planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:25 am

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
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5478
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:31 am

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!
Aiming High and going far..
 
Summa767
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:30 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:36 am

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?

[Edited 2005-01-25 18:37:13]
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:45 am

>currently the E190 can make it from 2000 nm..<

The 2100nm number is in still air. An RDU-LGB/LAX example would have to stop if the plane had anything less than say a 2600-2700nm still air range
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:47 am

I do know that RDU-LAX is about 2100 or 2200 nm.

RDU-LAX is 1945nm.

N
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:49 am

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.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:52 am

>RDU-LAX is 1945nm.<


In that case, the extended range version of the 190 may be able to do both ways. Still, a strong headwind could require a stop somewhere
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
FA4B6
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:00 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:13 am

does this mean B6 would delay the 190's entry into service to get these newer "AR" planes?
"Leap! And the net will appear."
 
Midway2AirTran
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:34 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:41 am

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.
"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
 
cltguy
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:54 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:45 am

>RDU-LAX is 1945nm<

CLT-LAX is 2121nm....did RDU move to TN?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:46 am

>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
 
DeltaMIA
Posts: 1622
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:53 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:49 am

CLT-LAX is 2121nm....did RDU move to TN?

No, you are thinking sm's. In which case RDU-LAX would be around 2250 sm's however that is only 1945 nm's.
It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:45 am

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.

Just a thought...

Lightsaber.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5478
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:32 am

CLT-LAX is 2121nm

ClT-LAX is 1846 nm, 2123 sm, 3416 km, 5:05 block time
Aiming High and going far..
 
cltguy
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:54 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:55 am

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
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:59 am

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
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:18 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:00 am

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
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:21 am

>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
Posts: 2860
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:31 am

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
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:55 am

BOS-LAS is pretty damn far, 2069 nm is not a trivial distance.

N
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:02 am

Alright, here's a PDF from Embraer's website (English):

http://www.embraer.com.br/institucional/download/2_005-Prd-VPC-E190_and_E195_AR-I-05.pdf

E195AR- 2,100 nm
E190AR- 2,300 nm

Up to a 300 nm in additional range. Varies depending on specific operational conditions.

Cheers,

PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:42 am

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!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


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
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5478
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:47 am

US Airways/Mid Atlantic has been pretty disappointed with the payload range capabilities of the 170.

If this is true, why would they order more? I would think that instead of ordering 3 E170 and 3 C700, they would have ordered all C700!

The original E170/190 family is optimized at stage lengths between 600 and 800nms.

I thought it was E170 = 2000 nm, E175 = 1800 nm, E190 = 2200 nm, E195 = 2000 nm.. but I could be wrong..


Aiming High and going far..
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:57 am

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?

Lightsaber.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:11 pm

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
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:23 pm

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.

Reactionary to a potential C-series launch, anyone? The C-series would have larger capacity, but if Embraer negates the C-series long range, that's deals a blow to the niche Bombradier hopes to fill. An ulterior motive of the E190AR could potentially be in creating F.U.D. at Bombradier by offering an alternative long/thin aircraft now, thus preventing the C-series from launch...

I know a 135 seat aircraft might not be precieved as "thin," but what of the 115 seat variant? That is just on the cusp of the E195, and the smaller Ejets could easily be billed as an alternative...

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...

They made several revenue runs... but may have been moved elsewhere:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Gabe Pfeiffer
View Large View Medium

Photo © Tim Perkins



[Edited 2005-01-26 04:25:30]

Though on second thought... I'm not sure if they were originating at PHL...

[Edited 2005-01-26 04:28:22]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:49 pm

Planemaker, sorry to split hairs, but the 750 lb payload increase was announced due to E170/E175 commonality. Some structural components that are beefier for the E175 are going to be made standard in the E170. Current E170's will not benefit from the payload increase. (I believe Embraer stated Febuary 2005 deliveries and on, but if anyone has the link.)

Note: a 2% drop in fuel burn is huge. For this weight of aircraft, that should amount to $150,000 (USD) or more a year. Or... it makes the aircraft sales value about $1,000,000 higher. (Embraer should be able to discount less on future sales by $1 mil.)

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
hawk44
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:54 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:57 pm

Will B6 fit the Embraer's with the PTV's ?
Never under estimate the power of US
 
B6FA4ever
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:49 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:33 pm

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 IFE as the A320's.

now regarding the E190 AR...i think thats pretty cool...when we first ordered the 190's, upper mgmt said that we'll be able to open up so many markets...but now having this extra range...that could open up even more possibilities for us where the A320 wouldn't be economical.

~B6FA4ever
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:56 pm

Lightsaber, you are not hairsplitting - you are correct.  Smile

My post above refered to a Dec. 21 FI article but there was an earlier article on Dec. 10 - Embraer 170 beats performance targets, where they clearly "split" out the 2 facts - burn improvement and payload increase.

They attribute the fuel burn benefit improvements to lower engine specific fuel consumption together with reduced aircraft drag.

As you said, the article reports that the 750 lb payload increase on the 170 is due to adopting structural reinforcements of the Embraer 175 into the 170. The modification will also reduce production times. The article quotes EMB as stating that the higher payload will become standard on all 170 new production aircraft slated for delivery in early 2005 and on.

Reactionary to a potential C-series launch, anyone? The C-series would have larger capacity, but if Embraer negates the C-series long range, that's deals a blow to the niche Bombradier hopes to fill. An ulterior motive of the E190AR could potentially be in creating F.U.D. at Bombradier by offering an alternative long/thin aircraft now, thus preventing the C-series from launch...

Interesting call, DFW  Big thumbs up

...but EMB started the "AR" evaluation in early Spring 2004 and it was reported in several publications (they even evaluated the PW6000 for a very brief time until GE guaranteed that the CF34-10E could handle the increased thrust required). However, the CSeries was not unveiled until Farnborough, so it would seem, timing-wise, that BBD was trying to one-up the 190/195AR with the trans-con variants of the CSeries. And that has put BBD in a pickle... they need a new engine for the trans-con capability and the efficiency advantage but they don't have one... and no one is lining up to design and build them one!

Though on second thought... I'm not sure if they were originating at PHL...

You're right... they're from PIT and CLT. The only direct flts from PHL are on 737s.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
lowecur
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:18 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:08 pm

I just had to sign up and get in on this discussion. Hello everyone.  Smile

As for the 170, here is a recent pm sent to me by a 170 pilot with MAA about a flt from PHL to IAH. Check the numbers yourself. Believe me these are excellent numbers, and if they topped off the fuel they would be close to 2350nm max range(this includes the FAR reserve). The extra range is due to the light pax load (55).

"I flew PHL-IAH on Thur

We had 17300 pounds of fuel at the gate. PAX count was 55 with 70 bags in the hold and 450 pounds of mail. Takeoff weight was 76500 (82300 is max) and we had just under 17000 pounds fuel at takeoff (short taxi, no line for 27L in PHL).

We climbed right to 36000 for the first hour then went to 40000 for the rest of the flight.

Gate to Gate time was 3 hours and 12 minutes (it was blocked for 3 hours and 48 minutes). The winds at altitude were very light, only like 15 to 20 knots headwind unlike the 60 to 100 we usually see this time of year.

Total fuel used was 11,113 pounds. We had 5500 and change left, good for atleast 1.5 hours more flight."



 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:22 pm

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, it was too heavy for the E170/175 application. Pratt proposed a Pratt Whitney of Canada Pw800. Basically, a mix of pw600 technology (Donier 328 engine, NOT the pw6000) with the geared turbo-fan (shrunk from the pw8000). However, Pratt would have delayed the E170 by several years and thus lost out to GE who promised to improve the TSFC of the 34-8/10 by incorporating Tech-56 technology into the CFM-34.

Lightsaber.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
flashmeister
Posts: 2671
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:32 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:56 pm

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 lavs and overheads that can't take the same capacity as mainline jets (for instance, rollon bags wheels first).

Give me a mainline jet for transcon anyday, preferably a widebody -- I'm irritated at an A320 for 5 hours, much less a 170.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:14 pm

>(for instance, rollon bags wheels first). <

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 "mainline" DC-9.

Also, the 2x2 plane will have the number of lavs needed for the number of PAX, in B6's case 100 PAX
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
flashmeister
Posts: 2671
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:32 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:36 pm

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 "mainline" DC-9.

OK, fine. As far as Colgan Air is concerned, the Saab 340 is part of their "mainline" too. Not that I'm saying that B6 is Colgan, but face it: the majority of airlines out there are considering the E-jets as RJs, not mainline birds.

And, not sure what airline you fly, but my rollon bag fits perfect, wheels first, in the bins on F9's A319s, not to mention 737NG(AS). In the US config, for instance, the only place that bags go wheels-first is in first class where the bins are sized differently (and the seating is arranged differently, I believe). It's not exactly comfy to have to cram my stuff under the seat when bags are lined up end-to-end rather than wheels first. I'd rather have my feet there.

Finally, for what it's worth, I wouldn't at all be thrilled to fly a DC-9 transcontinental, even if it did have the range.

Also, the 2x2 plane will have the number of lavs needed for the number of PAX, in B6's case 100 PAX

Great. Now, can you stand up in the lavs, or is it like peeing in a shooting gallery (reference: lavatories on CRJ700 -- those things should be illegal).
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:57 pm

>the majority of airlines out there are considering the E-jets as RJs<

Then you have to call the DC-9, 717, 736, A318, etc. RJs

>Great. Now, can you stand up in the lavs, or is it like peeing in a shooting gallery (reference: lavatories on CRJ700 -- those things should be illegal).<

Very, very different airframes. The CRJ700 is a stretched CRJ100/200. The EMB170/190 is a brand new airframe

>And, not sure what airline you fly,<

UA and WN mostly

>but my rollon bag fits perfect, wheels first, in the bins on F9's A319s, not to mention 737NG(AS). In the US config, for instance, the only place that bags go wheels-first is in first class where the bins are sized differently (and the seating is arranged differently, I believe).<

UA's A319s cannot take them, WN's 733s and 73Gs can

>It's not exactly comfy to have to cram my stuff under the seat when bags are lined up end-to-end rather than wheels first. I'd rather have my feet there.<

Me too, though I just take the Exit Row and don't worry about it Big grin
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Jetmarc
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:54 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:27 pm

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....
"Sucka, I'm gonna send you out on Knuckle Airlines. Fist Class!!" ~ Mr. T
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:35 am

Lightsaber, thanks for the interesting "inside" tidbits! Re. adopting technology from the Tech-56 program, in another thread I had speculated that if there was indeed a market for transcon E-Jets in the future, that GE would still be able to increase CF34 thrust further to acommodate it. In October, for example, CFM launched the Technology Insertion upgrade program for current CFM56-5B and -7B engines based on Tech 56 programme. BTW, in case you didn't know, BBD had selected the PW6000 for the BRJ-X.


It's not exactly comfy to have to cram my stuff under the seat when bags are lined up end-to-end rather than wheels first. I'd rather have my feet there.

A 737/757 sits 6-abreast, so obviously you cannot fit six roll-on bags in the overhead bin space... even with the bags placed wheels first! FYI, the E170, at only 4-abreast, has the same overhead bin space per pax.

Give me a mainline jet for transcon anyday, preferably a widebody.

Are you afraid of flying on smaller aircraft?  Wink/being sarcastic

FYI, you get more pax space and comfort on the E170 than even on a widebody! The E170's seats and aisles are wider, there are no middle seats... obviously boarding and deplaning are faster and waiting for checked luggage is shorter... what is there not to like?
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:59 am

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
 
flashmeister
Posts: 2671
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:32 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:53 am

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, 2400 for E190AR
Max TO Weight: 130100 for A318, 110900lbs for E190AR

Clearly the A318 takes more people, farther, and can carry more cargo/fuel. It doesn't at all fit the same mission as the E190. Ditto for 736.

Could the argument be made that the 717 and DC-9 fit the same mission that the E190 does? Sure. Great. Again, I wouldn't fly either one of them coast-to-coast, and by the way, both of them are either dead or condemned. Great company to be in.

My point is that it's a joke to think that the E-Jets are equivalent to the mainline narrowbody Boeing and Airbus lines. Even Embraer doesn't equate them. They're just the latest RJs, yes, bigger, but that's an economic force at work. Besides, the market isn't exactly screaming for a 100-seater anyway. References: death of 717, anemic sales of 318, and the lack of a single 736 flying in the US...
 
762er
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:18 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:34 am

I see my previous post about US Airways being disappointed with the e70's payload/range performance caused some questions. I absolutely believe Lowecur in post 30, those numbers sound very accurate. Note, however, there was little wind and a light load for that particular flight which enabled them to cruise as high as FL 400 where fuel burn is minimized. If you're heavy you can't cruise that high. But back to the point, US never planned on flying these airplane more than about 12 to 13 hundred nm, but we were hoping to be able to do that with no problem and big loads. The fuel burn information above is also true, it has been better than expected on average, however, worse at weights nearing max gross. When a stronger than normal gulfstream kicks in the additional fuel you have to carry limits payload opportunities on longer west bound missions, which, is usually fine if you're flying 75% full with normal bags but problematic going out full. This was our only concern. In general, since the teething issues have been worked out, we've been happy with the E70's performance thus far but as I said before it flies at its most economical on flights like PHL-STL and DCA-MCI. It also does great on shorter routes like PVD/PWM-PHL/PIT. Sorry if that was misleading.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:55 am

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 you start off your post with a comparison of the A318 and E190.  Laugh out loud

Clearly the A318 takes more people, farther, and can carry more cargo/fuel. It doesn't at all fit the same mission as the E190. Ditto for 736.

Well, duh... the E190AR is smaller... why not compare the E195AR for a closer match?

And using your logic, the 736 is just a longer range variant of the 732 and 735 "RJs"...

The E195AR carries the same pax as the 732, 735 and 736 but the E195AR has more range than the 732 and 735!!

Furthermore, the E195 has wider seats and a wider aisle than the 737s with NO CENTER SEATS!

So what exactly is your point????????
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:53 am

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 being something to crow about.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
csavel
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:02 am

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 *winter's* day. I always thought the performance hits were when the temparature is high or the altitude is high. Thus the term 'hot and high'. All other things being equal, January in Minneapolis should bring better performance than July in Miami, no?

I haven't factored the extra weight of winter coats, admittedly. Can't see that that would total more than two or three extra people in terms of weight.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
flashmeister
Posts: 2671
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:32 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:11 am

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 mission, in many ways, dictates the difference between the "RJ" and "mainline" markets.

You insist on comparing new tech, new build E195ARs to out-of-production, legacy 732 and 735s. Using that logic, 737-700 or 800 are suitable transatlantic jetliners, because they hold about the same number of people as the original 707 Intercontinental and can go Boston-London (barely). I hardly think that anyone would agree that a 737 is really a contender in the transatlantic market.

The lines are moving: mainline jets are capable of moving more people farther distances, and the same is true of the regional jets. They're still regional jets though -- small-fry planes in comparison to the mainline metal that's available on the market today.

So, lets look at A318 vs. E195AR, to address your complaint:
Pax: 107 for A318, 106 for E190AR
Range (nm): 3250 for A318, 2100 for E190AR
Max TO Weight: 130100 for A318, 112000lbs for E195AR

And, B736 bs. E195AR:
Pax: 110 for B736, 106 for E195AR
Range (nm): 3050 for B736, 2100 for E195AR
Max TO Weight: 154500 for A318, 112000lbs for E195AR

I still don't see where the 195 does better here.
 
lowecur
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:18 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:36 pm

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 to the airframe. The 190 has a MTOW of 110,893lbs & the 195 is 111,979. Adding 2 to 3 thousand pounds to these numbers for fuel should offer similar range increases. Any engineer care to chime in, cause I'm flying by the seat of my pants here.  Smile

David Barger with Jetblue offered this in a pilot pocket session today:

"The 190 project manager was quoted as saying that the range will be around 2000 miles...the gross weight increase will allow us to use it for missions it was originally intended.

This assumed max payload with 85% Boeing winds in the winter."


Now I'm not a pilot, but when a project mgr speaks about range he is not talking about max range, but practical range. The 2000nm into 85% Boeing winds in the winter he's speaking about is probably similar to the ESADnm range shown on this calculator. This gives you a ballpark estimate of the equivalent range when facing the average headwind. Naturally, these numbers vary as the winter has the stronger jetstreams in the NE & MW. The point is the 190 will probably be able to do a practical 1800nm flying from the NE to the West.

http://www.airportcitycodes.com/aaa/T&DCFrame.html

The Structural Design Efficiency(max payload/operating empty weight) between the two are as follows: .50 for the 195 & .48 for the 190. Incidently, the 318s SDE is .35 & the 736 is .38. The max payloads are computed without fuel. The 318/736 were designed to carry fuel for long haul, and the 190/195 were designed to carry pax in more comfort and for flying short/medium hops. Obviously, the only reason you would want a 318 or 736 is for the economics of a transcon, or the commonality issue. They are not a flexible a/c, as there trip costs are higher than both the 190/195, and ergonomically they don't compare.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:58 pm

Lowecur,
Thanks for the insights into the range from a project manager side.

Planemaker,
It amazing how much Pratt & GE engineers know about each other's engines. We had one gGE uy interview and he wasn't able to tell us what he did on a fuel injector (both sides respect NDA's), so we told him.

As to the BRJ-X, Pratt was selected. For the C-series, its up in the air. In fact I knew one of my friends who is still at Pratt was on a trip to Canada when Bombardier released a photo of the C-series with CF-34's. (hmmm...)

Oh, just in case I set the wrong impression, not all of the Tech56 technology is in the CF-34. For instance, look at the fan blades and you'll see they're almost straight blades. A curved fan is a few percent drop in fuel burn for a few tens of millions of engineering costs. (I don't know the exact cost.)

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:41 pm

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 "mainline" markets.

Again, you didn't illustrate anything!! Why don't you check what the average flight distance of Frontier's seven A318s.  Laugh out loud

And you said, "Ditto for 736" when there is no 736 operator in the US!
And, FYI, SWA's average flight distance is under 600 miles!

You insist on comparing new tech, new build E195ARs to out-of-production, legacy 732 and 735s.

Well, duh... the 732 and/or 735 are still being flown mainline by AS, DL, SWA, HP, CO, and UA. The 736 is just a longer range version of the 732 & 735... and all three offer less passenger comfort!!!

[Edited 2005-01-27 06:01:05]
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:56 pm

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: 30.950t (+1t)

736 OEW: 37.100t (+8t)

A318 OEW: 38.400t (+9,5t)

Which illustrates (just itching to use that word!) why airlines are not rushing to replace their 735s with 736s or A318s - and why the E195 actually does compete, directly, at an advantage, with both of them.

If your average stage length is 600-800nm, the E-Jets are not capable of flying maybe one in ten of your routes. Is it worth it to haul 8 tons of dead weight on every aircraft in your fleet for the sake of one in ten routes? JetBlue decided "no", they'll misuse the 320s on that one route in ten where the 190's range is insufficient and reap the rewards of flying a plane that is over 8 tons lighter then the competition on the other nine routes.

mrocktor
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190

Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:02 am

Mrocktor, now that illustrates a point!  Wink/being sarcastic

I would add that your point also illustrates the weight penalty of a design when it is a double-shrink (in the case of the A318) or a single-shrink (in the case of the 736.) Also, JetBlue was not the only mainline carrier that came to the conclusion that you illustrate... so did Air Canada.

Lightsaber, funny anecdote about the "g(GE)uy" - I agree with you that there are virtually no secrets. Every firm has its "Competitve Intelligence" department. BTW, PW has been publically quoted as stating (though you may have some info to the contrary) that they are not only not interested in developing a new engine for the CSeries but that they are not even offering the 6000. They also said that any potential Pratt involvement in the CSeries would only be through IAE (which throws a wrench into BBD's hope that all three manufacturers would compete to develop an all-new engine.)
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

Who is online