If done properly, Embraer will do well with this aircraft. Part of the problem with the latest GTF engines being so heavy is that the core is larger than optimum for the E2-175, still a bit big for the E2-195, about the right weight for the A223 and excellent for the A320. There is insufficient volume in the RJ size to justify a proper sized core, the development cost is billions spread out over a couple thousand units.

However, the Turboprop is new territory for the engine manufacturers, an optimum engine seems possible. The battle between efficiency and speed probably places its speed somewhat below the Q400 but it has to be a lot faster than the ATR. The disdain in the US against the Turboprop has less to do with the propellers, rather the noise and vibration within the cabin - its exhausting after just an hour.

MIflyer12 wrote:

dennypayne wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Joe Schmoe flying public will not be able to differentiate an A320 to a 737, let alone a 737NG to a 737 MAX. However, they will be able to visually identity in a second a prop plane to a jet engine one.

Yeah, after they've already bought the ticket because it was a lower price than the competition, and they are sitting at the gate. And then if the experience is good, as it is on current-day Q400s and ATRs (and it will likely be even better with the engines in the rear), then they'll probably purchase again.

ATRs and Q400s are not, in any way, NVH competitive with CR9s and E75s. When AS retires their Q400s early next year, not a single carrier among the ten largest passenger carriers in the U.S. will operate props. Passengers have spoken. DL E75s drove AS Q400s from the SEA market.

I disagree, for sure in the case of the newer ATRs like Silver has (I have ridden those). NVH is significantly improved from older turboprops, to the point that I don't think it's as far out from the CR9/E75 experience as the 'stigma' would suggest. But even if you don't accept that argument, that's not what I was claiming in the first place. My argument is that most passengers will book the lowest price without regard to equipment, and if a new turboprop provides a good experience (even if it's not *as* good compared to jet equipment), and enables a community to have air service it wouldn't otherwise get (or at a lower price), then there's a market for these.

I'd also argue that DL connectivity as they've built SEA up into a hub is a larger factor than equipment here as well, but that's drifting off topic so I'll just leave that there.

I do agree that overall the E75 is the best RJ experience on the market, so to me the competition for this new turboprop is mostly internal to Embraer itself, although I'm sure they'd rather sell E2s. But they screwed that up by not making it scope-compliant.

I think the biggest question is if Embraer has enough cash flow to survive between EIS and production ramp up and deliveries. R&D is only part of the cost.

One interesting observation for the future - might be completely out of the ballpark - this design with the very low ground clearance (90 cm) and rear mounted engines (you can move the engines forward or backward for balance) is perfect if you were ever to research electric propulsion with swappable battery packs under the aircraft (inside wing box?). There is a lot of research on electric aircraft these days, but they all have one problem: You can't charge a plane between the flights. You will need swappable battery packs. Anyway, just a thought for the future.

Q400s are being retired to go to 2 class regional jets.

I think there might be an emerging market and it isn't in emerging nations.
LCCs are running out of routes with enough volume to fill A32X neos and 737Max200s.
Routes which are four hours long are no good to them as they can't sell as many ancilliaries.
If there are shorter routes to be exploited with a 90 to 100 seater that have enough demand they can sell 4 times as many ancilliaries.
2 cabin crew, similar CASM, lower landing fees and more opportunites to sell add-ons.

Polot wrote:

744SPX wrote:

The wing has effectively zero sweep implying a cruise speed no greater than the Q400 or SAAB-2000. Disappointing. I was hoping for A400M performance (485 mph cruise), which is easily doable but then it would probably kill the E-jets.

It would kill fuel burn too making the plane less attractive. The A400M wasn’t designed and built around commercial operators and their requirements/expectations. By commercial standards the A400M is a thirsty (albeit very cool) beast.

Where is Keesje? It most definitely would not kill fuel burn. It would kill the E2. 485 mph cruise with 20% better sfc than a GTF is easily doable. Its been a known factor for decades which NASA demonstrated with flight hardware in the ATP program. Double digit efficiency gains over turbofans all the way up to .9 mach utilizing equivalent technology cores.

It seems Ember is inching towards some sort of partnership with India on the E3-TPNG. I thought South Korea was the potential partner for Embraer.

Do you think there a possible assembly line for an Indian-built E3-TPNG as part of a potential deal ?

https://simpleflying.com/embraer-manufa ... -in-india/

"Embraer is currently searching for a manufacturing partner for its proposed new-generation turboprop, and talks with India are reportedly progressing well. Discussions about the possibility of India featuring in Embraer's larger plan surfaced earlier this year, and the latest reports suggest that the country is still very much in the running.

These reports come hot on the heels of the inauguration of the Tata-Airbus C-295 aircraft manufacturing facility in the Indian state of Gujarat on October 30th. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stated that India could soon be manufacturing large passenger aircraft, suggesting either home-grown designs from scratch or establishing assembly lines for established players like Boeing and Airbus.

State-owned aerospace company Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has also taken significant steps, including manufacturing the Hindustan-228, the Indian version of the Dornier-228, and various Indian companies now feature in the global supply chain ecosystem for Airbus and Boeing."

Embraer are delaying the programme
Article is paywalled for me. Can someone please help with that?
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... p-plan-ice

https://www.airdatanews.com/embraer-to- ... op-report/

Here is a brief summary from another article.

"However, economic, market and technical conditions would not be right at the moment, according to Aviation & Week."

I think the lack of a new powerplant that could deliver significant fuel savings was the deal breaker. The aircraft supposedly was going to use a lot of the tech developed for the E2 series, so that would have helped lower development costs. The fact that ATR is also backing away from a clean sheet design means that we might not see a new turboprop enter service until the early 2030's.

The delay is not good news. Saabs, early Dashes and ATRs are all coming up for retirement or reaching the end of their useful lives and we don't have a decent NG replacement.

dhcomet wrote:

The delay is not good news. Saabs, early Dashes and ATRs are all coming up for retirement or reaching the end of their useful lives and we don't have a decent NG replacement.

ATR will respond by pushing their "new" engine (just entered service recently) improved aircraft to replace all of the above.
Not to poo poo Pratt's efforts at improving the engines- they've got 3% lower fuel burn and something like 10% more time between scheduled removals, and that's great. But it's not revolutionary.

alberchico wrote:

https://www.airdatanews.com/embraer-to-postpone-launch-of-its-new-passenger-turboprop-report/

Here is a brief summary from another article.

"However, economic, market and technical conditions would not be right at the moment, according to Aviation & Week."

I think the lack of a new powerplant that could deliver significant fuel savings was the deal breaker. The aircraft supposedly was going to use a lot of the tech developed for the E2 series, so that would have helped lower development costs. The fact that ATR is also backing away from a clean sheet design means that we might not see a new turboprop enter service until the early 2030's.

Is everybody convinced now there is no market for props, given development costs?

MIflyer12 wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://www.airdatanews.com/embraer-to-postpone-launch-of-its-new-passenger-turboprop-report/

Here is a brief summary from another article.

"However, economic, market and technical conditions would not be right at the moment, according to Aviation & Week."

I think the lack of a new powerplant that could deliver significant fuel savings was the deal breaker. The aircraft supposedly was going to use a lot of the tech developed for the E2 series, so that would have helped lower development costs. The fact that ATR is also backing away from a clean sheet design means that we might not see a new turboprop enter service until the early 2030's.

Is everybody convinced now there is no market for props, given development costs?

Logically, there must be. Just remains to be seen if it's big enough, solvent enough, and ready enough, to cough up the capital, to buy new frames.
So said capital is deployed to develop a new propliner, that meets expectations of the sufficient number of customers.

dhcomet wrote:

The delay is not good news. Saabs, early Dashes and ATRs are all coming up for retirement or reaching the end of their useful lives and we don't have a decent NG replacement.

https://airinsight.com/atr-unveils-next ... turboprop/

It looks like an ATR NEO version is the best we're going to get for the time being. Part of the problem is that aviation is at a crossroads right now, with a lot of uncertainty over what future designs will look like. Is hydrogen the way of the future for short haul aircraft, or will it be hybrid elctric propulsion ? Or will it simply be an improved version of an existing engine ? It's too risky to launch a project now and risk it becoming obsolete in 10 years because you jumped the gun too early.

alberchico wrote:

dhcomet wrote:

The delay is not good news. Saabs, early Dashes and ATRs are all coming up for retirement or reaching the end of their useful lives and we don't have a decent NG replacement.

https://airinsight.com/atr-unveils-next ... turboprop/

It looks like an ATR NEO version is the best we're going to get for the time being. Part of the problem is that aviation is at a crossroads right now, with a lot of uncertainty over what future designs will look like. Is hydrogen the way of the future for short haul aircraft, or will it be hybrid elctric propulsion ? Or will it simply be an improved version of an existing engine ? It's too risky to launch a project now and risk it becoming obsolete in 10 years because you jumped the gun too early.

The E3 is a too big to replace the Saab's and the Dash 1-300s.

Embraer has a programme that would be perfect for this segment called STOUT.

Well it's almost perfect aside from the fact that's it's a military programme and it's been on hold for about a year because politics.

A civilian version with the military weight stripped out of it would be very effective in this segment.
Also it's a hybrid so it gets eco points.

If Embraer can't go it alone partner with Saab. If that's not possible because of Saab's stake in Heart Aerospace than perhaps Mitsubishi or whatever REKKOF are calling themselves now.

This probably has more to do with Covid than anything. I'm confident the delay will be short given the price of oil, greater focus on mitigating climate change, and the need for a modern, more efficient, and faster replacement for legacy TP's. ...Especially the ATR-72 which ranks among the slowest TP's of ANY generation. Heck, there are piston powered planes of similar size and mission from the 40's and 50's that are faster than that dog of an aircraft.

alberchico wrote:

https://www.airdatanews.com/embraer-to-postpone-launch-of-its-new-passenger-turboprop-report/

Here is a brief summary from another article.

"However, economic, market and technical conditions would not be right at the moment, according to Aviation & Week."

I think the lack of a new powerplant that could deliver significant fuel savings was the deal breaker. The aircraft supposedly was going to use a lot of the tech developed for the E2 series, so that would have helped lower development costs. The fact that ATR is also backing away from a clean sheet design means that we might not see a new turboprop enter service until the early 2030's.

I believe the lack of a new PowerPoint is of huge importance. However, there just isn't much of a business case to develop enough of an improvement. If anything, Embraer needs to talk to GE. I used to work for Pratt and they just seem more inclined to improve profit margins.

This really leaves the market without a current generation viable aircraft smaller than the A221 or E2-195. While I am a fan of less than daily service, that isn't for every destination. There is a market. The issue is paying off the development costs of a new aircraft and engine.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I believe the lack of a new PowerPoint is of huge importance.

I'm guessing autocorrect doesn't know "powerplant," but it's funny to think some management team cancels a program because the engineering team didn't do a good enough job updating their PPT.

Not really any good way to spin this delay. Embraer is going to let ATR (airbus) run with this category because they are too risk averse. Disappointing. The manufacturer that expanded E170 and E190-1 and E190-2 to a 4 plane program to include E170, E175 (good thing as it ended up being a big seller), E190, and E195 has now lost it's nerve.

If they launched in 2023, they could have slow crawled the development and be ready by 2030. But, as it is, they will miss big retirement cycles and the Next Gen ATR will take those sales. I understand the powerplant wasn't there... but still develop for existing powerplants and hope for a decent PIP before EIS.... well, easy for me... armchair aircraft developer.....

Disappointed. And, NO.. there are ZERO electric planes capable of carrying 60-90 pax for 500nmi anywhere on the horizon before 2050... Seriously... So a new prop would go uncallenged by new tech for about 2 decades. So I don't buy the crossroads arguement. Industry will struggle to have a 19pax craft with 200nmi range reliably in service in the 2030s. Look at the development for Tecnam's 9pax P2012 Traveller Electric commuter and it's range to .guage where industry is..

Bummer.

dopplerd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I believe the lack of a new PowerPoint is of huge importance.

I'm guessing autocorrect doesn't know "powerplant," but it's funny to think some management team cancels a program because the engineering team didn't do a good enough job updating their PPT.

I missed that autocorrect. But yes, a new powerplant is needed for fuel efficiency and maintenance economics. Typically half the cost benefit comes from the engines, half the airframe. The issue is the cost and time to develop a new engine.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Not really any good way to spin this delay. Embraer is going to let ATR (airbus) run with this category because they are too risk averse. Disappointing. The manufacturer that expanded E170 and E190-1 and E190-2 to a 4 plane program to include E170, E175 (good thing as it ended up being a big seller), E190, and E195 has now lost it's nerve.

If they launched in 2023, they could have slow crawled the development and be ready by 2030. But, as it is, they will miss big retirement cycles and the Next Gen ATR will take those sales. I understand the powerplant wasn't there... but still develop for existing powerplants and hope for a decent PIP before EIS.... well, easy for me... armchair aircraft developer.....

Disappointed. And, NO.. there are ZERO electric planes capable of carrying 60-90 pax for 500nmi anywhere on the horizon before 2050... Seriously... So a new prop would go uncallenged by new tech for about 2 decades. So I don't buy the crossroads arguement. Industry will struggle to have a 19pax craft with 200nmi range reliably in service in the 2030s. Look at the development for Tecnam's 9pax P2012 Traveller Electric commuter and it's range to .guage where industry is..

Bummer.

2 decades is not long for a newly developed frame. Average lifetime of a frame should be at least 30 years…

JonesNL wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Not really any good way to spin this delay. Embraer is going to let ATR (airbus) run with this category because they are too risk averse. Disappointing. The manufacturer that expanded E170 and E190-1 and E190-2 to a 4 plane program to include E170, E175 (good thing as it ended up being a big seller), E190, and E195 has now lost it's nerve.

If they launched in 2023, they could have slow crawled the development and be ready by 2030. But, as it is, they will miss big retirement cycles and the Next Gen ATR will take those sales. I understand the powerplant wasn't there... but still develop for existing powerplants and hope for a decent PIP before EIS.... well, easy for me... armchair aircraft developer.....

Disappointed. And, NO.. there are ZERO electric planes capable of carrying 60-90 pax for 500nmi anywhere on the horizon before 2050... Seriously... So a new prop would go uncallenged by new tech for about 2 decades. So I don't buy the crossroads arguement. Industry will struggle to have a 19pax craft with 200nmi range reliably in service in the 2030s. Look at the development for Tecnam's 9pax P2012 Traveller Electric commuter and it's range to .guage where industry is..

Bummer.

2 decades is not long for a newly developed frame. Average lifetime of a frame should be at least 30 years…

Gee, so Embraer should take the point of view.... we will have emerging competition from alternative tech years 21 to 30, so we can't move foreward?

sounds cowardly...

If this whole "electric propulsion for aircraft" is a thing, I think we could end up in that strange place, where anyone can design one. And we would have something like automotive industry of 1900's (first and second decades). AFAIR, in USA alone, there were what? 100 car manufacturers, floating their shares on NYSE, approximately?
And obviously, no credentials in building horse-driven carriages were a deciding factor in who's gonna survive out of those 100.

If that what it shapes up to be, no wonder existing player with limited capital -- like Embraer -- is not keen to jump into that shark tank. Especially if they know that sharks will plenty, but water -- who knows?

Welcome to the Embraer New Turboprop Aircraft Development thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the previous now closed edition:
viewtopic.php?p=23577011

Please continue discussion in the below 2023 edition

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480215

While Embraer said they saw strong demand for a large turboprop( 250 LOIs already), in December had to postpone the launch decision likely due to reported engine supplier challenges.

It was reported GE declined to participate, while neither Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce could not provide anything that was a big improvement over current engine designs.

So how does Embraer get over this dilemma? Just proceed with current prop technology, or just forget the concept and stick with its jet line?

Maybe they postponed launch to see what happens with the PW hybrid and/or CFM Rise. That’s my guess.

Embraer has put forward an upgraded Energia line of future products based on hybrid-electric and hydrogen powered airplanes on the 19-to-30 seat airplanes. Are they expecting to consolidate this new powertrain mode on smaller planes before taking it to their new TPNG 70-90 seat airplane ?

Below is what EMB said about Energia, hinting that hydrogen-driven gas turbines is what it takes for larger 100-seat TP airplanes.

"Hybrid-electric and hydrogen fuel cell propulsion "ideal" for mission profile. Out of the four concepts unveiled a year ago (on which you can learn more from an interview with the CEO of Embraer commercial aircraft, Arjan Meijer, here), the OEM has now chosen to focus on two 19-30 seater designs for hybrid-electric and hydrogen-electric propulsion.

When asked if this meant that the company was forgoing direct hydrogen combustion technology or fully electric propulsion, Embraer's Juan Carlos Alfonso, Senior VP of Engineering, Technology Development and Corporate Strategy, stated,

"No, we have not given up on those other technologies. For instance, in our eVTOL, EVE, we are applying 100% electric because it is low capacity and short range. So that's ideal for a fully electric airplane. On the other hand, if you go to a bigger plane, let's say 100 seats and up, then the big gas turbines are efficient, and then you can have a direct hydrogen burn. In the middle, where the energy family is, both capacity and range, then the gas turbines are not very efficient and the fully electric is too heavy. So for this space, the hybrid-electric and fuel cells are the ideal propulsion systems."

https://simpleflying.com/what-new-embraer-energia/

And last, nut not least, the current regional airlines crisis in the US might make it difficult for Embraer to have a business case for potential clients ready to sign in.

docmtl

Embraer says its "unlikely" to launch the next development stage of the new turboprop platform until atleast 2024

https://dashboard.cirium.com/app/#/articles/485647

I'd always hoped they would take the EMB-120 and modernize and stretch it... Modernize it to a 30pax craft (sized just below ERJ-135) and 50pax (sized near ERJ-145). But of course the rub is... no newer turbo prop engines available in the hp class. Seemed like it could be done affordably and use allot of existing tech/tooling that they have. But perhaps that wouldn't result in anything compelling enough for airlines to purchase.

mercure1 wrote:

Embraer says its "unlikely" to launch the next development stage of the new turboprop platform until atleast 2024

https://dashboard.cirium.com/app/#/articles/485647

You can put some parts of the text here?

flyinggoat wrote:

Maybe they postponed launch to see what happens with the PW hybrid and/or CFM Rise. That’s my guess.

That would be the smart test bed for RISE, on a smaller turboprop. It would put Rise's NVH to the test.

[quote="mercure1"

neither Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce could not provide anything that was a big improvement over current engine designs.

[/quote]

I smell BS here. Pratt is now saying they can't provide a big improvement over the 40 year-old PW100 series? The PW100 family hasn't had any significant upgrades for over 20 years. Just minor tweaks. Gas turbine core design and propeller design has improved immensely in that time-span. A 15%+ sfc improvement on the PW150 should be easily doable. In fact, Pratt's 15-year old NGTP engine design was offering about that.

744SPX wrote:

I smell BS here. Pratt is now saying they can't provide a big improvement over the 40 year-old PW100 series? The PW100 family hasn't had any significant upgrades for over 20 years. Just minor tweaks. Gas turbine core design and propeller design has improved immensely in that time-span. A 15%+ sfc improvement on the PW150 should be easily doable. In fact, Pratt's 15-year old NGTP engine design was offering about that.

I’m sure they could, but not for the level of investment they’re willing to put into such a program. That’s the issue. Embraer will have to convince engine manufacturers that it is worth their $$$.

Yes, the engine guys don't want to invest a load of money in a program that doesn't have enough potential sales to even pay off half of the investment. If Embraer could sell 2,000 planes in 20 years, that would be enough to pay off the investment. But it is more like 700 planes.

Would the Open Rotor RISE project the engine Embraer is waiting for ? Check Leham News on the available technologies for engines until 2035: no hydrogen, no hybrid, no electric.

https://leehamnews.com

The question is: would Embraer launch a TPNG without such an engine ? It would push the project well beyond 2030...

docmtl

I think the Embraer turboprop is dead. To me the reason isn't a rejection of the technology itself. It's probably just another chapter in the overall death of commercial regional jet aviation.

NameOmitted wrote:

william wrote:

flyinggoat wrote:

Maybe they postponed launch to see what happens with the PW hybrid and/or CFM Rise. That’s my guess.

That would be the smart test bed for RISE, on a smaller turboprop. It would put Rise's NVH to the test.

How would the diameter of a RISE roter compare to a similarly powered turboprop?

The ATR72 and Dash 8-400 have turboprop rotor diameters of 13.5 feet. The RISE rotor is targeting 12-13 feet of diameter for large narrowbody aircraft, so a RISE-inspired turborprop rotor would be still a little less than that.

Would this aircraft have been scope compliant ? If not it would have encountered the same issues as the E2 series. Maybe Embraer took a hard look at the future of the regional market and did not like what it saw. The fact that ATR is pursuing a refresh of their existing product line instead of launching a clean sheet replacement also indicates that the next generation engine tech needed is not ready for prime time.

The big question mark regarding the U.S. regional market is what's going to happen in 10 years time when the older generation regional jets need to be replaced. Will airlines simply buy the heavier E2 jets and bring all regional flying in house, or will smaller markets start losing air service altogether ?

Embraer has hinted their new TPNG will be delayed for at least 2030:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... ral-years#

Are they waiting for the RISE with H2 and SAF all along ?

They probably realized that with no new engine on the immediate horizon promising significant improvements over current products this aircraft simply wasn't viable. They also were not in a good place financially to launch a new clean sheet product. Considering that many E-170 airframes are still relatively young, it probably makes sense to delay the introduction of this aircraft.

docmtl wrote:

Embraer has hinted their new TPNG will be delayed for at least 2030:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... ral-years#

Are they waiting for the RISE with H2 and SAF all along ?

I'd be happy if the RISE gets on an airplane, with any fuel. Anyone know where RISE is in development?

JayinKitsap wrote:

docmtl wrote:

Embraer has hinted their new TPNG will be delayed for at least 2030:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... ral-years#

Are they waiting for the RISE with H2 and SAF all along ?

I'd be happy if the RISE gets on an airplane, with any fuel. Anyone know where RISE is in development?

https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/sa ... 98.article

Flight testing isn't scheduled to even begin until 2026, with a possible service entry in the early 2030's if everything goes smoothly. Isn't the RISE engine optimized for large narrowbody designs ? It might be too big and heavy for a small regional aircraft.