With

- 737-7 continuing to fail in the market,
- the A220 gaining a food hold
- Boeing looking to invest in Embraer

would doing a slight capacity/MTOW investment in the E2 family narrow the gab inbetween E2 and MAX families a bit?

The segment up to 150 seats/ 3 ca's is huge & e.g. Southwest might get strange ideas on how to replace their 500 737-700s.



With just 70 737-7s in the backlog after 7 years of sales, there doesn't seem to be very much to lose for Boeing.

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

ikolkyo wrote:

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Absolutely. I don’t see Boeing investing in Embraer for a revised E195 at this point.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Looking back only at confirmed news, would make this a airliners history site. The smaller 737 is past the expiration date in the Boeing portfolio.

Another small hurdle is taken towards cooperation with Embraer. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/brazil-court-overturns-injunction-against-boeing-emb-454282/

It seems Airbus is gaining ground below the successful 737-8. The smaller A220s and A320s take up market share. I think Boeing stockholders are starting to understand Chicago sitting on their hands denying ain't creating free cash flow for long.

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Looking back only at confirmed news, would make this a airliners history site. The smaller 737 is past the expiration date in the Boeing portfolio.

Another small hurdle is taken towards cooperation with Embraer. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/brazil-court-overturns-injunction-against-boeing-emb-454282/

It seems Airbus is gaining ground below the successful 737-8. The smaller A220s and A320s take up market share. I think Boeing stockholders are starting to understand Chicago sitting on their hands denying ain't creating free cash flow for long.

As is the A319NEO; certified but going nowhere. Airbus is lucky to have the A220 in its stable because even the A320NEO doesn't quite match up to the MAX8. Going forward, the action and momentum are with A321NEO variants. While your exercise is interesting, I doubt even a stretched, MTOW increased E2-195 would take up the slack for the MAX7. I do agree Embraer needs to do something to increase the E2's sales but its still fundamentally a regional airliner and its hard to imagine a variant with enough range to fly trans-con, like the A220 can do.

AvObserver wrote:

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Looking back only at confirmed news, would make this a airliners history site. The smaller 737 is past the expiration date in the Boeing portfolio.

Another small hurdle is taken towards cooperation with Embraer. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/brazil-court-overturns-injunction-against-boeing-emb-454282/

It seems Airbus is gaining ground below the successful 737-8. The smaller A220s and A320s take up market share. I think Boeing stockholders are starting to understand Chicago sitting on their hands denying ain't creating free cash flow for long.

As is the A319NEO; certified but going nowhere. Airbus is lucky to have the A220 in its stable because even the A320NEO doesn't quite match up to the MAX8. Going forward, the action and momentum are with A321NEO variants. While your exercise is interesting, I doubt even a stretched, MTOW increased E2-195 would take up the slack for the MAX7. I do agree Embraer needs to do something to increase the E2's sales but its still fundamentally a regional airliner and its hard to imagine a variant with enough range to fly trans-con, like the A220 can do.

I wouldn't expect such an aircraft to do Transcon. The huge SW 737 fleet would take care of that. An E200-E2 would be a lean and mean answer in the increasingly overlapping Regional-Mainline segment up to 3-4 hours. The larger E2's have the same bigger, quiet & lean GTF 's the A220s have. Bumping those up a few klbs for a bigger E2 to ensure airfield performance doesn't seem complicated.

I didn't look at E195-E2 specifications in detail yet, but saw a 16t payload on embraer.com, which makes me confident 1.2 OEW plus 12 seats is doable trading capacity for range. The question is if an Embraer Boeing alliance would surrender the 120-150 seat segment to other players.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

It seems a deal is still on track & it seems Embraer needs sales.

The Boeing-Embraer Deal Is Still on Track After a Wild Week

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/12/boeing-embraer-deal-still-on-track-after-wild-week.aspx

Tapping into Boeing's massive customer base and its sales force is the best way for Embraer to land some significant orders from major airlines. Given that Embraer was down to just 132 firm orders for E2-series jets by the end of the third quarter, it wouldn't take much to move the needle.

For sure such an E200-E2 would achieve amazing CASM (if trading range for more seats). I'm just wondering what is the structural penalty having 150 seats with rows of only 4 seats.

And if Airbus ever launch an A320.5 (to better compete with the B73M), that would leave more space for an eventual CS500 (ok, an A220-500), for an even better CASM (if also trading range for more seats)

There was (and is) a tail strike issue with any E195 stretch.

Most SWA 737's don't do transcon of course (what, 4-10 planes a day?), but it is interesting. I remain skeptical though for the following reasons: SWA is going to buy mostly 738's for the replacements mid 2020's, as has been indicated by Leeham and others, and (b) any future Boeing-Embraer strategies will entail dovetailing not with the Max series, but with the NMA-NSA duo, and future Embraer/JV offerings below that.

Products are developed and positioned based on the future, not the past. We're not debating MD-90 and Caravelle derivatives, after all.

Hasn't Boeing stretched the 737-700 to the 737-7.5 or some type of model number that added about 12 seats?

The E2-200 would have horrible short field performance. Considering it competes head to head with the A220-300 (sort of, I see no way to stretch the E195 to match), I think Embraer went as far as they could.

This is like hoping 717 sales would take off now that Boeing was in charge. The 717-300 was discussed here as an obvious seller. We never saw it

At this time the E2 has 717 sales levels for the family. They need 300+ of each model. Why does Wikipedia still show the cancelled SkyWest order?

cheapgreek wrote:

Hasn't Boeing stretched the 737-700 to the 737-7.5 or some type of model number that added about 12 seats?

Yes. It reduces production and flight test costs as it is now a simple shrink instead of a true 2nd model.


This was to keep orders. I'm not aware of any new orders after the stretch.

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

It seems a deal is still on track & it seems Embraer needs sales.

The Boeing-Embraer Deal Is Still on Track After a Wild Week

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/12/boeing-embraer-deal-still-on-track-after-wild-week.aspx

Tapping into Boeing's massive customer base and its sales force is the best way for Embraer to land some significant orders from major airlines. Given that Embraer was down to just 132 firm orders for E2-series jets by the end of the third quarter, it wouldn't take much to move the needle.

What's changed? The deal isn't done and nobody knows what the true intentions of the deal are. Feel free to keep musing but it just seems premature to go down yet another fly-infested rabbit hole when we don't yet have a full picture of what's going to happen.

lightsaber wrote:

The E2-200 would have horrible short field performance. Considering it competes head to head with the A220-300 (sort of, I see no way to stretch the E195 to match), I think Embraer went as far as they could.

I would rather phrase the last part of your sentence as "Embraer went as far as they wished to". It was their intention to avoid head to head competition with the lower end of the Airbus and Boeing families, where they felt the would stand no chance. They have designed their E2 family accordingly. I think that this choice will limit what Embraer can do in terms of capacity increase of the existing largest member of the family. Let's note that they have already grabbed an opportunity by giving the E2-195 wing slightly more span than the E2-190 wing, which I don't think was their initial plan. Besides stretching the 195, another possibility would be to offer a higher MTOW. The have bumped the MTOW on most if not all their previous E-Jets, so I would expect at least one MTOW bump over the lifetime of the E2 program. Another possibility that I woudn't exclude would be a development of the E2-190 with the E2-195 wing if Embraer would want to add range to that member of the family, providing it with (close to) transcon range.

Let's also keep in mind that Embraer will be busy with the development of the E2 based Lineage business jets, although I've no idea in which time-frame this will take place. There is only so much that they can do at a time.

tomcat wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The E2-200 would have horrible short field performance. Considering it competes head to head with the A220-300 (sort of, I see no way to stretch the E195 to match), I think Embraer went as far as they could.

I would rather phrase the last part of your sentence as "Embraer went as far as they wished to". It was their intention to avoid head to head competition with the lower end of the Airbus and Boeing families, where they felt the would stand no chance. They have designed their E2 family accordingly. I think that this choice will limit what Embraer can do in terms of capacity increase of the existing largest member of the family. Let's note that they have already grabbed an opportunity by giving the E2-195 wing slightly more span than the E2-190 wing, which I don't think was their initial plan. Besides stretching the 195, another possibility would be to offer a higher MTOW. The have bumped the MTOW on most if not all their previous E-Jets, so I would expect at least one MTOW bump over the lifetime of the E2 program. Another possibility that I woudn't exclude would be a development of the E2-190 with the E2-195 wing if Embraer would want to add range to that member of the family, providing it with (close to) transcon range.

Let's also keep in mind that Embraer will be busy with the development of the E2 based Lineage business jets, although I've no idea in which time-frame this will take place. There is only so much that they can do at a time.

Agree. Embraer played IMO a smart game by keeping capacity slightly under the 737-7 and A319, to avoid direct confrontation with A&B, contrary to BBD. They even named the significantly grown and more capable E-195 still E-195E2, while it isn't a E195. The E195-E2 is certified for 146 seats, but a slight stretch might make such a seatcount more realistic / practical.



If Boeing strikes a deal with Embraer, the situation has totally changed. Boeing will stop pushing the -7 and their is a great opportunity to invest in the bigger E2 to secure market share in the 130-150 seat segment, which isn't small at all and giving the competition a free run from within their home market.

Newbiepilot wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Pretty sure we should wait and see if the the Embraer partnership even goes through

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Absolutely. I don’t see Boeing investing in Embraer for a revised E195 at this point.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1P42PM

Boeing said so, you may discuss

An E200 could not replace the 737-7 in terms of capacity and range, but reduce the gab, avoiding Airbus having a free ride in the large 120-150 segment.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Absolutely. I don’t see Boeing investing in Embraer for a revised E195 at this point.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1P42PM

Boeing said so, you may discuss

An E200 could not replace the 737-7 in terms of capacity and range, but reduce the gab, avoiding Airbus having a free ride in the large 120-150 segment.

I’m not clear on what exactly “Boeing said”? That they want to buy Embraer? We already knew that.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Absolutely. I don’t see Boeing investing in Embraer for a revised E195 at this point.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1P42PM

Boeing said so, you may discuss

An E200 could not replace the 737-7 in terms of capacity and range, but reduce the gab, avoiding Airbus having a free ride in the large 120-150 segment.

I’m not clear on what exactly “Boeing said”? That they want to buy Embraer? We already knew that.

No, the Brazilian government approved, it's kind of breaking news. Read the link.

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1P42PM

Boeing said so, you may discuss

An E200 could not replace the 737-7 in terms of capacity and range, but reduce the gab, avoiding Airbus having a free ride in the large 120-150 segment.

I’m not clear on what exactly “Boeing said”? That they want to buy Embraer? We already knew that.

No, the Brazilian government approved, it's kind of breaking news. Read the link.

I read the link and I had already read the news. Your reply lacked context so I wasn’t sure what you meant? That they discussed the E195-E2? Talked about a Max 7 replacement? If all you’re saying is it’s a done deal (which, according to the link, it still isn’t and won’t be for about a year after facing additional hurdles), then just say that. No need to blush like you just discovered you are clever.

There seems to emerge a new option in the now soon to be expanded portfolio.

E.g. Southwest will need start replacing part of their (huge) 737-700 fleet.

Someone said he expects many 737-7's. Boeing voices confidence the 737-7 will be fine. But the airlines balked, including Southwest.

Still it might be a good idea to think a bit out of the box. Airbus / BDD are no doubt giving presentations comparing the 737-7 with the CS300.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/10/25/boeing-ceo-voices-confidence-737-max-against-rival-c-series-planes/799443001/



Do nothing and unwelcome things might happen fairly soon. There a reason Boeing pays billions for Embraer.

keesje wrote:

There seems to emerge a new option in the now soon to be expanded portfolio.

E.g. Southwest will need start replacing part of their (huge) 737-700 fleet.

Someone said he expects many 737-7's. Boeing voices confidence the 737-7 will be fine. But the airlines balked, including Southwest.

Still it might be a good idea to think a bit out of the box. Airbus / BDD are no doubt giving presentations comparing the 737-7 with the CS300.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/10/25/boeing-ceo-voices-confidence-737-max-against-rival-c-series-planes/799443001/



Do nothing and unwelcome things might happen fairly soon. There a reason Boeing pays billions for Embraer.

The largest variant of the Embraer E2 is much loonger than the smallest variant of the 737 MAX, even though capacity wise they remain same (or close) . So I'd wonder what the bigger E2's runway and gate space performance & requirement be compared to the mini 737, for it to be a true replacement.

keesje wrote:

There seems to emerge a new option in the now soon to be expanded portfolio.

E.g. Southwest will need start replacing part of their (huge) 737-700 fleet.

Someone said he expects many 737-7's. Boeing voices confidence the 737-7 will be fine. But the airlines balked, including Southwest.

Still it might be a good idea to think a bit out of the box. Airbus / BDD are no doubt giving presentations comparing the 737-7 with the CS300.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/10/25/boeing-ceo-voices-confidence-737-max-against-rival-c-series-planes/799443001/



Do nothing and unwelcome things might happen fairly soon. There a reason Boeing pays billions for Embraer.

“A reason”, as in “the reason”? I ask because I assume they’re doing this deal for a number of reasons.

If you take the 195-E2 to 148pax (37 rows @ 31" pitch), what does that do to your fineness ratio? Do you repeat an A340-600 scenario where you are so long and thin that you have to add allot of extra structure (aka weight) to keep it sound?

An E200-E2 @ 148pax to firmly address the 150pax might be a good plane. However, remember that the 737-7 will be attractive because of it's field performance relative to the other 737s.... How bad would runway performance of a loaded E200-E2 be? Could it takeoff from SAN, HOU or MDW?

ODwyerPW wrote:

If you take the 195-E2 to 148pax (37 rows @ 31" pitch), what does that do to your fineness ratio? Do you repeat an A340-600 scenario where you are so long and thin that you have to add allot of extra structure (aka weight) to keep it sound?

An E200-E2 @ 148pax to firmly address the 150pax might be a good plane. However, remember that the 737-7 will be attractive because of it's field performance relative to the other 737s.... How bad would runway performance of a loaded E200-E2 be? Could it takeoff from SAN, HOU or MDW?

Shortfield performance and weight are why I think the E2-195 is stretched as much as economically feasible without a transition to a CFRP wingbox.

I hope for sales soon, the plane needs economy of scale.

Lightsaber

If the deal goes through, I think the potential, unions aside, is not to regurge existing lines but to cooperate on the design and the manufacturing of an NSA platform that will span E2/A22X to A32X in three variants with NMA/MOM/797 covering A321-middle market space. Similar to what automobile manufactures do with their modular platforms.

lightsaber wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

If you take the 195-E2 to 148pax (37 rows @ 31" pitch), what does that do to your fineness ratio? Do you repeat an A340-600 scenario where you are so long and thin that you have to add allot of extra structure (aka weight) to keep it sound?

An E200-E2 @ 148pax to firmly address the 150pax might be a good plane. However, remember that the 737-7 will be attractive because of it's field performance relative to the other 737s.... How bad would runway performance of a loaded E200-E2 be? Could it takeoff from SAN, HOU or MDW?

Shortfield performance and weight are why I think the E2-195 is stretched as much as economically feasible without a transition to a CFRP wingbox.

I hope for sales soon, the plane needs economy of scale.

Lightsaber

Even an E200 would weigh 6t less than the 737-7, it has the same wingspan as a 737-9, longer landing gear because of its bigger engines. I'm not sure if field performance will be a real issue.

Anyway there seems to be some urgency. 1100 737-700s to be replaced (500 at SW), the airlines avoid the -7 and the A220 is quickly gaining ground. Time to act (which they did )




We have to get used to the idea there are 120-140 seat PW geared fan powered alternatives from Boeing.

So the stretched E195-E2 that we are discussing - it's feeling a bit stretched to me and that's before knowing runway performance, loading/unloading times, etc. I personally don't care if Boeing announces tomorrow that the MAX 7 is dead and the E195-E2 is being stretched - I'm just asking if we really know that it's a viable alternative or just a fun distraction from reality?

Besides being 6 vs. 5 abreast, what distinct advantages does the C-series have over the E2?

The E195-E2 is a direct competitor to the A220-100. Capacity, payload and MTOW are almost identical.

Neither has sold in great numbers, but the E195 has a slight sales lead over the A220-100.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Besides being 6 vs. 5 abreast, what distinct advantages does the C-series have over the E2?

5 vs 4 abreast for cseries vs E2*

This is the key advantage, 1 extra pax per row @ equal fuselage lengths = lower CASK and lower BELF for a marginally higher trip cost. The Ejets were originally designed as regional jets...

PlanesNTrains wrote:

So the stretched E195-E2 that we are discussing - it's feeling a bit stretched to me and that's before knowing runway performance, loading/unloading times, etc. I personally don't care if Boeing announces tomorrow that the MAX 7 is dead and the E195-E2 is being stretched - I'm just asking if we really know that it's a viable alternative or just a fun distraction from reality?

Of course we don't know. Embrace the uncertainty, allow yourself the freedom to explore, without knowing or permission. Or be an observer waiting for conformation from the innovators. I see you are carefully moving your postion, in case of..

Even more of a showstopper would be the baggage pits. A long, narrow baggage pit isn't the most efficient place to load bags (even more so for outsize and heavy bags) and this would blow through any attempt at a 30 minute or so turn for a lowcost. The 5 abreast of the A220 or 6 abreast A320/737MAX is a much more efficient width. Baggage loaders can move about inside the pit and less space gets wasted.

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

So the stretched E195-E2 that we are discussing - it's feeling a bit stretched to me and that's before knowing runway performance, loading/unloading times, etc. I personally don't care if Boeing announces tomorrow that the MAX 7 is dead and the E195-E2 is being stretched - I'm just asking if we really know that it's a viable alternative or just a fun distraction from reality?

Of course we don't know. Embrace the uncertainty, allow yourself the freedom to explore, without knowing or permission. Or be an observer waiting for conformation from the innovators. I see you are carefully moving your postion, in case of..

I feel like we spend quite a bit of time discussing double stretches yet apart from the 737-10, none have come to fruition. The 737-900ER was hammered pretty hard on this forum for having the constraints commonly seen with a double stretched plane. Seems like the market is not particularly attracted to double stretches for narrowbodies. I wonder why. Perhaps we can learn from history and dig up some 737-900ER threads. The same discussions would be relevant to both an E195 stretch as well as an A321 stretch.

Channex757 wrote:

Even more of a showstopper would be the baggage pits. A long, narrow baggage pit isn't the most efficient place to load bags (even more so for outsize and heavy bags) and this would blow through any attempt at a 30 minute or so turn for a lowcost. The 5 abreast of the A220 or 6 abreast A320/737MAX is a much more efficient width. Baggage loaders can move about inside the pit and less space gets wasted.

Not a showstopper it seems. It has a big dubble bubble cargo space. It is nearly a high as the deck of a bulk loaded 753 with nearly double the passengers.

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

So the stretched E195-E2 that we are discussing - it's feeling a bit stretched to me and that's before knowing runway performance, loading/unloading times, etc. I personally don't care if Boeing announces tomorrow that the MAX 7 is dead and the E195-E2 is being stretched - I'm just asking if we really know that it's a viable alternative or just a fun distraction from reality?

Of course we don't know. Embrace the uncertainty, allow yourself the freedom to explore, without knowing or permission. Or be an observer waiting for conformation from the innovators. I see you are carefully moving your postion, in case of..

Carefully moving my position? My initial position was let’s get the deal done and go from there. Whether Boeing cans the E195-E2 or cans the MAX 7, it doesn’t matter to me. I’ve never been a big fan of the 737 MAX and the E195-E2 is just a bit too much of a pencil for my tastes. I’m honestly more interested in the long game right now.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

So the stretched E195-E2 that we are discussing - it's feeling a bit stretched to me and that's before knowing runway performance, loading/unloading times, etc. I personally don't care if Boeing announces tomorrow that the MAX 7 is dead and the E195-E2 is being stretched - I'm just asking if we really know that it's a viable alternative or just a fun distraction from reality?

Of course we don't know. Embrace the uncertainty, allow yourself the freedom to explore, without knowing or permission. Or be an observer waiting for conformation from the innovators. I see you are carefully moving your postion, in case of..

I feel like we spend quite a bit of time discussing double stretches yet apart from the 737-10, none have come to fruition. The 737-900ER was hammered pretty hard on this forum for having the constraints commonly seen with a double stretched plane. Seems like the market is not particularly attracted to double stretches for narrowbodies. I wonder why. Perhaps we can learn from history and dig up some 737-900ER threads

We have seen the 737-7 stretched, the 737-9, the E195, the 777-300, the 787-9 and research on many others. I don't understand what you are trying to tell here..

keesje wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

If you take the 195-E2 to 148pax (37 rows @ 31" pitch), what does that do to your fineness ratio? Do you repeat an A340-600 scenario where you are so long and thin that you have to add allot of extra structure (aka weight) to keep it sound?

An E200-E2 @ 148pax to firmly address the 150pax might be a good plane. However, remember that the 737-7 will be attractive because of it's field performance relative to the other 737s.... How bad would runway performance of a loaded E200-E2 be? Could it takeoff from SAN, HOU or MDW?

Shortfield performance and weight are why I think the E2-195 is stretched as much as economically feasible without a transition to a CFRP wingbox.

I hope for sales soon, the plane needs economy of scale.

Lightsaber

Even an E200 would weigh 6t less than the 737-7, it has the same wingspan as a 737-9, longer landing gear because of its bigger engines. I'm not sure if field performance will be a real issue.

Anyway there seems to be some urgency. 1100 737-700s to be replaced (500 at SW), the airlines avoid the -7 and the A220 is quickly gaining ground. Time to act (which they did )




We have to get used to the idea there are 120-140 seat PW geared fan powered alternatives from Boeing.

Span reduces cruise drag. Wing area, pitch angle, flap design, and engine thrust determine short field performance.

The engines are good for more thrust, so that is just adding structure (a stretch naturally increases rudder moment arm, so no worries there).

A stretch always reduces pitch angle. Since that reduces angle of attack below the maximum lift, that is the driving issue. The 757 allowed a wicked pitch angle via tall landing gear. The E2-195 does not.

Wing area is on the low side for a stretch. It is possible to do a wing extension a la A321.

A little more on field performance:

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

The E2-195 requires 6,283ft for takeoff
The E2-190 requires only 5,298 ft for takeoff

We're talking a MTOW weight increase (needs more runway).
We're talking a stretch which reduces the pitch angle. This significantly increases field length.
We're talking higher wing loading. Takeoff distance basically goes as per the square of wing loading.

So I quickly get past tire limits doing my own back of the envelope calculations. These aren't 777 or A350 tires with the high weight penalty to take the heat. These are narrowbody tires built for light economics.

I remain convinced we are near a limit.

Now, I am not an absolutist. A 40" or so stretch is possible. But no more per my estimates. So one row. That is it. Is that worth it?

If the E2 was all that, were are the sales to establish economy of scale? At this time, neither the A220 nor E2 will be produced in high enough numbers to bring down production costs enough to pay for PIPs. Without PIPs, sales dry up.

Lightsaber

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Of course we don't know. Embrace the uncertainty, allow yourself the freedom to explore, without knowing or permission. Or be an observer waiting for conformation from the innovators. I see you are carefully moving your postion, in case of..

I feel like we spend quite a bit of time discussing double stretches yet apart from the 737-10, none have come to fruition. The 737-900ER was hammered pretty hard on this forum for having the constraints commonly seen with a double stretched plane. Seems like the market is not particularly attracted to double stretches for narrowbodies. I wonder why. Perhaps we can learn from history and dig up some 737-900ER threads

We have seen the 737-7 stretched, the 737-9, the E195, the 777-300, the 787-9 and research on many others. I don't understand what you are trying to tell here..

Comments like the ones I am quoting from 2011, which were made about the 737-900ER likely would be applicable to an E195 stretch or A321 stretch. Double stretches have challenges

the competitive field for the 737-900ER will heat up considerable in the next 5 years, making new 737-900ER a questionable investment for the next 25 yrs. A row of superior competitors is emerging, spacier, better range, more efficient and silent. A slightly tweaked 737-900ER is a not an answer IMO.

The other factor IMO is the capasity increase of the 737-900ER came at a serious weight penalty, while many longer fligts are dual class, hardly benefitting from the seating capasity increase. (Excluding low cost, financial weak Lionair, rumours are the undelivered 100 Lion 739ERs backlog is very soft..)

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-foru ... n/4907469/

Also the A321 proved more capable in terms of payload-range, cargo capability and comfort.

Comparing the larger A220/A320/737 to an E195 stretch would probably evoke the same concerns just like comparing a potential 797 to A322. There are constraints associated with double stretches.

lightsaber wrote:

A little more on field performance:

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

The E2-195 requires 6,283ft for takeoff
The E2-190 requires only 5,298 ft for takeoff

We're talking a MTOW weight increase (needs more runway).
We're talking a stretch which reduces the pitch angle. This significantly increases field length.
We're talking higher wing loading. Takeoff distance basically goes as per the square of wing loading.

So I quickly get past tire limits doing my own back of the envelope calculations. These aren't 777 or A350 tires with the high weight penalty to take the heat. These are narrowbody tires built for light economics.

I remain convinced we are near a limit.

Now, I am not an absolutist. A 40" or so stretch is possible. But no more per my estimates. So one row. That is it. Is that worth it?

If the E2 was all that, were are the sales to establish economy of scale? At this time, neither the A220 nor E2 will be produced in high enough numbers to bring down production costs enough to pay for PIPs. Without PIPs, sales dry up.

Lightsaber

I used a ~30 inch stretch behind the wing and 60 inch in front of the wing creating a seatcount towards 150 seats, without 28-29 inch pitch and similar passenger fighting seat specs.

Recently Embraer improved range / MTOW for the E190-E2 and E195-E2. The wing of the E195-E2 is significant bigger than the former E190/195. No doubt a E200-E2 runway would be a bit longer with the stretch mentioned. But probably better then Soutwests large 737-800 fleet, >8000ft. You can almost always reduce payload below MTOW to shorten runway lenght, if really needed. How often is it needed?

I think Boeing is responding to the A220 situation getting out of hand in their home market There are resources to secure market share in the 100-150 seats now that the 737 proves not to be the vehicle of preference. https://blog.wandr.me/2018/01/boeings-737-max-7-southwest/. Luckely there is an existing platform, offering better prospects than the 737-7 (& A319).

A year ago, neither A nor B were in focused on the sub-150 seat market. The MAX 7 and A319neo have fallen on deaf ears. They obviously try to put a happy face on their smallest offering but clearly they will be a vehicle mostly geared towards keeping airlines in the family.

The only thing that changed was that A was able to pick up their interest in the CSeries for a bargain price, which was a great coup. Somehow we’re now supposed to forget the A319neo ever happened because Airbus no longer needs it. Because of that, we go from the sub-150 category not really being of much interest to A or B to it now being an apparent must-have. But is it?

Food for thought.

Did WN actually want the MAX7 to be a 150 seat aircraft? I wonder if the ideal Max 7 would have been the ~140 seater with the per seat economics of the Max 8. I think this is an important question because the MAX 7 is a compromise in this respect. It won't be as efficient as the Embraer/Airbus offering nor the seat gauging flexibility as originally planned, but the synergies of maintaining a single fleet will remain in spite of the seat count increase.

IMO I think it will probably end up being one of these two scenarios if the economics envisioned for the MAX7 does not materialize, such as between the 300/500 back in the day.
1) Have a small fleet for routes that need the MAX7 and upgauge everything else to the MAX8.
or
2) Become a 2 Type Fleet. In which case since they are getting rid of the fleet commonality, I see them either going with the 195E2 (actual aircraft, not the double stretch) or the A220-300.

I doubt they would be interested in the keesje idea outside of using as a bargaining ploy in negotiations with Airbus for a A220-500. Going with the 195e2 further stretch is going with another compromised aircraft in order to have a "direct" replacement of the 700s, especially since it may have SFP issues and they would be replacing the aircraft in the fleet that would be going to those SFP airports.

IMO the major reason to go for the MAX7 would be to keep the single fleet. If there going to drop commonality then there is no reason I see to do a direct 700 series replacement. Given the scale they would deploy them at they likely would want to choose the best general mission aircraft in that family. Then they could upgauge routes to the MAX8 or downgauge to the smaller aircraft. Also with the smaller aircraft it would now allow them into some cities where 737 service was just to large to be practical before.

If the economics do pan out then I imagine that WN will be to the MAX7 what Emirates is to the A380, with the advantage to Boeing that most of the development will be paid by the other varients and MAX7 development cost being easily covered by WNs orders.

My 2 cents

keesje wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

A little more on field performance:

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

The E2-195 requires 6,283ft for takeoff
The E2-190 requires only 5,298 ft for takeoff

We're talking a MTOW weight increase (needs more runway).
We're talking a stretch which reduces the pitch angle. This significantly increases field length.
We're talking higher wing loading. Takeoff distance basically goes as per the square of wing loading.

So I quickly get past tire limits doing my own back of the envelope calculations. These aren't 777 or A350 tires with the high weight penalty to take the heat. These are narrowbody tires built for light economics.

I remain convinced we are near a limit.

Now, I am not an absolutist. A 40" or so stretch is possible. But no more per my estimates. So one row. That is it. Is that worth it?

If the E2 was all that, were are the sales to establish economy of scale? At this time, neither the A220 nor E2 will be produced in high enough numbers to bring down production costs enough to pay for PIPs. Without PIPs, sales dry up.

Lightsaber

I used a ~30 inch stretch behind the wing and 60 inch in front of the wing creating a seatcount towards 150 seats, without 28-29 inch pitch and similar passenger fighting seat specs.

Recently Embraer improved range / MTOW for the E190-E2 and E195-E2. The wing of the E195-E2 is significant bigger than the former E190/195. No doubt a E200-E2 runway would be a bit longer with the stretch mentioned. But probably better then Soutwests large 737-800 fleet, >8000ft. You can almost always reduce payload below MTOW to shorten runway lenght, if really needed. How often is it needed?

I think Boeing is responding to the A220 situation getting out of hand in their home market There are resources to secure market share in the 100-150 seats now that the 737 proves not to be the vehicle of preference. https://blog.wandr.me/2018/01/boeings-737-max-7-southwest/. Luckely there is an existing platform, offering better prospects than the 737-7 (& A319).

The 737-900ER needs 6,715 ft for the same conditions as the E2-195. They basically need the same takeoff length! See link below.

The 737-8 may have a sharper pitch angle too. It's range is far greater than the E2-195, so for similar missions the -8 MAX needs far less runway.

You propose a 90 inch stretch. That is more than -9 MAX to -10 MAX which needs complicated gear to extend another 9 inches to prevent tail strikes. The gentle takeoff nature of a 90 inch longer E2-195 would not only preclude a MTOW increase, it would require a fuel reduction.

http://aircyber.weebly.com/aircraft-run ... ments.html

Unless Embraer is able to fit gear that increases the height at rotation.

Now Airbus is developing the SHARP kit and Boeing could put the -10 gear in the -8 (I suspect that will happen). So we could see two competitors that takeoff with less field length than the E2-190.

You have a neat idea, but that long of a stretch:
1. Pencil effect (weight penalty) that hurt 757-300 and A340-600 sales. A 4-across section just doesn't stretch that far.
2. Takeoff field performance.
3. Skin area (drag) to people.

All cross sections have an optimum seat count. That count increases with new materials (e.g., CFRP). With today's materials:
3-across: 50 (I see no other viable future size)
4-across: 86 to 130. (Scope clauses create non-optimal aircraft)
5-across: 110 to 180
6-across: 150 to 250
7-across: 220 to 270
8-across: 250 to 330
9-across:. 300 to 420
10-across: 400 to 500
Double deck:. 700 to 900
Yes, a larger step change due to stairways and elevators.

I like the idea if boosting E2 sales. I am a Pratt fan. I'm just not seeing your solution as viable. Not against a 5-across with CFRP wing A220-300.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

A year ago, neither A nor B were in focused on the sub-150 seat market. The MAX 7 and A319neo have fallen on deaf ears. They obviously try to put a happy face on their smallest offering but clearly they will be a vehicle mostly geared towards keeping airlines in the family.

The only thing that changed was that A was able to pick up their interest in the CSeries for a bargain price, which was a great coup. Somehow we’re now supposed to forget the A319neo ever happened because Airbus no longer needs it. Because of that, we go from the sub-150 category not really being of much interest to A or B to it now being an apparent must-have. But is it?

Over the last 25 years nearly 2700 A319CEO's and 737-700 were delivered. Most are flying. Add 700 E190's/195s, remaining 717's, F100s, 146's, MD80's, 733's. 100-150 seats seems a significant segment. I only flown this types on shorter flight 1, 1.5 hrs. I flown CRJ's longer a few times, real small. I find E-jets reasonable comfortable, never an middle seat, sufficient luggage space.

I think that when both matured, the PW1700 cn offer silence and fuel efficiency hard to match by the smaller LEAP-B. For Southwest they can select a smaller platform, while not getting in a fight with Boeing. I good deal it seems.

keesje wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

A year ago, neither A nor B were in focused on the sub-150 seat market. The MAX 7 and A319neo have fallen on deaf ears. They obviously try to put a happy face on their smallest offering but clearly they will be a vehicle mostly geared towards keeping airlines in the family.

The only thing that changed was that A was able to pick up their interest in the CSeries for a bargain price, which was a great coup. Somehow we’re now supposed to forget the A319neo ever happened because Airbus no longer needs it. Because of that, we go from the sub-150 category not really being of much interest to A or B to it now being an apparent must-have. But is it?

Over the last 25 years nearly 2700 A319CEO's and 737-700 were delivered. Most are flying. Add 700 E190's/195s, remaining 717's, F100s, 146's, MD80's, 733's. 100-150 seats seems a significant segment. I only flown this types on shorter flight 1, 1.5 hrs. I flown CRJ's longer a few times, real small. I find E-jets reasonable comfortable, never an middle seat, sufficient luggage space.

I think that when both matured, the PW1700 cn offer silence and fuel efficiency hard to match by the smaller LEAP-B. For Southwest they can select a smaller platform, while not getting in a fight with Boeing. I good deal it seems.

I agree - the Ejet family has been very successful and is a generally nice ride. I also agree that having the Ejet platform in its portfolio will allow Boeing to keep it “all in the family”. I’m just not sure that a stretched E195-E2 is the way to go for Southwest as a MAX 7 substitute.

I tend to think Boeing needs to be thinking more NSA and less E195-E2 stretch.

lightsaber wrote:

You propose a 90 inch stretch. That is more than -9 MAX to -10 MAX which needs complicated gear to extend another 9 inches to prevent tail strikes. The gentle takeoff nature of a 90 inch longer E2-195 would not only preclude a MTOW increase, it would require a fuel reduction.

http://aircyber.weebly.com/aircraft-run ... ments.html

Unless Embraer is able to fit gear that increases the height at rotation.

Now Airbus is developing the SHARP kit and Boeing could put the -10 gear in the -8 (I suspect that will happen). So we could see two competitors that takeoff with less field length than the E2-190.

You have a neat idea, but that long of a stretch:
1. Pencil effect (weight penalty) that hurt 757-300 and A340-600 sales. A 4-across section just doesn't stretch that far.
2. Takeoff field performance.
3. Skin area (drag) to people.

All cross sections have an optimum seat count. That count increases with new materials (e.g., CFRP). With today's materials:
...
I like the idea if boosting E2 sales. I am a Pratt fan. I'm just not seeing your solution as viable. Not against a 5-across with CFRP wing A220-300.

I think the 30 inch stretch of the tail, is what really matter. If I had good drawings I could estimate the reduction of rotation angle. Airbus did software/flap modifications in the past to improve / retore take-off performance earlier. You can also add some power to reach V1/V2 earlier. You are right about the pecil effect, but there's one factor the 75& 346 missed, the e-jet has a relatively high cross section, it's a real dubble bubble. That helps for critical vertical long body loads.

I can find nolinks, but Southwest said they liked the CSeries in the past, they have a large part of their -700 fleet aging & I'm almost sure Boeing isn't sitting on their hands. SW send out a clear signal on the 737-7 a year ago, deferring a (relative) miniscule 737-7 order for 4 years. I think Boeing got the message. If an E200/12 seat extra is feasible depends. Boeing did stretch the just right 737-7 years after launch. And went a long way to stretch the -9 a few rows.

keesje wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Even more of a showstopper would be the baggage pits. A long, narrow baggage pit isn't the most efficient place to load bags (even more so for outsize and heavy bags) and this would blow through any attempt at a 30 minute or so turn for a lowcost. The 5 abreast of the A220 or 6 abreast A320/737MAX is a much more efficient width. Baggage loaders can move about inside the pit and less space gets wasted.

Not a showstopper it seems. It has a big dubble bubble cargo space. It is nearly a high as the deck of a bulk loaded 753 with nearly double the passengers.

None of which disproves my point. Emptying long and narrow baggage bins takes longer to do and more physical activity than shorter and wider ones. The problem is in the length and not the width.

Regional and lowcost operators need fast, efficient turns and a pencil type body is not the right shape for that. Mitsubishi are addressing this on their MRJ by relocating the rear baggage bins to above the cabin floor.

Caution: Tail Strike

Channex757 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Even more of a showstopper would be the baggage pits. A long, narrow baggage pit isn't the most efficient place to load bags (even more so for outsize and heavy bags) and this would blow through any attempt at a 30 minute or so turn for a lowcost. The 5 abreast of the A220 or 6 abreast A320/737MAX is a much more efficient width. Baggage loaders can move about inside the pit and less space gets wasted.

Not a showstopper it seems. It has a big dubble bubble cargo space. It is nearly a high as the deck of a bulk loaded 753 with nearly double the passengers.

None of which disproves my point. Emptying long and narrow baggage bins takes longer to do and more physical activity than shorter and wider ones. The problem is in the length and not the width.

Regional and lowcost operators need fast, efficient turns and a pencil type body is not the right shape for that. Mitsubishi are addressing this on their MRJ by relocating the rear baggage bins to above the cabin floor.

That is not entirely correct. Assume a 737 and a posiible E200 have the same number of seats and the same aisle width. Because the E jet is 4 abreast, it is significantly longer and thus offers significantly (+33%) more aisle space for people to grab their belongings, stow bags, put on their coats etc. Less stuffed. There's less standing up into the aisle / letting people pass by, because half the seats are aisle seats and there no middle seats.