthand that they have suffered with the original group going transcon with diversions short of final when winds/weather were not favorable. This could be part of that reaction...3000 lbs would probably give it an hour plus more...makes the 2000 mile range solid. They are going to fly the aircraft with full IFE which adds weight and a little drag for the antenna so this will help.

User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 9605 times:

>RDU-LAX is 1945nm.<


In that case, the extended range version of the 190 may be able to do both ways. Still, a strong headwind could require a stop somewhere



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFA4B6 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

does this mean B6 would delay the 190's entry into service to get these newer "AR" planes?

User currently offlineMidway2airtran From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 864 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 9430 times:

Embraer is really trying to push their program across, have to commend that even as a skeptic myself at the first announcement a few years back. They must be getting the same indicators as Boeing showing that the future of the industry is in longer-range, more frequency and point-to-point markets. Hope I'll get to fly on one of the a/c in the series sometime, but doubt it will show in any of the routes I fly for a while.


"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
User currently offlineCltguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 9415 times:

>RDU-LAX is 1945nm<

CLT-LAX is 2121nm....did RDU move to TN?


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 9409 times:

>does this mean B6 would delay the 190's entry into service to get these newer "AR" planes?<

I am guessing that Embraer has engineered this already and it is not that much of an issue. I bet the next 190 off the line will come with the requisite AR gear and be certified fast, especially with experience gained with the currently testing 190. This should be no problem for B6.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDeltaMIA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1672 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 9391 times:

CLT-LAX is 2121nm....did RDU move to TN?

No, you are thinking sm's. In which case RDU-LAX would be around 2250 sm's however that is only 1945 nm's.



It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 9261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wow! Good for Embraer. 3000 lbm should be about another hour... so a ~2400 nm range. I'm no pilot, but most airlines have stated a true coast to coast airframe requires a 3100 nm range to handle the jetstream at its worst. However, anyone piloting an aircraft is welcome to correct me. In my humble opinion this lets B6 add all cities from Pheonix east to their east coast destinations.

One question: is any of this added weight allowance to be used for baggage? I'm thinking would this allow JFK-Caribbean and BOS-Caribbean with the infamous luggage loads.

Just a thought...

Lightsaber.



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 9172 times:

CLT-LAX is 2121nm

ClT-LAX is 1846 nm, 2123 sm, 3416 km, 5:05 block time



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineCltguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 9095 times:

However you cut it...an RDU-Long Beach flight is a long time to be cooped up in something that size...too bad RDU can't get true west coast service in something along the lines of a 737/757 or A320/321 variant.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 9077 times:

I am guessing that Embraer has engineered this already and it is not that much of an issue. I bet the next 190 off the line will come with the requisite AR gear and be certified fast, especially with experience gained with the currently testing 190.

The article states that the "AR" study was initiated last spring (it was even reported in FI at the time) and that Embraer decided several months ago to launch the "AR" variants. The first E190AR is already in flight testing.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offline762er From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 542 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 9076 times:

This additional range is much needed. US Airways/Mid Atlantic has been pretty disappointed with the payload range capabilities of the 170. On a typical winter day it takes a pretty substantial payload penalty flying PHL-DFW and that's only 1,132 nm. When you get beyond about 3 hrs flying time you have to offload some cargo (and in some cases bags) with a full pax load and anything nearing the 4 hr range is just unrealistic if you want to fly economically. The original E170/190 family is optimized at stage lengths between 600 and 800nms. We were hoping for something that could handle 1,000 nms with no problem. Not the case. Even with the added fuel capacity of the 190 I still don't think it's going to be able to fly much further than DEN from JFK.

User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 9020 times:

>RDU-Long Beach flight is a long time to be cooped up in something that size<

The E190 is not a tight fit like a CRJ or ERJ. It has a full standup cabin, normal sized seats, and a 32 inch pitch with B6 (one of the best in Y class). It is basically a narrower 737/A320 in a 2x2 configuration. Nothing cooped up about it



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2987 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 8992 times:

Does anyone know the exact max. distance these new planes will be able to fly? Perhaps, if the aircraft has the ability to do so, B6 will add a daytime BOS-DEN along with another JFK-SLC and BOS-LAS (as those routes aren't all the way west).

JetBluefan1



Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 8925 times:

BOS-LAS is pretty damn far, 2069 nm is not a trivial distance.

N


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 8882 times:

Alright, here's a PDF from Embraer's website (English):

http://www.embraer.com.br/institucional/download/2_005-Prd-VPC-E190_and_E195_AR-I-05.pdf

E195AR- 2,100 nm
E190AR- 2,300 nm

Up to a 300 nm in additional range. Varies depending on specific operational conditions.

Cheers,

PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 8691 times:

US Airways/Mid Atlantic has been pretty disappointed with the payload range capabilities of the 170.

If the E170 is only delivering 50% of it's range/payload specifications, US Airways would not be "pretty disappointed"... they would be absolutely furious! I am amazed that no one has heard about it until now!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


On a typical winter day it takes a pretty substantial payload penalty flying PHL-DFW and that's only 1,132 nm.

BTW, just when did US Airways start E170 flights PHL-DFW or DFW-PHL. I just can't seem to find any on the schedule...


The original E170/190 family is optimized at stage lengths between 600 and 800nms.

Gee, it makes one wonder how EMB can promise over 100% more range (2000 nm with full pax) and get away with it????



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 8660 times:

US Airways/Mid Atlantic has been pretty disappointed with the payload range capabilities of the 170.

If this is true, why would they order more? I would think that instead of ordering 3 E170 and 3 C700, they would have ordered all C700!

The original E170/190 family is optimized at stage lengths between 600 and 800nms.

I thought it was E170 = 2000 nm, E175 = 1800 nm, E190 = 2200 nm, E195 = 2000 nm.. but I could be wrong..





Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 8557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One question for 762er:

Why did Embraer publish that US airways was seeing 2% lower fuel burn than promised if the reverse is true?

From
This is a December 2004 press release. (unfortunately, the web site doesn't give me a specific link)

Embraer today announced that based on actual measurements during aircraft deliveries, the EMBRAER 170 shows a 2 percent better fuel burn rate than previously predicted. This benefit is the combined result of improvements in the engine specific fuel consumption together with enhancements in the manufacturing process reducing drag on the production airplanes.

With more than 40 EMBRAER 170 airplanes already in operation, Embraer is now able to more accurately confirm the final fuel burn numbers for the production aircraft and will revise the related aircraft manuals to reflect the lower consumption.


No one expects coast to coast range with a E170...
Also, I'm missing something: I quote: On a typical winter day it takes a pretty substantial payload penalty flying PHL-DFW and that's only 1,132 nm.

Yet the colder the day, the denser the air (lower required takeoff velocity) and the engines are down in the flat rated thrust range. Its hot-high when aircraft have range and payload issues... Can you elaborate?

Lightsaber.



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 8502 times:

ERJ170, FYI, I was being very facetious in my replies. The 50% range/payload performance claims are obviously not true (there are no PHL-DFW flights!) In fact, on Dec. 21, EMB announced an E170 payload increase of 750 lbs because the E170 is getting a 2% better fuel burn then predicted.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 Post contains images DfwRevolution : The article states that the "AR" study was initiated last spring (it was even reported in FI at the time) and that Embraer decided several months ago
26 Lightsaber : Planemaker, sorry to split hairs, but the 750 lb payload increase was announced due to E170/E175 commonality. Some structural components that are beef
27 Hawk44 : Will B6 fit the Embraer's with the PTV's ?
28 B6FA4ever : Hawk44, as mentioned in pretty much all other threads regarding the 190's and PTV's...yes the PTV will be installed on the E190's. It'll have the same
29 Post contains images Planemaker : Lightsaber, you are not hairsplitting - you are correct. My post above refered to a Dec. 21 FI article but there was an earlier article on Dec. 10 - E
30 Post contains images Lowecur : I just had to sign up and get in on this discussion. Hello everyone. As for the 170, here is a recent pm sent to me by a 170 pilot with MAA about a fl
31 Lightsaber : Planemaker: Welcome to my respected users list! A little inside information on the Embraer engine choice. While they did in fact look into the pw6000,
32 Flashmeister : I don't care if the seats are full size or if there are dancing monkeys in the aisle... transcontinental is too long to be in a 2x2 plane with limited
33 N1120a : >(for instance, rollon bags wheels first).
34 Flashmeister : Funny, as even mainline jets cannot take my carry-on roller wheels first. BTW, the E190 will be a mainline jet for B6 and is the same size as the "mai
35 Post contains images N1120a : >the majority of airlines out there are considering the E-jets as RJsGreat. Now, can you stand up in the lavs, or is it like peeing in a shooting gall
36 JetMARC : I got to visit the EMB170 when it was on display in JFK and the lavs on the E170 are larger than those on our Airbus....
37 Post contains images Planemaker : Lightsaber, thanks for the interesting "inside" tidbits! Re. adopting technology from the Tech-56 program, in another thread I had speculated that if
38 Gigneil : UA's A319s cannot take them Heh, sure they can. I never have a problem getting my standard size roller into the bin of a UA 319. N
39 Flashmeister : Then you have to call the DC-9, 717, 736, A318, etc. RJs No, I don't: A318 vs. E190AR: Pax: 107 for A318, 94 for E190AR Range (nm): 3250 for A318, 240
40 762er : I see my previous post about US Airways being disappointed with the e70's payload/range performance caused some questions. I absolutely believe Lowecu
41 Post contains images Planemaker : My point is that it's a joke to think that the E-Jets are equivalent to the mainline narrowbody Boeing and Airbus lines. You don't have any point when
42 Boeing nut : According to Embrear's website, the 190AR has a gain of only 100 nm over the ER version. As much as I like this family of aircraft, I don't see that b
43 Csavel : On a typical winter day it takes a pretty substantial payload penalty flying PHL-DFW and that's only 1,132 nm. Why would it incur a penalty on a *wint
44 Flashmeister : I used the E190AR as a comparison because it's what B6 has on order. I offered a comparison to illustrate why the missions are different, and why the
45 Post contains links and images Lowecur : The 190 has an increase of 100nm and the 195 has a 300nm increase. The only way these numbers make sense is if you add the weight of B6's IFE and HUD
46 Lightsaber : Lowecur, Thanks for the insights into the range from a project manager side. Planemaker, It amazing how much Pratt & GE engineers know about each othe
47 Post contains images Planemaker : I offered a comparison to illustrate why the missions are different, and why the mission, in many ways, dictates the difference between the "RJ" and "
48 Mrocktor : Although Flashmeister cited MTOW, I'll use OEW to be fair (data is a little outdated, but I'm drawing a general conclusion): E195 OEW: 28.970t 735 OEW
49 Post contains images Planemaker : Mrocktor, now that illustrates a point! I would add that your point also illustrates the weight penalty of a design when it is a double-shrink (in the
50 Gigneil : Why would it incur a penalty on a *winter's* day. I finally figured it out. I don't necessarily know if the details are true, but he's talking about w
51 Alessandro : Will it be certified with the same numbers of cycles as the non-AR versions?
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...
UK - New "super" Wake Vortex Sep For A380 posted Mon Nov 6 2006 16:23:41 by Mptpa
"New" 747 For Iran Air posted Mon Sep 18 2006 21:54:37 by NA
R-R Mulls "Three-Shaft" For New Narrowbody Engine posted Mon Jul 10 2006 21:04:13 by Leelaw
"New" DC-3 Arrives..... For CX. posted Mon Feb 20 2006 14:58:32 by N754PR
Tenth A318 For AF With "new" Logo And Titles posted Wed Nov 9 2005 11:51:25 by FlySSC
BDA In New "Talks" With B6 posted Fri Oct 28 2005 06:02:39 by FA4B6
TPA-open House For "new" Airside C posted Thu Mar 31 2005 02:46:09 by 727LOVER
New "Brasil" Decal For Varig MD-11 (PP-VQK) posted Mon Mar 28 2005 23:50:04 by Msh744
New "Airline" City For SWA posted Wed Oct 27 2004 22:44:26 by Planespotting
Registration For New AA 777 "7CA"? posted Wed Jul 2 2003 16:08:12 by The777Man