Here are my closing comments on the E175E2:
6) The plane is overweight due to airframe & wing changes needed to accomodate its state-of-the-art P&W engines.
7) The likelihood of major US airlines to change their scope clauses just to buy the E175E2 seems remote.
For 6, the airframe didn't have to be stretched as much as it was. That added far more weight. The wing need nacelle and fuel system changes to accommodate the engine were required. Much of the weight increase was to add range. The plane grew from 31.68m to 32.4m long. That added weight. Most of the weight increase was the wingspan increase from 26m to 31m.
That huge wingspan increase improves efficiency on the 90 minute+ missions. Wingspan increases stress at the wing root and thus a heavier wing box and wing (plus the added metal for the added wing area).
To meet scope the M90 was shrunk from the M90's 35.8 to M100's 34.5m.
The wingspan was reduced from 29.2m to 27.8m.
Now, the M100 will need to be longer due to cargo being behind instead of below.
The M90 was too heavy with a 26,000kg empty weight
The E2-175's empty weight is unknown, but the E1 was 21,680 kg.
The E2-190 grew from 27,837kg to 33,000 kg with 33.72m wingspan increased from 28.72m and length unchanged.
Some was the engines. But a 5m increase in wingspan is heavy. I suspect the E2-175 has an empty weight on the order of 4,500kg or 26,180kg or so (my back of the envelope estimate, assuming engines grew less in weight as the CF-34-10 had only one turbine row while the CF-34-8 had two).
I keep seeing overweight blamed exclusively on the engines. But in no way is a 5m wingspan increase required. Now was stretching the body (the E2-190 kept the same body length).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... ifications
Wikipedia has the PW1200G weight at 1724 kg. The CF-34-8 engine weight is 2704lb (or 1226kg). So 1 ton of the weight increase is the engines (2x the per engine weight increase). There will be another say 500kg for the larger nacelle (larger fan diameter) for two nacelles. So 1500 kg due to the engine. The pylon weight also probably increased, let us say 150 kg more. Or 1650 kg total per aircraft.
There remains quite a few tons of weight of growth. I expect about 1,000kg for the advanced subsystems. They are more efficient, but heavier. Perhaps as much as 1200kg on this size of aircraft.
There is still about 1650 kg of weight increase that is on Embraer (by my estimate). Probably a bit more.
Engine weight: https://www.flyradius.com/bombardier-cr ... cf34-8c5b1
A question on cargo:
E2-175 cargo: 9.92 m^3 (forward) + 7.2m^3 aft or 604 ft^3. https://www.airplaneupdate.com/2019/02/ ... 75-e2.html
M100 reduces cargo to 480ft^3 from M90 640 ft^3:https://leehamnews.com/2019/06/13/how-m ... -spacejet/
I couldn't find the E1-175 cargo volume. I did fine the E170 had 508ft^3:http://www.team.aero/images/aviation_da ... e_jets.pdf
Do the E175 bins fill up? I wondered if this was any competitive advantage for the E2 being stretched.
I agree with the Leeham link, thanks to large bins in the SpaceJet, the aft cargo will fly mostly empty. It is supposed to have room for 76 wheeled bags in the overhead compartment per the leeham link. This is substantially higher than the current E-175 bins.