Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8188 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
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8094 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!
Summa767 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2387 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8060 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?
Hiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2118 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7983 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.
Midway2airtran From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 864 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 7786 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.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 7765 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
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10695 posts, RR: 100 Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 23 hours ago) and read 7617 times:
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.
Cltguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 596 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 7451 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.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 7433 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
762er From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 540 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 7432 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.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 7376 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
Jetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2785 posts, RR: 15 Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 7348 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.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 7047 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!
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
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10695 posts, RR: 100 Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 6913 times:
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?
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 6858 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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?
Sponsor Message: 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2387 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
