Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Family?  
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 4060 times:

Just read an interesting article in AI about the E-Jets. Without elaborating further, the article states that EMBRAER sees growth potential with this family of jets by further stretching the E195.

Is anybody aware of what maximum stretch the airframe and MTOW the engines would allow - currently the maximum capacity is Y118 in a high density layout and the range of the E195 is reduced compared to the E190.

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 926 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

A 125-130 seat E195X can be an attractive replacement for 100-130 seat aging MD's and 737 for AA, NW, and DL and make the 190/195/195X a nice home for many mainline operations. First and foremost GE would have to come up with more thrust for the CF34. After that, stretched versions with more seating should be possible along with increase in MZFW, MTOW. Retaining at least 2000 nautical miles range would probably require modifications to the wing.


Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3960 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 1):
Retaining at least 2000 nautical miles range would probably require modifications to the wing.

I would say it would probably need to move to the 2000-2500nm range since the E70 gruop is 1800-2100 and the E90 gruop is 1800-2300. It would only make sense for the E21? group to be 2000-2500. At least then you can do some coast to coast flights.. 2x2.. 30-32 rows.. double bubble.. sounds good to me!



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Would be interesting to know how many rows airlines would be willing to accept in a 2+2 layout. When the CR900 was launched, there were comments from airlines that the tube effect would be unacceptable from a comfort point of view - and we are talking about 22 rows, if I am not mistaken. The E195 is of course slighty wider and overall roomier than the CR900, but FlyBe is squeezing in 29 rows. A further stretch would problaby only make sense if another 4 or 5 rows could be added, making it 34 rows at 2+2 in a high density layout. Would that be acceptable for non-LCC carriers ? It would be a cabin length similar to an Airbus A321 - but not at 6 but at 4 abreast.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21528 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

tube effect would be eliminated with mid-cabin lavs. Put them directly ahead of the window exit row. Or just move cart storage or wardrobe or something else to that position to break up the tube.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3666 times:

One other consideration that probably would limit stretches is that as a regional jet, the aircraft might get a little too long to operate into smallish airfields with small aprons and narrow runways/taxiways. Also quick turn-arounds get more difficult the more rows you have (ask the B757-300 operators), although for a network operator this might be less of a problem than for a LCC.

User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 926 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3616 times:

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 3):
A further stretch would probably only make sense if another 4 or 5 rows could be added, making it 34 rows at 2+2 in a high density layout. Would that be acceptable for non-LCC carriers ? It would be a cabin length similar to an Airbus A321 - but not at 6 but at 4 abreast.

That's 136 seats in a 2x2 configuration. I am not sure if Embraer would go that far, but I believe 120-125 seats is more likely their limit (if at all).

Also, I read somewhere recently that Embraer's Mauricio Botelho is interested in being part of the team (partner, supplier, ??) for the narrowbody replacements. Getting the E-195X too close to Boeing and Airbus true territory would not make Embraer a good bed fellow. However, if they are left out, I believe Embraer will come up with a way to develop another platform, like a 3 x 2 all new design in a few years when an engine is developed.



Only the paranoid survive
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...
Potential ERJ-170/175/190/195 Operators posted Sun Oct 9 2005 19:49:36 by MD90fan
August 24 For The First Jetblue 190! posted Tue Jun 28 2005 23:15:13 by Jetblue15
UsAirways And The Q-400, EMB 190,195 posted Thu Mar 31 2005 19:37:40 by Cumulonimbus
Which Will NW Order The 190, 195, Or Both? posted Sat Oct 7 2006 00:31:55 by Af773atmsp
Winglet Upgrades For The A320 Family? posted Tue Apr 19 2005 04:09:30 by Iowa744fan
E170 Design For The Canadair? posted Sun Nov 28 2004 21:09:09 by CRPilot
EMB-190's For The Majors? posted Fri Apr 30 2004 19:46:19 by EAL757
For The Family's Of Those On Sep.11 + The A300 posted Fri Nov 16 2001 15:50:28 by EGFF
Potentials For The B 747X Stretch posted Sat Feb 3 2001 21:11:36 by United Airline
Will The 747-400 "stretch" Be A Match For The A3XX posted Sun Jun 25 2000 01:01:39 by Continental