Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22408 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.

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6761 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22377 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?



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22333 times:

The airplane looks very bad!!!


Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22270 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.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30867 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22230 times:

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


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineTavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 835 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22157 times:

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

Gus
SKBO



Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22157 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.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22113 times:

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

I'm not surprised by this developement


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21948 times:

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


If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineCM767 From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21941 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.


But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21818 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.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21754 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.


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21740 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 


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21740 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.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21699 times:

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

It's FICTION.


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 625 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21656 times:

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

User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21617 times:

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


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5495 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21567 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



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21522 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.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 21440 times:

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

It's a discussion forum. Chill...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 21349 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?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30867 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 21333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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]

User currently offlineMastaHanky From United States of America, joined May 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 21287 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.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 21161 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


25 Post contains images CygnusChicago : Ah. Thanks. Missed that. However, I still think my hypothesis is way cooler!
26 United787 : Keesje is the one that keeps posting these pictures. I respect Keesje a lot, but he is definately pushing this concept hard...
27 Post contains links and images Keesje : Not for the feeder / regional services that had F100 / BAE146, DC9, 732 service in the past. New materials make bigger lighter fans and fan cowling p
28 Post contains images PC12Fan : The front is very "Comet-esk". I agree with the idea that such an aircraft needs to be a 100 seat 737NG, if you will. 100 seat capacity with transcon
29 Post contains links and images Keesje : 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
30 Zvezda : Adding another 1300nm of range would increase CASM substantially. It's probably better to leave transcon range to 6 abreast aircraft. In a short-rang
31 Cricket : 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. W
32 Post contains links and images Keesje : 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. Tha
33 Columba : Southwest and American ?????????
34 Keesje : 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 sub
35 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : 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 a
36 Osiris30 : 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 Reduct
37 Post contains links and images Keesje : 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
38 Osiris30 : 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 a
39 Rampart : 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 lin
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...
Boeing Also Developing 100 Seater As 737 Successor posted Mon Mar 6 2006 22:54:01 by Keesje
Boeing: 492 Orders From India Over 20 Years posted Sat Jan 28 2006 02:55:40 by LAXDESI
Boeing, I.L.F.C About To Finish Talks For 20 7E7s. posted Fri Jan 21 2005 03:25:34 by Greaser
Alitalia To Buy Boeing, Embraer Planes posted Thu Sep 16 2004 14:51:25 by BoeingBus
Continental Fleet - Boeing, Embraer, MDD, A Bus? posted Mon Nov 13 2000 19:57:51 by AKelley728
Boeing In Talks With Embraer & 20 Others posted Wed Dec 8 1999 03:20:09 by DeltaAir
Boeing In Talks On Next New Fuel-efficient Plane posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:30:50 by T773ER
Boeing 20 Year Market Outlook posted Wed Jun 13 2007 16:39:01 by PanAm_DC10
Airbus Looks Embraer/Bombardier For 100-120 Seater posted Tue Jun 12 2007 13:23:50 by Keesje
Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier/Embraer Production Rates posted Sat May 5 2007 20:51:30 by Kaitak744
Air Astana Orders Airbus , Boeing , Embraer posted Wed Feb 1 2012 10:03:54 by titus95
Dugan MD80 Fuel Reduction Mod Test Results posted Wed Mar 24 2010 14:28:22 by pfletch1228
AA Scrutinises Dugan MD-80 Fuel Reduction Mod posted Tue Jan 12 2010 13:36:01 by Pfletch1228
Boeing Weekly Order Update For 5/20/2008 posted Thu May 22 2008 07:59:50 by NYC777
Questions About Airbus/Boeing/Embraer/Bombardier posted Tue May 20 2008 11:27:10 by Jane87
Boeing/Embraer Production List posted Sun Nov 4 2007 02:21:04 by A388
Boeing In Talks On Next New Fuel-efficient Plane posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:30:50 by T773ER