I'm amazed how well the plane is doing. Maybe my oriposed. I'm not criticizing...
I'm seeing if we have a worthy successor to the Douglas T-tails. Everyone should be impressed that a cynical person such as myself is considering such a possibility.
Think of the implications of what I'm pushing to achieve. I'm about the most agressive test engineers in the industry. I routinely set aircraft limits higher than specifications, because I know how. Heck, I just stirred up my entire program and the end result? I'm pushing us into a brave New world with wonderful sales opportunities.
Everyone should consider how my prior schedule push will sell more E2. Peak season (summer) should have much more demand. If that demand can be met with fewer aircraft, it means a regional operator breaks out due to a cost advantage.
I'm excited as I simply haven't seen this good of EIS for a significant change since the 717.
What was it about the design and structure of the Douglas T Tails that made them so excellent at insanely high utilization and what is it about the E2 that makes it have the potential to become a great replacement for that segment? Is it that it takes a forward thought and lots of work to get a frame optimized enough to be able to do as many turns and as high of utilization or is it that it's very expensive on the front end and there hasn't generally been a market. I agree that if a smaller plane can get close to the seat mile costs of larger and also have the ability for crazy utilization it has the potential to find itself in fleets just because of the versatility. Does the C Series have the same potential in your mind for this kind of niche or has Embraer taken a different approach trading edge of envelope performance and range for a short haul optimized frame?
Answering the questions in three parts:
Why could the Douglas frames due such high utilization?
1. Doulas was ahead on fatigue analysis which ensured early reliability.
2. Douglas went for simplified subsystems (excluding a major oops on the MD-90) with redundancy that allowed more MELs for dispatch. You could pin many a subsystem on (higher fuel burn) and dispatch a t-tail.
3. Lower bypass engines which have shorter cooling times.
Why does the Embraer have the ability to match?
1. A complete redesign of subsystems that while advanced, are a digital version of Douglas concepts.
2. The ability to trade fuel burn for dispatch along Douglas lines.
3. The PW1900G should cool down faster and windmilling was added to speed cool down.
4. Trailed Bombardier and learned from their mistakes.
5. Had too many customer complaints on original E-190 software issues to not design in many more work around (buffer flushing, quick reboot, much better testing of software state changes). Much of this done by turning off some advanced features that only calculate now, rather than act. This increases maintenance costs over the first decade (nothing is free in engineering).
Could the C-series acheive similar utilization?
Based off AirBaltic performance, eventually. As with the first E-190s, Bombardier needs to fix software faults and a few bad subsystem components. I believe the latest parts are fixed. Because of fatigue advantages of CFRP, older C-series will have a maintenance cost advantage... Eventually (not yet).
There is a cost to this approach, fuel burn. The PW1500/1900G burn about 4% more fuel for the compromises required compared to the PW1100G design However, I believe the PW1100G is paying in seal issues. Just to be clear, why the PW1500/1900G and PW1100G are related designs, there are aspects of the high compressor, high turbine, and fan that I can identify as different that drive the fuel burn difference and cooling time difference.
Also, the PW1500/1900G is obviously optimized for the 1 hour quick turn mission (a la BR700) and not for cruise fuel burn.
Airbus mandated optimization for a 2 hour mission for the NEO. Airbus impossed no island hopping quick turn requirement as that market was smaller than the growing 2 to 5 hour market.
So once the NEO, MAX, C-series, and E2 jets are in full production, we will see specialization by optimized mission lengths.
I speculate Embraer was highly influenced by JetBlue's complaints (E-jet fleet leader due to high utilization) and a few failed sales campaigns to island hopping airlines, including HA.
Much of why they lost sales to island hopping airlines needed could be easily described to an engineer:
1. Quicker cargo load/unload (get rid of everything that snagged bags or people).
2. Quicker aircraft start (fast avionics self check, 20X faster than E-190).
3. Instantaneous and automatic recovery on MEL detected by software.
4. Fix subsystems so faults are know prior to startup for the day. (If something is failing, notify the mechanics the night before, not at the morning start up).
5. If engine start is having issues, have a fix that takes seconds to impliment (I really like the engine start subsystem, until Mitsubishi came up with a better new idea of putting on a heavy duty lawnmower start pull. No tool, just lift a cover and YANK. No training required as you start a jet engine by yanking the lawnmower starter cord. Mitsubishi patents.). inhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tra ... -1-53.html
a mechanic assisted start, assume a very strong mechanic cranked the starter
And do so with far lower fuel burn than the CF-34-10 and a lower maintenance bill.
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.