vfw614
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Family?

Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:13 pm

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.
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Family?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:44 am

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

RE: Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Family?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:55 am

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..
 
vfw614
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Famil

Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:00 am

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.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Family?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:38 am

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.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Family?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:56 pm

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.
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: Maximum Stretch For The E170/175/190/195-Family?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:35 pm

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