Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 5:45 pm

I think it would be interesting to discuss how a new scope clause complient aircraft could be developed. The reason being the end of the CRJ production, and the delay in M100 development. Thus the only available product will be the E175 E1. Because the E175-E2 is to heavy/large.

The first question to be answered is: What capacity is needed, 50, 65, 70 or 76 seats?
I think Covid-19 results in smaller main line fleets, thus scope allows less 76seat aircraft.

The second decision is engines. I think 10k - 20k lbf (44 - 89 kN) engines will be required.
The available engines are: GE Passport, RR Pearl, PW800 & PW1200G/PW1700G. And possibly Safran silvercrest. Could an unducted fan also be an available option?

For geometry I think there are three options.
- Embraer E-jets and MHI M90/M100 both have chosen for the low wing, conventional tail, under wing mounted engines option. I think this wouldn't be a good option for a new competitor.
Embraer could reengine the E1 E170/E175 with GE Passport or PW800 engines.
- A new CRJ, derived from a large business jet. Low wing, T-tail, tail mounted engines.
Another option is using 5ab, the A220 fuselage and develop a new regional wing. A new DC-9.
- I think Dornier did something very interesting with their Do328, both turboprop and jet powered. High wing, T-tail under wing mounted engines. This could be done with the ATRs or DHC-8.

I'm interested how you view this.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19989
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 6:01 pm

There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

There is also a lighter weight Japanese 70 seat scope (anyone have the weight? I'm going off memory).

The 76 needs great efficiency (heavy engines) and a minimum range of 1500nm.

The 70 seater needs a minimum range, just my opinion, of 1300nm.

While a 50 seater is desired, the economics are tough. I personally see that being a modern, electrical subsystem, turboprop with CFRP wings.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
Aceskywalker
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:55 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 6:01 pm

Turboprops are viewed unfavorably by the typical US flyer, which does have an influence on the airlines; only HA and AS remain as majors that fly their colors on propellor aircraft.

There’s no good answer to the regional aircraft replacement question as RJs get older. E175-E2 is the best choice but as you said, getting the unions to budge will be a Herculean task.

What I think will happen: upgauging aircraft, possibly to mainline and reducing frequencies. City pairs that can’t support even sub daily frequencies will be dropped.
 
NLINK
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 6:24 pm

Best choice is a modern 100 seat aircraft at mainline. Fuel burn as Delta has learned is almost identical to a 76 seater.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 6:36 pm

50 seaters are uneconomical. Full stop. The only market that can make them sort-of work is the USA, and even they haven't shown interest in new aircraft. They want Cessna Caravan-like trip costs, A320-like CASM and reliability in a 50 seat package. That's just not possible in today's environment.

Between 50 and 100 seats, the only size that makes sense is 70 / 76 seats, depending on which scope clause you're aiming for. There is no point in staying below the maximum permitted by scope; the trip costs will be nearly identical. Still, few airlines outside of north america are buying 70 seaters. Nobody has bought an E2-175, nor has the M100 / MRJ-70 seen much interest. ATR and Bombardier have sold a few props to niche operators in Africa and south Asia but the sales are low.

Which brings us to the next point, large RJs >80 seats. A standalone jet won't do, you need a family. Since a family of 50 + 70 seaters doesn't work, you'll have to build a 70 + 90 seater family. Basically what both Embraer and MHI aimed for (and failed at due to scope weights). A new competitor would have to be tailored to US scope clauses; some compromises in payload or range will be made for the 70 seater. But that leaves the 90 seater vulnerable to not-scope-limited larger jets like the A220 or E2-190.


Overall, regional aircraft are a dead end as long as US carriers don't relax scope.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 6:46 pm

50 seat flying is going the way of the dodo. Look at how Delta has continually shrunk it over the years. COVID passenger drops will make 4x 50 seat markets 2x 76 seat, or some combination. We could also see the smallest markets drop off but be replaced with the likes of Air Choice One, Southern Express, and so forth if some communities become EAS. There’s still plenty of 50 seaters with life in them. Pinnacle parked dozens that were just at the decade mark.

So many of the 50 seat markets would be ideal ATR routes. Upstate NY-EWR/ NYC, Midwest to ORD and DTW. All a pipe dream, but operating costs even accounting for longer block times would be reasonable enough to pivot away from 50 seaters. Of course as we saw with Commutair and Piedmont, the market has gone the other way, and again, COVID pax drops will finish off some of the straggler cities.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4947
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 6:53 pm

I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 6:54 pm

32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.


They won't.


76 seats, 86,400lbs.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
Acey559
Posts: 1390
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 7:15 pm

32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.


Zero percent chance of that happening.
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie.
 
bigb
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 7:28 pm

32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.

Pilots giving up scope is a fast trip to the furlough themselves today the way management works.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 8:02 pm

I think Embraer has the most simple path. Reengine the E170/E175 E1 with GE Passport instead of GE CF34-8 engines. Or with PW814/815 engines, that share the core with the PW1900G used on the E190-E2 and E195-E2.

A little bit more complex is the development of an ATR into an regional jet.

For seat capacity a complicating factor is that US airlines use three class cabins. Assuming full economy, I assume:
50seats => 56-60 seats
65seats => 72-76 seats
70seats => 76-80 seats
76seats => 80-85 seats

I was thinking about a family with three members, 60, 80 and 100 seats full economy. The largest member is outside scope clause.

The highest efficiently potential is with unducted fan engines. I think this only works with tail mounted engines.
I wonder if US public will view these engines as unsafe, like turboprop engines.

I also think scope clause relaxation will be very unlikely. But I do expect there will be demand for a smaller than 70seat regional aircraft.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6021
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 8:21 pm

Passport weighs 2,000# more PER engine, it’s a high altitude, Mach .90, low cycle design when a RJ needs a lightweight, low-ish altitude, M.78, high cycle engine. Try again.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 9:06 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
50 seat flying is going the way of the dodo. Look at how Delta has continually shrunk it over the years. COVID passenger drops will make 4x 50 seat markets 2x 76 seat, or some combination. We could also see the smallest markets drop off but be replaced with the likes of Air Choice One, Southern Express, and so forth if some communities become EAS. There’s still plenty of 50 seaters with life in them. Pinnacle parked dozens that were just at the decade mark.

So many of the 50 seat markets would be ideal ATR routes. Upstate NY-EWR/ NYC, Midwest to ORD and DTW. All a pipe dream, but operating costs even accounting for longer block times would be reasonable enough to pivot away from 50 seaters. Of course as we saw with Commutair and Piedmont, the market has gone the other way, and again, COVID pax drops will finish off some of the straggler cities.


I totally agree. Take some Delta-branded regional markets out of ATL. We might see small markets such as VLD, ABY, GTR & DHN, all of whom see token service from Endeavor's 50-seat CRJ2's, get dropped and moved over the EAS pile. Of course, this would once again prove that Mike Boyd (the aviation planning guru) is wrong again, since he has been yapping about cutting EAS in his "Monday Insights". Smaller cities getting major-branded, CRJ2/E145 service will probably become a rare thing after October 1st of this year.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4947
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 9:44 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.


They won't.


76 seats, 86,400lbs.

The pound one is just retarded. Can’t they just accept the new version of the same airplane is a little heavier.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 9:46 pm

32andBelow wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.


They won't.


76 seats, 86,400lbs.

The pound one is just retarded. Can’t they just accept the new version of the same airplane is a little heavier.

With respect to the E2, it’s not the same version, the -175 is a few frames larger than the ERJ-175. Embraer built it expecting scope increases, it is not just some baby fat from updates. Specs I see are it weighs more than 10k lbs over the ERJ-175, that’s not even close, even enough to capture the heavy former-Compass 175s, for example. Truthfully it falls solely to Embraer. Unions aren’t obliged to make scope fit the next generation, as the creep larger and larger. I remember only at the turn of the millennium 80 seat jets flying at Northwest.

I’m honestly not sure if the market is there for a brand new 50 seat design. While some would sell, an entirely new design would be billions and not where the market is, you’d be better off working on a mid-2020s two class RJ replacement. Any shrink from a 76 seat frame to 50 seat would just be an expensive and overweight thing for the small hops we see on the smallest RJs. I think pax would rather fly a 76 seat RJ with reduced frequency than an ATR offering the same schedule a 200/145 could. Considering props have huge growth allowed within scope caps, but it remains untouched, airlines agree. COVID will shrink the options available for flights, and indeed some smaller airports.
Last edited by TonyClifton on Mon May 25, 2020 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 9:57 pm

lightsaber wrote:
There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

There is also a lighter weight Japanese 70 seat scope (anyone have the weight? I'm going off memory).

The 76 needs great efficiency (heavy engines) and a minimum range of 1500nm.

The 70 seater needs a minimum range, just my opinion, of 1300nm.

While a 50 seater is desired, the economics are tough. I personally see that being a modern, electrical subsystem, turboprop with CFRP wings.

Lightsaber


Why the weight limit?
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:00 pm

Rookie87 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

There is also a lighter weight Japanese 70 seat scope (anyone have the weight? I'm going off memory).

The 76 needs great efficiency (heavy engines) and a minimum range of 1500nm.

The 70 seater needs a minimum range, just my opinion, of 1300nm.

While a 50 seater is desired, the economics are tough. I personally see that being a modern, electrical subsystem, turboprop with CFRP wings.

Lightsaber


Why the weight limit?

So that airlines cannot buy whatever aircraft they see fit and call it an RJ by limiting seats. Hypothetically something like an ERJ-190 or CRJ-1000 or even up to A318 or 717 if you got big enough armchairs in it. I know Mesa flies around some RJs greater than 76 seats, but I don’t know the details there.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:08 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

There is also a lighter weight Japanese 70 seat scope (anyone have the weight? I'm going off memory).

The 76 needs great efficiency (heavy engines) and a minimum range of 1500nm.

The 70 seater needs a minimum range, just my opinion, of 1300nm.

While a 50 seater is desired, the economics are tough. I personally see that being a modern, electrical subsystem, turboprop with CFRP wings.

Lightsaber


Why the weight limit?

So that airlines cannot buy whatever aircraft they see fit and call it an RJ by limiting seats. Hypothetically something like an ERJ-190 or CRJ-1000 or even up to A318 or 717 if you got big enough armchairs in it. I know Mesa flies around some RJs greater than 76 seats, but I don’t know the details there.

Mesa flies a few 79 seat crj900 due to legacy US airways scope and the weight limit is so that things like all business class flights or things like future Concordes can't be run as regional flights
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:11 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:

Why the weight limit?

So that airlines cannot buy whatever aircraft they see fit and call it an RJ by limiting seats. Hypothetically something like an ERJ-190 or CRJ-1000 or even up to A318 or 717 if you got big enough armchairs in it. I know Mesa flies around some RJs greater than 76 seats, but I don’t know the details there.

Mesa flies a few 79 seat crj900 due to legacy US airways scope and the weight limit is so that things like all business class flights or things like future Concordes can't be run as regional flights

Ah Airways, of course. I wonder what is allowed on scope to replace them. Could a 1-1 swap as they age out be allowed with say 79-seat ERJs? The Mesa 900s are the oldest in the US. Pre-NextGen with the small winglets and some with a rear galley door.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Passport weighs 2,000# more PER engine, it’s a high altitude, Mach .90, low cycle design when a RJ needs a lightweight, low-ish altitude, M.78, high cycle engine. Try again.

This is true for the Passport 20 the 20k lbf version, EASA certificate stated it weighs 2065,7kg (4554lb), and provides 79 - 84 kN (17744 - 18920 lbf).
But of coarse the engines need to be optimized for the regional jet purpose.
The E170/E175 and CRJ-700/900/1000 use GE CF-34-8 engines they weight 1100-1200kg (2400-2650lb) and provide 61 - 64 kN (13,7k - 14.4k lbf)
The PW1200G and PW1700G used on the SpaceJets and E175-E2 weigh 1724kg (3800lb) and provide 67-76kN (15k-17k lbf).
So the Passport 20 is over powered and thus over weight. I think it could work with a 1500kg (3300lb) engine providing 67kN (15k lbf) .
I can't imagine GE isn't capable of developing a Passport 15 with these specs.

But most likely a, PW814/815 (non geared version of the PW1900G) might work better for a scope compliant E170/E175, That's capable of providing 14k-15k lbf (62-67kN) while weight is 3135,7 lb (1422kg).
 
dstblj52
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:25 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
So that airlines cannot buy whatever aircraft they see fit and call it an RJ by limiting seats. Hypothetically something like an ERJ-190 or CRJ-1000 or even up to A318 or 717 if you got big enough armchairs in it. I know Mesa flies around some RJs greater than 76 seats, but I don’t know the details there.

Mesa flies a few 79 seat crj900 due to legacy US airways scope and the weight limit is so that things like all business class flights or things like future Concordes can't be run as regional flights

Ah Airways, of course. I wonder what is allowed on scope to replace them. Could a 1-1 swap as they age out be allowed with say 79-seat ERJs? The Mesa 900s are the oldest in the US. Pre-NextGen with the small winglets and some with a rear galley door.

I believe the union contract ties them both to the tail and to being operated by mesa so no, once these specific aircraft age out that exception is gone, the same thing with those compass ERj-175 flying as DCI that had to have their operating weight-adjusted from 89,000 to 86,000 once they got to OO/YX
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:28 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Passport weighs 2,000# more PER engine, it’s a high altitude, Mach .90, low cycle design when a RJ needs a lightweight, low-ish altitude, M.78, high cycle engine. Try again.

This is true for the Passport 20 the 20k lbf version, EASA certificate stated it weighs 2065,7kg (4554lb), and provides 79 - 84 kN (17744 - 18920 lbf).
But of coarse the engines need to be optimized for the regional jet purpose.
The E170/E175 and CRJ-700/900/1000 use GE CF-34-8 engines they weight 1100-1200kg (2400-2650lb) and provide 61 - 64 kN (13,7k - 14.4k lbf)
The PW1200G and PW1700G used on the SpaceJets and E175-E2 weigh 1724kg (3800lb) and provide 67-76kN (15k-17k lbf).
So the Passport 20 is over powered and thus over weight. I think it could work with a 1500kg (3300lb) engine providing 67kN (15k lbf) .
I can't imagine GE isn't capable of developing a Passport 15 with these specs.

But most likely a, PW814/815 (non geared version of the PW1900G) might work better for a scope compliant E170/E175, That's capable of providing 14k-15k lbf (62-67kN) while weight is 3135,7 lb (1422kg).

You might be interested in this interview here from 2016: https://airinsight.com/discussion-pratt ... hn-saabas/

Essentially says the PW812 could form the basis of an RJ engine, with the MRJ core added in. Can’t find exact specs on what the 812 weighs.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6021
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:31 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Passport weighs 2,000# more PER engine, it’s a high altitude, Mach .90, low cycle design when a RJ needs a lightweight, low-ish altitude, M.78, high cycle engine. Try again.

This is true for the Passport 20 the 20k lbf version, EASA certificate stated it weighs 2065,7kg (4554lb), and provides 79 - 84 kN (17744 - 18920 lbf).
But of coarse the engines need to be optimized for the regional jet purpose.
The E170/E175 and CRJ-700/900/1000 use GE CF-34-8 engines they weight 1100-1200kg (2400-2650lb) and provide 61 - 64 kN (13,7k - 14.4k lbf)
The PW1200G and PW1700G used on the SpaceJets and E175-E2 weigh 1724kg (3800lb) and provide 67-76kN (15k-17k lbf).
So the Passport 20 is over powered and thus over weight. I think it could work with a 1500kg (3300lb) engine providing 67kN (15k lbf) .
I can't imagine GE isn't capable of developing a Passport 15 with these specs.

But most likely a, PW814/815 (non geared version of the PW1900G) might work better for a scope compliant E170/E175, That's capable of providing 14k-15k lbf (62-67kN) while weight is 3135,7 lb (1422kg).


Engine mass is not a linear function of thrust. The Passport was designed for a very specific application. Now could some of that technology be used in a new RJ-specific design? Sure, if an OEM has a business case for a new RJ, which doesn’t exist now due to poor sales.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4947
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 10:40 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

There is also a lighter weight Japanese 70 seat scope (anyone have the weight? I'm going off memory).

The 76 needs great efficiency (heavy engines) and a minimum range of 1500nm.

The 70 seater needs a minimum range, just my opinion, of 1300nm.

While a 50 seater is desired, the economics are tough. I personally see that being a modern, electrical subsystem, turboprop with CFRP wings.

Lightsaber


Why the weight limit?

So that airlines cannot buy whatever aircraft they see fit and call it an RJ by limiting seats. Hypothetically something like an ERJ-190 or CRJ-1000 or even up to A318 or 717 if you got big enough armchairs in it. I know Mesa flies around some RJs greater than 76 seats, but I don’t know the details there.

Why can’t the just agree on the exact models. No one thinks an updated e175 is a Boeing 737. there’s always going to be new technology. You gotta give eventually.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4257
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 11:08 pm

32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.

I don't think scope relaxation is worth the cost of keeping extra employees.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 11:30 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Passport weighs 2,000# more PER engine, it’s a high altitude, Mach .90, low cycle design when a RJ needs a lightweight, low-ish altitude, M.78, high cycle engine. Try again.

This is true for the Passport 20 the 20k lbf version, EASA certificate stated it weighs 2065,7kg (4554lb), and provides 79 - 84 kN (17744 - 18920 lbf).
But of coarse the engines need to be optimized for the regional jet purpose.
The E170/E175 and CRJ-700/900/1000 use GE CF-34-8 engines they weight 1100-1200kg (2400-2650lb) and provide 61 - 64 kN (13,7k - 14.4k lbf)
The PW1200G and PW1700G used on the SpaceJets and E175-E2 weigh 1724kg (3800lb) and provide 67-76kN (15k-17k lbf).
So the Passport 20 is over powered and thus over weight. I think it could work with a 1500kg (3300lb) engine providing 67kN (15k lbf) .
I can't imagine GE isn't capable of developing a Passport 15 with these specs.

But most likely a, PW814/815 (non geared version of the PW1900G) might work better for a scope compliant E170/E175, That's capable of providing 14k-15k lbf (62-67kN) while weight is 3135,7 lb (1422kg).


As you noted the crux in this size is the engine weight. The PW812 seems to take the correct approach.

A 70 seat that meets the 76,000 has to be the target. Embraer really seems to be the one on target here, unless Textron or another business jet mfg. wants to enter the market. Needs to be simple and economical. Not sure if the market is big enough to do a clean sheet. Possibly 100 per year maximum.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8034
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon May 25, 2020 11:36 pm

Rookie87 wrote:
Why the weight limit?


Because that was what was negotiated between mainline pilots' unions and carriers. It's like asking why 739 pilots are paid $XXX per hour - because the contract says so.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:01 am

Other than people here being aerosexuals why would anyone design a new plane? The ATR 72 is cheap and capable of all regional flights. Regional flying is there to provide important air links. Either take a modern turboprop or don't fly at all. Mainline aircraft do everything above.

There is nothing to justify any investment and their are no good arguments for it. "Oh Americans don't like props!" Well they can take a mainline or if they live in podunk America they can take a turboprop to the nearest hub.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1114
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:16 am

I think United would still be interested in 50 seaters since they have a pretty low cap (255) on 70 & 76 seaters.

In fact they are (were) making 50 seaters out of 70 seaters.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:50 am

I think the spec sheets of the Dornier Do328 -100 (prop) and -300 (jet) nicely show that on longer range flights a jet outperforms a turboprop. The Do328-100 reaches MTOW max at about 700nm, this as a 2:36min flight. The MTOW for the Do328-300 is a lot higher, but it reaches the max at 900nm a 2:41min flight. From 500nm the difference in travel time really becomes noticable.

In Europe they push train for most <500nm flights, thus the market for ATR shrinks.
Possibly ATR/Airbus (Canada) could do something similar with a jet variant of the ATR. They could even optimize the jet variant by optimizing the wing for higher flight speed (higher sweep). By 2023 a lot of new tech has been demonstrated by EU Cleansky for regional aircraft. With little to develop, Airbus might like an ATR project for it's engineers.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:53 am

ADent wrote:
I think United would still be interested in 50 seaters since they have a pretty low cap (255) on 70 & 76 seaters.

In fact they are (were) making 50 seaters out of 70 seaters.

I think united is eventually going to take advantage of the same clause delta did and pickup some used E195 or extort a screaming deal out of Embraer or airbus for E195-E2 or A220's
 
Canuck600
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:56 am

What if the choice is turboprop or no service would that make American flyers change there tune? That's the choice for a large portion of Canada. I live 40 miles from the Canada-US border & that's my choice unless I want to drive.a hour north & that airport is combination of jet & turbo-prop service.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:00 am

Canuck600 wrote:
What if the choice is turboprop or no service would that make American flyers change there tune? That's the choice for a large portion of Canada. I live 40 miles from the Canada-US border & that's my choice unless I want to drive.a hour north & that airport is combination of jet & turbo-prop service.

Possibly but there is fairly good data from both delta and AA (piedmont) that when they changed from props to jets ridership jumped but that stigma may be weakened with time and they may well succeed especially in airports where there was no service before but I think a downgrade to props is not going to go over well unless there is a period of no service until props are being brought in.
 
JHwk
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:31 am

I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:38 am

JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.

Pilots union saw last time that jets for jobs does not work and that allowing better regional jets just keeps mainline on the street longer. It's much better to take pay or work rules cut than a scope cut because you can get pay and work rules back a lot easier then you can get a scope back. The first 70 seaters were framed as a thing needed after 9/11 now look where that ended up scope is the only reason mainline pilots exist and they have to know every scope concession just increases the time they spend furloughed or stuck in a more junior seat.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3393
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:42 am

JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.
If anything they are going to be changing the other way. There are thousands of mainline pilots union members going into long furloughs... No way the union budges an micron on expanding the regional scopes until they are all back at work at mainline. There is 0 incentive for the unions to support anything cutting mainline jobsneven more. They will have the attitude of you want more RJs then you pay our membership to fly them at our wages.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:03 am

JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.


I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3373
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:19 am

bkmbr wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.


I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.
From my cold, dead hands
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:23 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.


Let's be honest, we all know that this is not an unrealistic possibility at this point in time.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4257
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:23 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.


I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.

If pilots prefer bankrupting their companies then that is what would happens
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4257
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:26 am

dstblj52 wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.

Pilots union saw last time that jets for jobs does not work and that allowing better regional jets just keeps mainline on the street longer. It's much better to take pay or work rules cut than a scope cut because you can get pay and work rules back a lot easier then you can get a scope back. The first 70 seaters were framed as a thing needed after 9/11 now look where that ended up scope is the only reason mainline pilots exist and they have to know every scope concession just increases the time they spend furloughed or stuck in a more junior seat.

If scope is the only reason mainline pikots exist, then why should there be any of them?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 882
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:29 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
The highest efficiently potential is with unducted fan engines. I think this only works with tail mounted engines.
I wonder if US public will view these engines as unsafe, like turboprop engines.


Are unduucted fans lighter per lb. of thrust produced? It seems logical that they world be without the cowling. If so, they might be a way to get more out of the weight limits of the scope clause, assuming you don't lose any gains by needing the more substantial fuselage tail-mounted engines require.

The American aversion to props will be countered entirely by our micro-focus in the lowest online price, should it ever find to that.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4947
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:31 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.


I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.

They don’t have to give up more flying. Making the regionals fly worse less fuel efficient airplanes is just dumb. No reason delta can’t run a e2 in place of a 175.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1791
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:38 am

32andBelow wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.

They don’t have to give up more flying. Making the regionals fly worse less fuel efficient airplanes is just dumb. No reason delta can’t run a e2 in place of a 175.

Or one could always go after MRJ provided the latter get their act toigether.

Michael
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4257
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:19 am

eamondzhang wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.

They don’t have to give up more flying. Making the regionals fly worse less fuel efficient airplanes is just dumb. No reason delta can’t run a e2 in place of a 175.

Or one could always go after MRJ provided the latter get their act toigether.

Michael

Apparently they might not make the M100 afterall (See the MRJ thread)
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:26 am

dstblj52 wrote:
Canuck600 wrote:
What if the choice is turboprop or no service would that make American flyers change there tune? That's the choice for a large portion of Canada. I live 40 miles from the Canada-US border & that's my choice unless I want to drive.a hour north & that airport is combination of jet & turbo-prop service.

Possibly but there is fairly good data from both delta and AA (piedmont) that when they changed from props to jets ridership jumped but that stigma may be weakened with time and they may well succeed especially in airports where there was no service before but I think a downgrade to props is not going to go over well unless there is a period of no service until props are being brought in.


I think if enough people ride a modern ATR or Q400 they will no longer consider that a downgrade. It's not like airlines are still out there flying Metroliners. I just flew on Silver Airways today and their AT6 was far quieter than the Southwest 737 I took on the previous leg, and just as comfortable if not more so with the 2-2 seating. Beats the hell out of a CR2 as well.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with 50-seat flying, but with most of it on CR2's, it's no wonder it has a bad reputation. I know I'm not the only one that actively booked away from those.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 ARJ AT6/7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 741/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR1/2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L4T M11/80/87/90 SF3 SU9 TU3/TU5 YK2
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4947
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:27 am

dennypayne wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
Canuck600 wrote:
What if the choice is turboprop or no service would that make American flyers change there tune? That's the choice for a large portion of Canada. I live 40 miles from the Canada-US border & that's my choice unless I want to drive.a hour north & that airport is combination of jet & turbo-prop service.

Possibly but there is fairly good data from both delta and AA (piedmont) that when they changed from props to jets ridership jumped but that stigma may be weakened with time and they may well succeed especially in airports where there was no service before but I think a downgrade to props is not going to go over well unless there is a period of no service until props are being brought in.


I think if enough people ride a modern ATR or Q400 they will no longer consider that a downgrade. It's not like airlines are still out there flying Metroliners. I just flew on Silver Airways today and their AT6 was far quieter than the Southwest 737 I took on the previous leg, and just as comfortable if not more so with the 2-2 seating. Beats the hell out of a CR2 as well.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with 50-seat flying, but with most of it on CR2's, it's no wonder it has a bad reputation. I know I'm not the only one that actively booked away from those.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

An e175 and a q400 isn’t even comparable. In fact I’ll take the e175 over a 737 or a320
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4446
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:59 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
- I think Dornier did something very interesting with their Do328, both turboprop and jet powered. High wing, T-tail under wing mounted engines. This could be done with the ATRs or DHC-8.

I'm interested how you view this.


The Dornier wasn't really a success. The wing was not optimized for jet speeds, so the fuel burn is way worse and the cruise speed lower than it should be. The same applies to the ATR and Dash 8. The Dash-8-400 is another great example of this. They doubled the engine power over the DHC-8-300, it easily burns twice the fuel, but it only flies marginally faster.


CFRPwingALbody wrote:
A little bit more complex is the development of an ATR into an regional jet.


ATR actually tried to do an ATR RJ in the 90s. It kept the fuselage, nose gear and empennage of the turboprop, but mated to new low-mounted wings and a pair of turbofans on the rear. It would have used the forward entry door and come in a roughly 50 and 70 seat version like the turboprop. It would have been way lighter and simpler than the CRJ. Alas, nobody bit on.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:02 am

The weight increase eats away engine fuel efficiency gains. That's why I think designing within current scope clauses will result in a more efficient plane than the E175-E2 or the M90.
Currently there is hardly demand for passenger flights, thus a huge aircraft surplus. But in a couple of years demand will have returned, and by then the new aircraft could become available.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:11 am

bkmbr wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.


I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


You've misunderstood what people said to you. Companies look out for shareholders while unions look out for employees. Because of this unions aren't agreeing to any scope creep which impoverishes their employees. It's that simple.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos