Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
E-170 W/ E-190ER Wing, Theoretical Range?  
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2422 posts, RR: 5
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3287 times:

Just curious, I wonder what the range would be for such an aircraft for those long-really thin routes.


Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3167 times:

Difficult question. If you keep the 170's engines, you can increase MTOW some (due to more wing area, more lift) but not that much. If you bring the 190's engines along with its wing, that will increase your BOW quite a bit.

Wild ass guess, based only on unsupported assumptions about the weight difference between the wings and the Breguet equation, something in the neighborhood of 3000nm (with 170 engines). Might be a bit underpowered, which might force you to take a payload limitation under certain conditions (if you want max range).

I don't think the 170enstein has the looks of a viable product  Big grin


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2422 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 1):

Yea, I know what you mean. I am really looking for a best guess which would incorporate the necessary designs (engines, strength, etc) to see what max range could be. For some reason, I had 3000 nm in my head too, but that is with no research or engineering knowledge. Just want to see if anybody with the know had an educated guess. Thanks for the input!



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

The E190 holds roughly 13000 kgs of fuel, and burns roughly 950 Kgs a side in cruise. The aircraft in operation has no problem filling full fuel with a full passenger/cargo load. The longest flight we presently fly is YYZ-YYJ, 2100 miles. That would be the maximum theoretical range of the aircraft, as full fuel is loaded.

So, if you mated the E190 wing to a E175 fuselage, there would be no change ... full fuel again. Perhaps a bit longer range, if the aircraft weighed less.

Now, the E175 burns about 800 kgs a side in cruise. But that is at E175 weights. The E175 at roughly 38000 kgs is 13000 kgs lighter than the E190. There is a very good chance that at the higher weights, the smaller E175 engines would burn just as much fuel, as just as much energy has to be produced.

The only way a longer range can be produced is if fuel tankage is increased, filling more of the wing ... or introducing a centre fuel tank system. But remember, on a trans-con flight fuel burn increases at a rate of 17%. In other words, it takes 170 kgs to carry every 1000 kg increase in fuel.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 3):
Perhaps a bit longer range, if the aircraft weighed less.

That is the whole point of the exercise...


User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 4):
That is the whole point of the exercise...

I think you missed my point ... normally, when one reduces the weight of the aircraft it is made up by adding more fuel, thus giving longer range. For example, Air Canada's new B777-300s vice the -200s. But ..the 190 can already carry a full passenger load, and a full fuel load, so range would not change.

However, if you reduced the weight of the aircraft and kept the same fuel, you would have a fuel gain of approximately 170 kgs for every 1000 kgs of weight reduction. So, if you reduced MTOW by say 5000 kgs (a lot), you could now only carry approximately 40 passengers, but would only gain 850 kgs of fuel, or about 200 miles further range.

As I said, the best way to increase range of the 190 series is to increase the fuel capacity.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2733 times:

Well, there are two ways to look at it. Either you consider you are starting with an E170 and tacking on a E190 wing or you consider you are taking a E190 and chopping off a big chunk of the fuselage.

The first point of view is "adding fuel capacity" to the E170. Yes, the bigger wing will be a bit heavier - but you get increased range. My WAG (wild assed guess) was ~3000nm.

The second point of view is "reducing weight" on the E190. Chopping the fuselage would mean losing a few thousand kg of OEW, and would also reduce the maximum payload. Since this does not translate into extra fuel, the gain in range is only due to the fact that less weight means less drag means less fuel burn. I don't know how much range you could gain this way, but I'd WAG that it is 500nm tops.

But all of this (except the actual numbers) was implied in the original post, which is what I meant in my response to you.  Wink


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic E-170 W/ E-190ER Wing, Theoretical Range?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Wing Flex, 757 Vs A320 posted Fri Sep 14 2007 04:23:12 by N9JIG
EMB-170 Airstairs posted Sun Sep 2 2007 21:56:51 by Cancidas
B-720 / B-707-120B "Wing Glove" posted Sun Sep 2 2007 00:57:42 by Blackbird
747 Range On Less Than 4 Engines posted Sat Sep 1 2007 18:55:26 by Sphealey
777-200ER Typical Cruise Altitude For Long Range posted Wed Aug 29 2007 17:14:46 by Aeroman444
L-1011 / DC-10 Wing Position posted Wed Aug 29 2007 06:41:04 by Blackbird
Blown Wing Stol posted Sun Aug 26 2007 10:49:27 by Faro
How Much Range Is Added To The 73G W/winglets posted Wed Aug 22 2007 19:28:14 by EA772LR
ERJ-170/190 And Cargo posted Wed Aug 15 2007 06:04:53 by Albird87
Scotchweld Wing Leak-Proofing posted Thu Aug 2 2007 06:17:10 by Blackbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format