Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 2054 times:
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 3): Most manufactures would be making quite a big noise about a 10% better fuel efficiency from a new engine / airframe
I'm shocked at the claims... A new fan cannot provide that much of a cut in fuel burn. How do they get a 90% commonality with the old AE core and a 10% drop in fuel burn? I'm missing something in the math... that's often marketing. Unless... wing/winglet improvements allow a higher cruise altitude? Even for part of the cruise, that helps cut fuel burn.
Good news for Embraer. Very quite on a major improvement!
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1627 times:
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 5): looks to me like Kirby J. Harrison exaggerates slightly when he says engine is 10% more "efficient"
Thank you for looking into the details. 6% is still excellent.
I always liked the 600. The 650 is more of the plane it should be (from a range perspective).
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 5): that looks like 14.0% more fuel for 14.7% more range from
Ok, I was confused on where they were putting all that fuel until I saw the photo in your first link. That new ventral fuel tank is HUGE (judging by the pregnant guppy belly the plane now has).
"To boost range, Embraer installed a new underbelly ventral fuel tank and created more fuel storage in the central wing box, increasing total fuel load by 1,160kg (2,558lb) to 9,402kg. The fuel system has been redesigned with electrically actuated valves from hydraulically actuated valves on the 600."