Embraer already stated in the past the interest to develop a new turboprop in the past (allegedly was already in a an advanced stage of study since this subject continues to reappear constantly since 2018 at least). The original idea was apparently that with Boeing's support to go ahead in this project (since would be natural as Airbus is partly owner of ATR) but since the end of the Embraer-Boeing partnership most believed that the turboprop project was scraped. However according to a post on a Brazilian page, on June 1, 2020 Embraer's CEO stated that the project may not be dead as many believed and that would be faster and more efficient for Embraer to have partnerships by project instead a partnership similar to what as planned with Boeing (and apparently in terms similar to what exists today with the ATR between Airbus and Leonardo)

Here the original post from the Brazilian article translated with Google Translator

Embraer wants to develop a new turboprop plane
Embraer believes that currently there is not enough competition or innovation in the turboprop market
Posted on 01/06/20

In a results conference call held today, June 1, Embraer's CEO confirmed that the manufacturer was considering developing a new turboprop. The turboprop would be a project in which there could be a lot of space for a future partnership.

A brand new turboprop for Embraer
When asked about future partnership opportunities in the commercial business section, Embraer CEO Francisco Gomes Neto reported:

“We started studies on this project. This project is a good candidate for a partnership. There are potential markets that may be very interested in having this aircraft. "

An Embraer spokesman added the following:

“Given the little competition in the TP (turboprop) market and the lack of innovation seen in this segment for so long, we are looking at a TP.”

Earlier this year, Boeing and Embraer were studying a new turboprop. The reason why this would be done in a partnership was because of the amount of money needed to develop an entirely new aircraft and market it, something that Embraer does not have on its own. Now that Embraer is no longer in partnership with Boeing, it needs to find a new partnership to promote this product.

Embraer noted that China and India are two potential partnership opportunities. The manufacturer is reviewing the business models. Currently, the aircraft manufacturer is in the middle of building a five-year plan focused on growth and profitability. A turboprop could play that role perfectly.

What role would a turboprop play?

There is little competition in the turboprop market. Commercially available currently for sale are the ATR turboprops and the Dash 8-400. The other turboprops are smaller and are not common among major commercial airlines. Another turboprop that is preparing to enter service is the Ilyushin Il-114-300.

For most airlines, the past few years have been a departure from turboprops. US regional airlines have sought to get rid of them and replace them with new jets. However, now, with changes in the foreground, some studies show that turboprops may be the answer.

Turboprop engines have also advanced in technology. Nowadays, they are much faster and offer more comfort than most people traditionally recognize with a turboprop. Currently, luggage is becoming less of a problem. Embraer has certainly also learned a lot over the years, which could easily go into a new turboprop.

There are a few ways that Embraer could use a new turboprop. First, he could choose to develop one for smaller markets, for example, in the 40 to 60 seat range, and another in larger markets in the 60 to 90 seat range. This would give the company maximum coverage of the main turboprop markets. However, Embraer would not like this new aircraft to depart from its star E-Jet E2. Thus, turboprops would probably be better suited for short-range missions.

In general

There is no official schedule, a name for this project or even an idea of ​​what the aircraft will look like. Embraer has a lot of work to do before entering service. First, he will need to find a new partner to find the money needed to support such an endeavor. After that, it will have to market the aircraft and attract potential customers. Needless to say, it will probably take a few years for a new turboprop to enter the Embraer market.

Source: https://diariodaaviacao.com.br/fabrican ... turboelice

As stated in the article China (presumably COMAC or AVIAC) and India (presumably Hindustan Aeronautics) are two potential partnership opportunities for Embraer. Hindustan however already have the HAL/NAL Regional Transport Aircraft project and AVIC have the Xian MA700 project.

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out as with the virtual end of Dash 8 ATR is the only competitor in the larger turboprops market.

On a project basis, more partners might be interested, e.g. Raytheon Collins, the Koreans, Kawasaki.

Seems risky to start a project like this in the current market situation. Even if they find a partner it would be a risk for Embraer. I don’t think it’s the best idea to take such a risk in the current situation.

Need something with more robust icing capabilities than the ATR. Ultimately are a get out of jail card, but not something you want to hang all day in upstate New York in a blizzard on.

Still think a turboprop is the only real solution to replace 50 seat jets

Does Turboprops OEM can do a "NEO" ?
Like a PW127 or 150 NEO with 20/25% lower fuel burn ?

A380MSN004 wrote:

Does Turboprops OEM can do a "NEO" ?
Like a PW127 or 150 NEO with 20/25% lower fuel burn ?

Right now there is just PW on the market. What incentive do they have to do a “NEO”?

That is part of the issue with the turboprops. PW has a stranglehold on the market and a new much more efficient engine doesn’t have a clear larger market for a good ROI.

What about the GE PT6 clone? I see small 35 passenger turboprops coming back with 135 carriers. I think the JSX model is going to become more popular and we will see more operators with similar Opperations set up. I flew a TBM from DFW to Houston cheaper than AA and no TSA to worry about.

IWMBH wrote:

Seems risky to start a project like this in the current market situation. Even if they find a partner it would be a risk for Embraer. I don’t think it’s the best idea to take such a risk in the current situation.

Risky, but there is a complete void below 70 seats right now and jet economics may not work anymore for that segment. Fits around scope as well.

Polot wrote:

That is part of the issue with the turboprops. PW has a stranglehold on the market and a new much more efficient engine doesn’t have a clear larger market for a good ROI.

,because fuel is too cheap.

OK, my few cents.

It is now few years to early to start with a new clean sheet turboprop design.There are new developments on the horizon...they are still not here, but they can be already seen at the horizon.
By bad luck (for Embraer) Europe is far in front, the magic word is "Clean Sky 1/2/3". Who is interested, start with the Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Sky

First, yes, the market needs the development of a new turboprop and a second competitor. now only ATR is left effectively.
The Q400 is getting old and by bad luck for De Havilland, regarding COVID-19 and because airlines have collapsed, only few ATR42/72-600 got on the market but already more than 100 Q400, most of them are young to mid age. Most of them are below 15 years, many even only 5 years. There is just no need to order new build Q400 in next years, more than enough will be parked in the deserts.

All other competitors;
China: Xian Ma60 -> low numbers build, bad reputation, many accidents and many are alreadyy parked. Ma600 -> 18 bulld in last 10 years. Still, neither ATR nor De Havilland nor Embraer will sell their turboprop planes to China, as these are regular flying on routes, sponsored by the government, districts e.g. And these will decide, what will fly on the routes, and these will be turboprops from China..

Antonov-An-140: 35 build in decades, only one is in commercial service, 3 total losses with many human losses, so a real bad reputation.

Iljushin Il -114; 20 build in 30 years. Now the -300 version is in development. For Russia it is the same as for China, regional routes are sponsored by government/districts e.g. And the IL-114 has a benefit, it is needed for the arctic routes. So most likely we will see the local product, build in low numbers in Russia for Russia.

Second: The civil turboprop market; there is a need for planes up to 19 PAX (and many competitors). the demand for turboprops around 40 is limited as also the same for the 50 PAX market (where the ATR-42 is playing without competitor). There is a demand for the 70 to 80 PAX market (Q400 and ATR-72). Turboprops above 90 PAX lose the benefit in comparison to jets and turboprop engines for above 100 PAX planes do not work any more. This is just physic, please just believe it, it will be pages after pages to explain it in detail (and this I will not do). So, if Embraer will construct a new turboprop, it will be an ATR-42/72 competitor most likely so for the 50 to 90 PAX market.

And third: Start with the development of a new plane, when there are new break through technologies on the market, which will give a big benefit. Now, it is just to early.

New wing technology: Especially "natural laminar flow", which will have a limited benefit for jets but will work excellent for turboprops (it has to do with the wing sweep), it will be available for EIS in 2030 (for Europe). And the EU/Airbus/Leonardo are far in front with the BLADE program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Laminar_Aircraft_Demonstrator_in_Europe

Fuselage: While composite materials have a big benefit for widebodies, up to date aluminium alloys (like Al-Li alloys) have a benefit in smallbodies. A new generation (third) of Al alloys with Scandium are in development (Al-Mg-Sc alloys will be interesting, lighter and stronger as Al-Li alloys, can be welded, no fatigue cracks e.g.); Scandium is not rare, it is just nicely distributed in the world and global Sc mining is now at 20 t, that is just not enough. Al-Sc alloys of second generation are already in use by Airbus, they are used in 3D printing .So perhaps in the year 2030....

New engines: There is now only one engine family for a 50 to 90 passenger turboprop available, these are the PW Canada 100 family members.There is no real competitor; it is time for development of a new engine, but no one is doing it. And PW will not, why shall they do? There is no competitor, so no need. Other engine technologies, like hybrid...2035 and also here Europe is far in front with the Clean Sky program.

It is not the time to start with the development of a new turboprop now. Europe (so ATR, Leonardo + Airbus) can start with the development of a new clean sheet plane in 2025 for an EIS in 2030. Or they can start with the development of a new upgraded wing with up to date materials and new "natural laminar flow" technology in 2025 and can hope for an EIS in 2028.
Embraer has no Clean Sky billion of dollar per year program over decades. they just can not already start in 2025., perhaps in 2027 will be the right time. If Embraer will start now, ATR will answer with a new clean sheet development in 2025; and only few years after EIS of an Embraer product (with a program start now), it will be outdated by one whole plane generation.

Polot wrote:

That is part of the issue with the turboprops. PW has a stranglehold on the market and a new much more efficient engine doesn’t have a clear larger market for a good ROI.

Could the Europrop TP400 (from the Airbus A400) be converted to civilian specs?

Maybe India would be interested in such aircraft that could be assembled there. It will be a tremendous opportunity to lear how lean project works.

Way too much shp for this market.

To post above, new planes, new engines, new tech is way too expensive for the size market that 50-seats or less planes occupy. Probably $6 billion for non-recurring development costs today. Just because a plane has 50 seats, it’s not half the development cost of a A220, probably 90% the cost.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Way too much shp for this market.

To post above, new planes, new engines, new tech is way too expensive for the size market that 50-seats or less planes occupy. Probably $6 billion for non-recurring development costs today. Just because a plane has 50 seats, it’s not half the development cost of a A220, probably 90% the cost.

I'm not talking about a 50-seat turboprop. I think about a 76 to 95 passenger aircraft good for up to 800 nm trip.

Even that size doesn’t need a fraction of 11,000 shp. Maybe 5,000. As a US regional plane 800nm is too short and anything over 76-seats is too big, and face it, the US is half the market.

T4thH wrote:

OK, my few cents.

It is now few years to early to start with a new clean sheet turboprop design.There are new developments on the horizon...they are still not here, but they can be already seen at the horizon.
By bad luck (for Embraer) Europe is far in front, the magic word is "Clean Sky 1/2/3". Who is interested, start with the Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Sky

First, yes, the market needs the development of a new turboprop and a second competitor. now only ATR is left effectively.
The Q400 is getting old and by bad luck for De Havilland, regarding COVID-19 and because airlines have collapsed, only few ATR42/72-600 got on the market but already more than 100 Q400, most of them are young to mid age. Most of them are below 15 years, many even only 5 years. There is just no need to order new build Q400 in next years, more than enough will be parked in the deserts.

All other competitors;
China: Xian Ma60 -> low numbers build, bad reputation, many accidents and many are alreadyy parked. Ma600 -> 18 bulld in last 10 years. Still, neither ATR nor De Havilland nor Embraer will sell their turboprop planes to China, as these are regular flying on routes, sponsored by the government, districts e.g. And these will decide, what will fly on the routes, and these will be turboprops from China..

Antonov-An-140: 35 build in decades, only one is in commercial service, 3 total losses with many human losses, so a real bad reputation.

Iljushin Il -114; 20 build in 30 years. Now the -300 version is in development. For Russia it is the same as for China, regional routes are sponsored by government/districts e.g. And the IL-114 has a benefit, it is needed for the arctic routes. So most likely we will see the local product, build in low numbers in Russia for Russia.

Second: The civil turboprop market; there is a need for planes up to 19 PAX (and many competitors). the demand for turboprops around 40 is limited as also the same for the 50 PAX market (where the ATR-42 is playing without competitor). There is a demand for the 70 to 80 PAX market (Q400 and ATR-72). Turboprops above 90 PAX lose the benefit in comparison to jets and turboprop engines for above 100 PAX planes do not work any more. This is just physic, please just believe it, it will be pages after pages to explain it in detail (and this I will not do). So, if Embraer will construct a new turboprop, it will be an ATR-42/72 competitor most likely so for the 50 to 90 PAX market.

And third: Start with the development of a new plane, when there are new break through technologies on the market, which will give a big benefit. Now, it is just to early.

New wing technology: Especially "natural laminar flow", which will have a limited benefit for jets but will work excellent for turboprops (it has to do with the wing sweep), it will be available for EIS in 2030 (for Europe). And the EU/Airbus/Leonardo are far in front with the BLADE program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Laminar_Aircraft_Demonstrator_in_Europe

Fuselage: While composite materials have a big benefit for widebodies, up to date aluminium alloys (like Al-Li alloys) have a benefit in smallbodies. A new generation (third) of Al alloys with Scandium are in development (Al-Mg-Sc alloys will be interesting, lighter and stronger as Al-Li alloys, can be welded, no fatigue cracks e.g.); Scandium is not rare, it is just nicely distributed in the world and global Sc mining is now at 20 t, that is just not enough. Al-Sc alloys of second generation are already in use by Airbus, they are used in 3D printing .So perhaps in the year 2030....

New engines: There is now only one engine family for a 50 to 90 passenger turboprop available, these are the PW Canada 100 family members.There is no real competitor; it is time for development of a new engine, but no one is doing it. And PW will not, why shall they do? There is no competitor, so no need. Other engine technologies, like hybrid...2035 and also here Europe is far in front with the Clean Sky program.

It is not the time to start with the development of a new turboprop now. Europe (so ATR, Leonardo + Airbus) can start with the development of a new clean sheet plane in 2025 for an EIS in 2030. Or they can start with the development of a new upgraded wing with up to date materials and new "natural laminar flow" technology in 2025 and can hope for an EIS in 2028.
Embraer has no Clean Sky billion of dollar per year program over decades. they just can not already start in 2025., perhaps in 2027 will be the right time. If Embraer will start now, ATR will answer with a new clean sheet development in 2025; and only few years after EIS of an Embraer product (with a program start now), it will be outdated by one whole plane generation.

First nice summary.

Are you eliminating GE's H series due to the low (for this category) horsepower? (A mere 850 to 1,600hp)? I would bet GE would develop an engine for embraer in the appropriate power range.

Pratt has a next generation turboprop in development and just needs a launch customer, 4,500 to 8,000 shp (obviously being optimized for the top of the market where Pratt sees more demand):

https://airinsight.com/pratt-whitney-ca ... op-engine/

wings are where I see most of the progress, but could Embraer pull off CFRP? I do not see any threat to ATR with another aluminum wing aircraft, for as you note, not enough new technology.

I think there is an opening for a family of new Turboprops with a single cross section and different wingspan and engine optimizations for 50, 76, 90 seats.

Some companies are really good at low cost CFRP development. Not Embraer, but I see the next competitive Turboprop needing a new engine and a new wing.

Lightsaber

I don't want to “sour the milk” from this topic or from those who see an opportunity to discuss the development of a new turboprop by Embraer, but it is worth reading:

Source: https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... -turboprop

Excerpts:
“I’m not going to say we’re not going to build [a turboprop], but let’s just be pragmatic here. Now is not the moment to be considering those decisions,” he said.
“I certainly don’t see it on the immediate horizon, given what we’re looking at right now. But if something can change on our balance sheet, who knows?”

And:

“But if something can change on our balance sheet [in years to come], who knows. I see a beautiful business case there [for a new Embraer commercial turboprop aircraft].
It is a perfect adjacency to the E-Jet at the lower end. It’s in our franchise footprint. That is our DNA. I would love to build it.
But I just don’t see it as a focus now to give our shareholders a return.”

At this moment Embraer has some urgent questions to resolve after the JV with Boeing has not been formalized:

- bring those who are in the home office since the beginning of the events of COVID-19 here in Brazil and put everyone back under one roof as the division of the workforce
into two companies (Embraer and JV) had already been completed.
Unfortunately, cuts in the workforce are expected to occur in order for the company to be leaner in this challenging time for all industries in the segment as a whole in the world;
- restart production and deliveries by the commercial division, which had basically been interrupted due to the pandemic;
- focus on current products, whether from the commercial, executive or defense division. In terms of defense, it is worth mentioning that the production and delivery of the KC-390
to the FAB - Força Aérea Brasileira (Brazilian Air Force) was not interrupted even during the pandemic, the fifth production model was recently delivered to the FAB;
- continuity with the E175-E2 certification process (test flights continue even during the pandemic), regardless of the destination of this specific product;
- sales effort for the E2 family.

The company is finalizing a "master plan" for its operations for the next five years and, although associations have been mentioned and may be on the radar,
the current focus is on the company and its current products itself.

We should take in account the development of the ERJ-145 and its nearly 10-year development cycle. The ERJ-145 was a long term project which started at a time when the company was still state-owned in the 1980s but only accelerated development after its privatization in the 1990s. Embraer appears to be studying the TP market since at least 2018 seeing what can or cannot be done before committing "all in" to a project like this, and according to the CEO’s statements this is clearly a long-term project and it’s not the main focus of the company at the moment.
There are at least 2 basic requirements that Embraer would necessarily have to fulfill for the project to have a chance to get off the ground, the first is an engine that in reality does not exist today (which may be the P&WC NGRT since Embraer already has a long relationship with P&WC since the days of the EMB-110 Bandeirante and passing through EMB-120 Brasília and all variants of EMB-312 and EMB-314 Tucano) and the second is the financial support for that which would necessarily have to appear from somewhere/someone.
According to what the CEO of Embraer said, a TP project would need have to a partner, just as it happened with Aérospatiale and Alenia that gave rise to the ATR, Maybe still too early for a new clean sheet project today, but Embraer making it clear that it wants to develop this project and with all the expertise it has may attract some interested in associating it in the near future since ATR is alone in the TP market and Airbus has already made it clear that it has no intention to inject money into the development of new projects if there is no real competitor for ATR42 and, mainly, ATR72.

bkmbr wrote:

Polot wrote:

That is part of the issue with the turboprops. PW has a stranglehold on the market and a new much more efficient engine doesn’t have a clear larger market for a good ROI.

Could the Europrop TP400 (from the Airbus A400) be converted to civilian specs?

As I know/have heard, the rotor engine combination is just to loud for the civil market and latest with next tightening up of laws and global agreements in 2025/2027? or so, it will not any more applicable for new build civil passenger planes. This tightening up of laws and agreements regarding loudness will likely also kill other projects like the propfan developments.

Airbus had long discussions with Alenia, Alenia wanting to launch a new TP, even going alone. Airbus preferring upgrades to existing ATR platforms. The succes of the -600s upgrade over the Q400s pushed back the discussion I guess.

The 11.000 shp TP400 would best suit a 200 seat M.7 turboprop it seems..

As I know/have heard, the rotor engine combination is just to loud for the civil market and latest with next tightening up of laws and global agreements in 2025/2027? or so, it will not any more applicable for new build civil passenger planes. This tightening up of laws and agreements regarding loudness will likely also kill other projects like the propfan developments.

That's interesting. Killing new, more efficient technologies in the name of environmental protection. I see turboprops clearly as some way to go. Their only problem is the image of "propeller driven=old tech" to the the uninformed. This could be overcome with a little more smart marketing. So flying with super heavy batteries and fire risk is "good" while clean, quiet turboprops are "bad" at the same time?

I wonder, would it be possible to have 5 or 6 abreast turboprops with capacity between 100-150 seats these days?

I've heard that almost half of the flights around the world are less than 500 miles (cited by many videos on news network like tech insider, etc.). Could they target these market by providing a larger turboprops that focuses on short flights with extreme efficiency. It's not like they have to make a super fast turboprops for such short missions since aircraft wouldn't be able to reach full speed on such short routes.

So, aircraft with ranges around 1000nmi - 1500nmi?

I'm looking at Europrop TP400 for engines option.

That would be the perfect tool for both developing countries and trunk routes. Cruise speed is not much of a factor if you go like one hour. ATC is.

ewt340 wrote:

I wonder, would it be possible to have 5 or 6 abreast turboprops with capacity between 100-150 seats these days?

I've heard that almost half of the flights around the world are less than 500 miles (cited by many videos on news network like tech insider, etc.). Could they target these market by providing a larger turboprops that focuses on short flights with extreme efficiency. It's not like they have to make a super fast turboprops for such short missions since aircraft wouldn't be able to reach full speed on such short routes.

So, aircraft with ranges around 1000nmi - 1500nmi?

I'm looking at Europrop TP400 for engines option.

It might be possible technically, but I doubtr commercially at this stage. Flexibility of such an aircraft would probably be more limited.


kaktusdigital/keesje

It has long been rumoured that P&W and GE both have engine designs for an ATR sized aircraft ready for the launch of the next generation of turboprops.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Even that size doesn’t need a fraction of 11,000 shp. Maybe 5,000. As a US regional plane 800nm is too short and anything over 76-seats is too big, and face it, the US is half the market.

An ATR 72-500 has 2x 2750 shp. That's reserve power for use in an emergency, such as an engine failure, in normal daily use its less. There is no way the TP400 is relevant to a regional airliner, even for a 100 seater it would be overkill.
That said, the ATR could certainly use a bit more power, and most importantly, heated leading edges.

lightsaber wrote:

wings are where I see most of the progress, but could Embraer pull off CFRP? I do not see any threat to ATR with another aluminum wing aircraft, for as you note, not enough new technology.

The ATR 72 already has a mostly composite wing. AFAIK, it was the first type to make use of a CFRP wing box.

T4thH wrote:

All other competitors;
China: Xian Ma60 -> low numbers build, bad reputation, many accidents and many are alreadyy parked. Ma600 -> 18 bulld in last 10 years. Still, neither ATR nor De Havilland nor Embraer will sell their turboprop planes to China, as these are regular flying on routes, sponsored by the government, districts e.g. And these will decide, what will fly on the routes, and these will be turboprops from China..

Antonov-An-140: 35 build in decades, only one is in commercial service, 3 total losses with many human losses, so a real bad reputation.

Iljushin Il -114; 20 build in 30 years. Now the -300 version is in development. For Russia it is the same as for China, regional routes are sponsored by government/districts e.g. And the IL-114 has a benefit, it is needed for the arctic routes. So most likely we will see the local product, build in low numbers in Russia for Russia.

You forgot the MA-700, which rolled out just over a month ago:



Still, it will use the outdated and thirsty PW150 engines like the Q400. But the platform undoubtedly has potential and could certainly be updated over time.

I sometimes wonder if engine makers and plane makers should be separate companies.
Suppose Emgraer takes the risk and commits to a new engine. If the engine doesn't turn out nice, it's Embraer's problem. If the engine does turn out nice, Boeing and Airbus will say "Me too". From whom are airlines going to buy? Whose engine troubles would an engine maker give priority attention?
If Embraer had it's own engine manufacturing it would be their risk and their reward.

bkmbr wrote:

According to what the CEO of Embraer said, a TP project would need have to a partner, just as it happened with Aérospatiale and Alenia that gave rise to the ATR, Maybe still too early for a new clean sheet project today, but Embraer making it clear that it wants to develop this project and with all the expertise it has may attract some interested in associating it in the near future since ATR is alone in the TP market and Airbus has already made it clear that it has no intention to inject money into the development of new projects if there is no real competitor for ATR42 and, mainly, ATR72.

As a "cat on a hot tin roof" after the JV's failure with Boeing, from now on any Embraer association for new projects will be made through partnerships and sharing costs and risks.
Money is always welcome, but keeping the company as a single unit will be a priority going forward. No more great adventures.

In my view, Embraer should think big about a project in the 73X / A32X category.
The knowledge, the technical staff, the engineering is there.
The question is only a few billion dollars for this big step and, who knows, a financial partner and risk in the endeavor.

As much as one can think of a project in the comfort zone like a new turboprop, this is a limited market.
We will continue to "eat at the edge of the plate".
Time for a step up and more aggressiveness in a market dominated by the two big players in the industry ...

A modernized AE2100 could fill the role nicely. Think it was proposed for the “ATR-82”.

EMBSPBR wrote:

In my view, Embraer should think big about a project in the 73X / A32X category.
The knowledge, the technical staff, the engineering is there.
The question is only a few billion dollars for this big step and, who knows, a financial partner and risk in the endeavor.

I personally believe that one of Embraer's great advantages,even because it is a smaller company, is seeing niche markets and anticipating them with good products. The single aisle market between 150 and 250 passengers is saturated today, in addition to the 737 and A320 there are 2 new projects to enter this segment soon (MC-21 and C-919) in addition to the likely Boeing NSA that should not take long to appear. Entering the market to be just one more of the same and not having the firepower that Boeing, Airbus and especially COMAC would be corporate suicide. There is a big market for other segments outside the 737 / A320 territory, and IMHO Embraer would be better off exploring these markets and avoiding the struggle in the upper segment. Another market that may be worth exploring would be a civilian version of the KC-390 for operators like FedEX and UPS perhaps.

An updated version of Keesje's Turboliner is in my view the best solution. 150 passengers at ~500mph is plenty fast enough for the 1500nmi range market. It would decimate any advanced turbofan on fuel burn and as Safran has showed, could be made noise compliant. Open rotor/advanced turboprop is the future for regional up to 2000nmi (or more).
NASA's Asdvanced Turboprop Program back in the '80's showed that for cruise speeds up to .9 mach, open rotor will still maintain double digit efficiency over any possible turbofan.

I think Embraer has witnessed that if you go head to head with Airbus or Boeing you better have a lot of time, political back-up and money.


keesje

So far Embraer has been smart enough to stay away there. Even to make the KC390 a succes, they realize they might need a partner.

EMBSPBR wrote:

bkmbr wrote:

According to what the CEO of Embraer said, a TP project would need have to a partner, just as it happened with Aérospatiale and Alenia that gave rise to the ATR, Maybe still too early for a new clean sheet project today, but Embraer making it clear that it wants to develop this project and with all the expertise it has may attract some interested in associating it in the near future since ATR is alone in the TP market and Airbus has already made it clear that it has no intention to inject money into the development of new projects if there is no real competitor for ATR42 and, mainly, ATR72.

As a "cat on a hot tin roof" after the JV's failure with Boeing, from now on any Embraer association for new projects will be made through partnerships and sharing costs and risks.
Money is always welcome, but keeping the company as a single unit will be a priority going forward. No more great adventures.

In my view, Embraer should think big about a project in the 73X / A32X category.
The knowledge, the technical staff, the engineering is there.
The question is only a few billion dollars for this big step and, who knows, a financial partner and risk in the endeavor.

As much as one can think of a project in the comfort zone like a new turboprop, this is a limited market.
We will continue to "eat at the edge of the plate".
Time for a step up and more aggressiveness in a market dominated by the two big players in the industry ...

The market for 737 / A320 class aircraft as far as can be projected will continue to be the largest in the world. Boeing is weakened, with repeated technical and management problems that will take years to resolve. The severe market-share loss in China will make things even worse.

Embraer is fully technically capable of designing aircraft to compete with Airbus. Russia and China's offers will suffer from issues regarding access to critical technologies and I don't see an easy solution on the horizon.

The subsidies that will be offered to Boeing and Airbus as a result of Covid19 will be an invitation for the Brazilian government to finance the Embraer 290/95 project. This would be an appropriate response to the anti-competitive behavior of the EU and Boeing.

bkmbr wrote:

I personally believe that one of Embraer's great advantages, even because it is a smaller company, is seeing niche markets and anticipating them with good products.

Time to think bigger. Otherwise, as I said, we will continue to "eat at the edge of the plate".
I don´t believe anymore in this stuff "niche markets": as the word means, niche is just a small portion, when you think "niche" you think "small niche money" ...
The KC-390 was a big step up and ahead for Embraer. And it is there ...

bkmbr wrote:

The single aisle market between 150 and 250 passengers is saturated today, in addition to the 737 and A320 there are 2 new projects to enter this segment soon (MC-21 and C-919) in addition to the likely Boeing NSA that should not take long to appear.

The 73X it will need a replacement project in 10 yers or less. Maybe for the A32X family in 15 ou 20 years.
For the MC-21 and C919, both will sell to their sphere of political influence. It hurts mainly Boeing and Airbus.

bkmbr wrote:

Another market that may be worth exploring would be a civilian version of the KC-390 for operators like FedEX and UPS perhaps.

Nope. Lots of second hand aircrafts to be or being converted from passenger to freighters ...

keesje wrote:

I think Embraer has witnessed that if you go head to head with Airbus or Boeing you better have a lot of time, political back-up and money.
So far Embraer has been smart enough to stay away there. Even to make the KC390 a success, they realize they might need a partner.

As I said, the question is only a few billion dollars for this big step and, who knows, a financial partner and of risk in the endeavor.
Embraer had successful in the past with risk partners in their projects.

Nean1 wrote:

The subsidies that will be offered to Boeing and Airbus as a result of Covid19 will be an invitation for the Brazilian government to finance the Embraer 290/95 project. This would be an appropriate response to the anti-competitive behavior of the EU and Boeing.

Again, I never said in subsides from Brazilian Government: we are talking in a few billion of dollars and our government can´t afford it now or in the future this amount.
I am talking sharing the risks and cost with a partner or partners in this endeavor ...

sailsail wrote:

I flew a TBM from DFW to Houston cheaper than AA and no TSA to worry about.

To me, TBM = tunnel boring machine. I had an interesting mental picture to go with this statement, that is for sure.

Embraer absolutely could and should consider it! Even in the current situation. Perhaps an Embraer 120 NG on steroids? 30 to 50 seats would be ideal.

TonyClifton wrote:

Need something with more robust icing capabilities than the ATR. Ultimately are a get out of jail card, but not something you want to hang all day in upstate New York in a blizzard on.

Still think a turboprop is the only real solution to replace 50 seat jets

I never understood the reason for 50-seat regional jets on 200 mile trips to a major hub. The trip time isn't that much shorter than a turboprop. The interiors of the aircraft are the same.

EMBSPBR wrote:

bkmbr wrote:

I personally believe that one of Embraer's great advantages, even because it is a smaller company, is seeing niche markets and anticipating them with good products.

Time to think bigger. Otherwise, as I said, we will continue to "eat at the edge of the plate".
I don´t believe anymore in this stuff "niche markets": as the word means, niche is just a small portion, when you think "niche" you think "small niche money" ...
The KC-390 was a big step up and ahead for Embraer. And it is there ...

bkmbr wrote:

The single aisle market between 150 and 250 passengers is saturated today, in addition to the 737 and A320 there are 2 new projects to enter this segment soon (MC-21 and C-919) in addition to the likely Boeing NSA that should not take long to appear.

The 73X it will need a replacement project in 10 yers or less. Maybe for the A32X family in 15 ou 20 years.
For the MC-21 and C919, both will sell to their sphere of political influence. It hurts mainly Boeing and Airbus.

bkmbr wrote:

Another market that may be worth exploring would be a civilian version of the KC-390 for operators like FedEX and UPS perhaps.

Nope. Lots of second hand aircrafts to be or being converted from passenger to freighters ...

keesje wrote:

I think Embraer has witnessed that if you go head to head with Airbus or Boeing you better have a lot of time, political back-up and money.
So far Embraer has been smart enough to stay away there. Even to make the KC390 a success, they realize they might need a partner.

As I said, the question is only a few billion dollars for this big step and, who knows, a financial partner and of risk in the endeavor.
Embraer had successful in the past with risk partners in their projects.

Nean1 wrote:

The subsidies that will be offered to Boeing and Airbus as a result of Covid19 will be an invitation for the Brazilian government to finance the Embraer 290/95 project. This would be an appropriate response to the anti-competitive behavior of the EU and Boeing.

Again, I never said in subsides from Brazilian Government: we are talking in a few billion of dollars and our government can´t afford it now or in the future this amount.
I am talking sharing the risks and cost with a partner or partners in this endeavor ...

And go the way of the F100, CSeries, 728, ARJ, Spacejet, Superjet, AN-158, 717, A318, AE317, 736, Tu-334, YPX, NSA?

Knowledge & marketpotential is not enough. ,


https://www.flickr.com/photos/axel_j/

F9Animal wrote:

Embraer absolutely could and should consider it! Even in the current situation. Perhaps an Embraer 120 NG on steroids? 30 to 50 seats would be ideal.

Will never happen.
Again, a small niche with small gains ...

keesje wrote:

And go the way of the F100, CSeries, 728, ARJ, Spacejet, Superjet, AN-158, 717, A318, AE317, 736, Tu-334, YPX?

Nope.
This is 190/195E2 that we already have.
I mean an airplane for 180 to 220 passengers capacity.

A380MSN004 wrote:

Does Turboprops OEM can do a "NEO" ?
Like a PW127 or 150 NEO with 20/25% lower fuel burn ?

No way to do this. Let's face it: the efficiency gain of a PW PurePower geared turbofan or GE's LEAP is not from some fancy magic-miracle high tech in the core, but mostly from pushing its bypass-ratio to 10...12:1, compared to the ~5:1 a CFM56 has. This contributes in the range of 95% to the efficiency gain. Almost 30 year old propfan technology in the likes of a PW150 or AE2100 already have bypass-ratios at about 20:1, so how much would you actually be able to gain with today's core tech there? 1% maybe? Most likely even less. Not worth the effort, better invest your bucks into more-bladed, wider chord blade propellers.

EMBSPBR wrote:

keesje wrote:

And go the way of the F100, CSeries, 728, ARJ, Spacejet, Superjet, AN-158, 717, A318, AE317, 736, Tu-334, YPX?

Nope.
This is 190/195E2 that we already have.
I mean an airplane for 180 to 220 passengers capacity.

If Embraer comes up with something very good, Airbus might undercut them for years with mass produced A320 versions, denying any ROI.

And then come with something slightly bigger, better, 4-5 years later. Taking into account all lessons learned & customer feed-back, engine improvements.

However unfair, you can't ignore the scenario. Even Boeing froze at the idea when considering their NSA.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

Need something with more robust icing capabilities than the ATR. Ultimately are a get out of jail card, but not something you want to hang all day in upstate New York in a blizzard on.

Still think a turboprop is the only real solution to replace 50 seat jets

I never understood the reason for 50-seat regional jets on 200 mile trips to a major hub. The trip time isn't that much shorter than a turboprop. The interiors of the aircraft are the same.

In the northeast in January, I’ll take a CRJ in the ice every day of the week. Say what you want about the -200, but even with all the speed it hauls in, I never worried about icing. Boots will never come close to bleed air.

keesje wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

If Embraer comes up with something very good, Airbus might undercut them for years with mass produced A320 versions, denying any ROI.
And then come with something slightly bigger, better, 4-5 years later. Taking into account all lessons learned & customer feed-back, engine improvements.
However unfair, you can't ignore the scenario. Even Boeing froze at the idea when considering their NSA.

It reminded me of a new entrant back to 70´s fighting Boeing, Mcdonnell-Douglas and Lockheed ...

And I'm not ignoring the scenario, since from the first project on the drawing board to certification, we can expect to wait at least 5 to 7 years ...

TonyClifton wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

Need something with more robust icing capabilities than the ATR. Ultimately are a get out of jail card, but not something you want to hang all day in upstate New York in a blizzard on.

Still think a turboprop is the only real solution to replace 50 seat jets

I never understood the reason for 50-seat regional jets on 200 mile trips to a major hub. The trip time isn't that much shorter than a turboprop. The interiors of the aircraft are the same.

In the northeast in January, I’ll take a CRJ in the ice every day of the week. Say what you want about the -200, but even with all the speed it hauls in, I never worried about icing. Boots will never come close to bleed air.

I will agree with you everyday of the week about bleed air being > boots with icing conditions. But the flying with 200 sucks in icing conditions lol with it’s hard wing.

Anyways, I can see a new gen turboprop use a form of electrical heating elements for heating up the prop and wing leading edge.

bigb wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

I never understood the reason for 50-seat regional jets on 200 mile trips to a major hub. The trip time isn't that much shorter than a turboprop. The interiors of the aircraft are the same.

In the northeast in January, I’ll take a CRJ in the ice every day of the week. Say what you want about the -200, but even with all the speed it hauls in, I never worried about icing. Boots will never come close to bleed air.

I will agree with you everyday of the week about bleed air being > boots with icing conditions. But the flying with 200 sucks in icing conditions lol with it’s hard wing.

Anyways, I can see a new gen turboprop use a form of electrical heating elements for heating up the prop and wing leading edge.

200 just flies fast as all dickens on approach to make up for it! I believe some procedures on it were changed within the last year expanding the required use of anti ice, but don’t know specifics.

Could we see a 787-style anti ice perhaps?

TonyClifton wrote:

bigb wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

In the northeast in January, I’ll take a CRJ in the ice every day of the week. Say what you want about the -200, but even with all the speed it hauls in, I never worried about icing. Boots will never come close to bleed air.

I will agree with you everyday of the week about bleed air being > boots with icing conditions. But the flying with 200 sucks in icing conditions lol with it’s hard wing.

Anyways, I can see a new gen turboprop use a form of electrical heating elements for heating up the prop and wing leading edge.

200 just flies fast as all dickens on approach to make up for it! I believe some procedures on it were changed within the last year expanding the required use of anti ice, but don’t know specifics.

Could we see a 787-style anti ice perhaps?

Wings and cowl have to be on all the time on descent when it’s 10C or below until fully configured on the final approach and outside of icing conditions. That would be the alternative solution to boots is a 787 style anti-is easy system. Most props have heating elements to keep ice off the props already. It might be costly though.

keesje wrote:

I think Embraer has witnessed that if you go head to head with Airbus or Boeing you better have a lot of time, political back-up and money.


keesje

So far Embraer has been smart enough to stay away there. Even to make the KC390 a succes, they realize they might need a partner.

This is a huge airplane, almost the size of a 737-800NG or an Antonov AN-12. I don't know if the market would be able to accept a turboprop this big.

bigb wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

bigb wrote:

I will agree with you everyday of the week about bleed air being > boots with icing conditions. But the flying with 200 sucks in icing conditions lol with it’s hard wing.

Anyways, I can see a new gen turboprop use a form of electrical heating elements for heating up the prop and wing leading edge.

200 just flies fast as all dickens on approach to make up for it! I believe some procedures on it were changed within the last year expanding the required use of anti ice, but don’t know specifics.

Could we see a 787-style anti ice perhaps?

Wings and cowl have to be on all the time on descent when it’s 10C or below until fully configured on the final approach and outside of icing conditions. That would be the alternative solution to boots is a 787 style anti-is easy system. Most props have heating elements to keep ice off the props already. It might be costly though.

Well, god gave ya boards lol!

EMBSPBR wrote:

Time to think bigger. Otherwise, as I said, we will continue to "eat at the edge of the plate".
I don´t believe anymore in this stuff "niche markets": as the word means, niche is just a small portion, when you think "niche" you think "small niche money" ...
The KC-390 was a big step up and ahead for Embraer. And it is there ...

I don't see why to be honest. To think bigger you need to take bigger risks and bigger risks means that if something went wrong you can bankrupt the company, take Lockheed and its L-1011 for example. Bigger is not always better, is better to be a third place with a solid market position than to try to be first and end up bankrupting the company down the road. Bombardier learned this lesson in a very bitter way.

EMBSPBR wrote:

The 73X it will need a replacement project in 10 yers or less. Maybe for the A32X family in 15 ou 20 years.
For the MC-21 and C919, both will sell to their sphere of political influence. It hurts mainly Boeing and Airbus.

And all four you mention also have governments willing to put large sums of money in those companies to keep them afloat even if the project doesn't succeed, but that's not the case with Embraer. IMHO there's no significant gain to be made in this market now and in the near future, so why commit the future of the company in a project like that? Embraer doesn't have de money to enter in an adventure like that at the moment, so trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus head on is a suicidal proposal.

EMBSPBR wrote:

Nope. Lots of second hand aircrafts to be or being converted from passenger to freighters ...

The civilian KC-390 would have advantages that no converted plane could offer, like the rear loading ramp. The only real competitor for the civilian KC-390 would be the Lockheed L-100J and the KC-390 have a clear advantage compared to it. The kind of loads a KC390 could handle are completely different from the loads of converted passenger airplanes could handle.

IMHO rather than going bigger Embraer should build a family of 19-100 pax TPs with common flight deck. E2 flight deck would be even better. At some point single pilot limit should be increased for 9. There should be career progression without costing a fortune from type to type for both airlines and pilots.