Area dominated by CRJ, ERJ, ATR's. But those are aging.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/05/embraer-ponders-new-smaller-jet/

Maybe propulsion / geared fans offer new opportunities. A lean, quiet 2-2 <1000NM next gen regional ?

A 15-20% step improvement in fuel efficiency, noise and operational flexibility would be required IMO.

If props market are small and jet market ate not without risk, then how about some sort of design that adopt to both like Dornier 328?

I think a configuration seems logical for this mission, probably, 2-2 high wing, M.7, 1000NM range.

But the engine, a prop (efficient, noisy) or some new type of light, geared, hybrid, ducted fan (quiet, expensive..) ?

As a fan of all things aviation... I think this would be awesome! I'd love a solid ERJ145/CRJ200/EJet170 replacement aircraft... 50 to 76 seats... 52 seats, (13rows*4abreast), 64 seats (16rows*4abreast) and 76 seats (19rows*4abreast)… Single Class pax at 32" pitch.

We'd also have a plane that meets scope clause sized just below the ERJ175-E2 for the USA. However, it would be at the top of a family (stretch), rather than the bottom end of the family (shrink), so the CASM should be much better than the 170. I would imagine they would want to reuse the current E-Jet fuselage diameter as the cost of developing another might add to the overall acquisition costs, negating any fuel savings..

However, I guess you could approach it the other way and say.... Grow the ERJ145 fuesalge to 4 abreast and keep the 17" seats and small isle. You'd probably have the opportunity to introduce larger bins with the extra ceiling height you'd gain.. Then you grow to 64pax without increasing the length compared to the 145 by very much at all (I assuming you add an extra bathroom and increase galley size... so the overall length would have to increase a few feet. Go with folidng wings so that it fits in exisiting ERJ gates despite being a much larger plane...

Anyway, fun stuff.... Keesje, I'd love to see a few mockups from you.....

A 3 plane family based on:
An EJets deriviate
or
The Ejets as a starting point but with a slightly reduced fuselage diameter (probably the worst option in terms of ROI)

A 2 plane family based on:
The ERJ as starting plane widened for 4 abreast and a bit larger galley and extra bathroom....

The question is can they build this much cheaper and with economics more compelling than the CRJ700? (They could maintain the 17.1" aisle advantage of the ERJ or the 19" aisle advantage of the E-Jet)

CRJ700 has one weakness, passenger comfort. Some might say it is "expensive to build" also. No idea about that.

A clean sheet 50-70 seater could yield a comfort benefit for customers and efficiency benefit for carriers. Would love to see it.

My post from another thread on this subject-

So reuse the cabin sizes from the ERJs which is a reuse of the EMB 120 cabin size. Makes sense and should cut down costs. Not sure what EMB could do to take weight out of the cabin unless they go expensive CF in which case thats a whole new airplane.

The turboprops could go on the wing ala the 120 or rear mounted like the 123. Either way, not sure what or how much engineering other than lighter subsystems would need to be done.

keesje wrote:

Area dominated by CRJ, ERJ, ATR's. But those are aging.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/05/embraer-ponders-new-smaller-jet/

Maybe propulsion / geared fans offer new opportunities. A lean, quiet 2-2 <1000NM next gen regional ?

A 15-20% step improvement in fuel efficiency, noise and operational flexibility would be required IMO.

How about additionally getting rid of the first officer? This will come one day anyway, why not push for it now? (not that I think that it is a good idea...)

If allowed to dream, something vaguely similar to the Piaggio 180, but four or five times larger, and adding an electrical hybrid 3rd power source would sure be interesting. The first 12 frames were built in Wichita near the 737 line, after all.

Another option perhaps, which I haven't seen discussed, is to go with a vertical/STOL (tiltrotor) aircraft around 60 seats to get around some scope clauses/regulatory hurdles. I'm not sure if that would matter or not, though I'd think a possible military application off-shoot of such an aircraft would have a lot of potential too. It could surely open up new "feeder" sites if economical for the airlines.

But this is probably just about updating the E-170.

Using the EJet fuselage sounds like a logical idea. It uses however a double bubble cross section of considerable height.

Using very high BPR engines and operational flexibility would point towards a high wing. Having a EJet type high fuselage becomes less attractive here. E.g. ATR's and Q400 have flattened bellies, to reduce landing gear height and make aircraft access easier.

Maybe Embraer could reduce to lower lobe height of the Ejet fuselage, making it more similar to the MRJ. Giving in luggage / cargo capacity.. making it longer.

At this moment there is only speculation. It is clear that with the reduction of the efforts of the important programs KC-390 and E2 the moment is propitious to revisit the segment.

I personally do not believe that Embraer will launch something very innovative. However it may make sense to study some opportunities:

120E2: More efficient engines, propellers, APUs and avionics are available and the fleet of comparable aircraft aging rapidly.

145XRE2: Could the Safran Silvercrest be an option? Lowering the center floor and improving the carry-on luggage compartment is easy. What about adopting fly-by-wire commands and introducing slats in the wings?

170E2: Would it be possible to create a mixed version from 175E1 (wings and undercarriage) and E175E2 by removing 2 rows of seats, with a minimum range of 1500 nm and respecting the 86,000 pounds? Could Silvercrest engines offer at least 10% fuel economy and maintenance?

There are many unanswered questions.

ps: The above chart posted by keesje shows why the idea of ​​a turbo-prop version of the CS100 with rows adapted for 6 seats makes no sense at all. It would be interesting to see the emergency evacuation tests, not to mention the ample shoulder space.

A configuration similar to e.g. AN-148/158 has advantages for high BPR engine flexibility.

The An-148 has a 5 abreast cabin. For the 40-75 seat segment discussed 4 abreast would be more optimal.

keesje wrote:

BBD really screwed the pooch with that C-series fuselage crossection, 28 inch wider cabin width than the CRJ for just one extra seat is just excess structural weight in a market where every cent of operational costs count...

JustSomeDood wrote:

keesje wrote:

BBD really screwed the pooch with that C-series fuselage crossection, 28 inch wider cabin width than the CRJ for just one extra seat is just excess structural weight in a market where every cent of operational costs count...

Yeah, no wonder no major airlines want it. Oh, wait...

N766UA wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

keesje wrote:

BBD really screwed the pooch with that C-series fuselage crossection, 28 inch wider cabin width than the CRJ for just one extra seat is just excess structural weight in a market where every cent of operational costs count...

Yeah, no wonder no major airlines want it. Oh, wait...

It's a major reason why a tarted up E-Jet with new engines (cheap development cost) is proportedly matching the clean sheet C series (expensive development cost) in operating economics, and therefore why Jetblue, if not other airlines, is still deciding between the two aircraft.

Make the fuselage narrower, shave off some OEW from the frame, and the C-series instantly becomes more compelling to airlines due to efficiency gain from flying less weight around.

JustSomeDood wrote:

N766UA wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

BBD really screwed the pooch with that C-series fuselage crossection, 28 inch wider cabin width than the CRJ for just one extra seat is just excess structural weight in a market where every cent of operational costs count...

Yeah, no wonder no major airlines want it. Oh, wait...

It's a major reason why a tarted up E-Jet with new engines (cheap development cost) is proportedly matching the clean sheet C series (expensive development cost) in operating economics, and therefore why Jetblue, if not other airlines, is still deciding between the two aircraft.

Make the fuselage narrower, shave off some OEW from the frame, and the C-series instantly becomes more compelling to airlines due to efficiency gain from flying less weight around.

JustSomeDood,

It seems to be a little late to go back, this project has already been too late and spent much more money than the initial forecast. Now the best thing to do would be to try to convince airlines that passengers are willing to pay in return for more comfort than offered by comparable B737 and A320 aircraft.

JustSomeDood wrote:

N766UA wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

BBD really screwed the pooch with that C-series fuselage crossection, 28 inch wider cabin width than the CRJ for just one extra seat is just excess structural weight in a market where every cent of operational costs count...

Yeah, no wonder no major airlines want it. Oh, wait...

It's a major reason why a tarted up E-Jet with new engines (cheap development cost) is proportedly matching the clean sheet C series (expensive development cost) in operating economics, and therefore why Jetblue, if not other airlines, is still deciding between the two aircraft.

Make the fuselage narrower, shave off some OEW from the frame, and the C-series instantly becomes more compelling to airlines due to efficiency gain from flying less weight around.

I don't think the picture would be too much different even if the CSeries is to be narrower? As in for example A320ceo was an all new aircraft but it still take them quite a bit of marketing efforts before they can match it against 737NG in market share

c933103 wrote:

I don't think the picture would be too much different even if the CSeries is to be narrower? As in for example A320ceo was an all new aircraft but it still take them quite a bit of marketing efforts before they can match it against 737NG in market share

I'm not sure what you mean by this? The A320 came into the market before the 737NG, and AFAIK, has always had a higher market share than the NG? Wasn't it that Boeing lost the UA campaign and then decided to update the 737 Classic to the NG?

Well, I guess us electric dreamers [url]can keep our hopes up for no[/url]w.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/06/hawai ... more-26521

I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with Boeing/Aurora tie up. /sarcasm.

Instead, EMB sees the need for an airplane smaller than the E175, but the airplane referred to is an electric airplane of fewer than 50 seats.
Embraer is studying future market opportunities for smaller electric airplanes and turboprops, a spokesman wrote LNC, but not that Embraer will develop either of them any time soon.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aero ... SKBN1CA16A

Interesting as well to note the interest at the second link of Jetblue.

I would love to see counter - rotating prop fans be built.

JustSomeDood wrote:

keesje wrote:

BBD really screwed the pooch with that C-series fuselage crossection, 28 inch wider cabin width than the CRJ for just one extra seat is just excess structural weight in a market where every cent of operational costs count...

But Embraer didn’t when they made their 2-2 E-Jet considerable and according to you logic needlessly wider than the CRJ? People on here take weight reduction to the extreme beyond the real world!

keesje wrote:

Area dominated by CRJ, ERJ, ATR's. But those are aging.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/05/embraer-ponders-new-smaller-jet/

Maybe propulsion / geared fans offer new opportunities. A lean, quiet 2-2 <1000NM next gen regional ?

A 15-20% step improvement in fuel efficiency, noise and operational flexibility would be required IMO.

There is a next gen regional in development that fits these specifications: the Mitsubishi MRJ70.

Embraer is coming to realization that the only way forward to produce a next gen aircraft that meets current US scope provisions is to build smaller. Ideally, the ERJ-175 would be retrofitted with a geared turbofan, but doing so would add weight, causing the aircraft to broach scope.

Although it may be tight, the MRJ70's STD and ER versions will meet scope provisions. The MRJ70STD has a projected range of 1020NM, the MRJ70ER, 1670NM.

http://www.flythemrj.com/design/

A couple months ago we had a thread about EMB considering a new turboprop... now we have this. IMO, both can make sense.
With the E175-E2 starting at 88-90 seats single class, there could be a space below that.

In terms of jets, the 50-seat market is dead. That leaves only a 70-seater RJ as possible gap to fill for EMB - too small, specially as most RJs are moving towards 90-100 seats nowadays. Plus, that segment is covered by the old CRJ, the new MRJ70, and the new - and scope clause compliant - SSJ shrink. Too much competition to introduce a single orphan aircraft model in there.

OTOH, the turboprop market has ATR as the only 50-seater, dominating the 70-seat market, with the Q400 being produced at a trickle.
It should be relatively easy for EMB to launch a 50-70 seat prop family that is better than the ATR, which is a fine but old aircraft with old engines.
It would also relatively easy to reengine, modernize and maybe even slightly stretch the E120, however I don't see a viable market as long as two pilots are required.

I don’t think it makes sense to design a new plane around what are becoming, increasingly obvious, silly regional scope clauses. If an aircraft makes sense, the unions and pilots in the US need to figure out how to accommodate their employers use of it.

At some point in the next five to ten years, one of the big 4 US operators unions will figure out how to do the E175 e2 with their labor union, and the competitors running ERJ CRJ Mitsubishi smaller less efficient fleets will wind up needing to react, quickly.

texl1649 wrote:

I don’t think it makes sense to design a new plane around what are becoming, increasingly obvious, silly regional scope clauses. If an aircraft makes sense, the unions and pilots in the US need to figure out how to accommodate their employers use of it.

At some point in the next five to ten years, one of the big 4 US operators unions will figure out how to do the E175 e2 with their labor union, and the competitors running ERJ CRJ Mitsubishi smaller less efficient fleets will wind up needing to react, quickly.

They can already, by flying them at mainline. Nothing stopping that today, but obviously using real labor vs slave labor

r2rho wrote:

A couple months ago we had a thread about EMB considering a new turboprop... now we have this. IMO, both can make sense.
With the E175-E2 starting at 88-90 seats single class, there could be a space below that.

In terms of jets, the 50-seat market is dead. That leaves only a 70-seater RJ as possible gap to fill for EMB - too small, specially as most RJs are moving towards 90-100 seats nowadays. Plus, that segment is covered by the old CRJ, the new MRJ70, and the new - and scope clause compliant - SSJ shrink. Too much competition to introduce a single orphan aircraft model in there.

OTOH, the turboprop market has ATR as the only 50-seater, dominating the 70-seat market, with the Q400 being produced at a trickle.
It should be relatively easy for EMB to launch a 50-70 seat prop family that is better than the ATR, which is a fine but old aircraft with old engines.
It would also relatively easy to reengine, modernize and maybe even slightly stretch the E120, however I don't see a viable market as long as two pilots are required.

Then maybe the next 70 seat RJ needs to be at the end of the stretch and not shrunk from a larger platform. Maybe Embraer could design a single cabin for both a turboprop and RJ version from 50-75 seats. What made the EMB120 such a winner was its light weight low operating costs which contributed to its low break even seat ratio.

http://zunum.aero/

My opine, Boeing buys this company and moves development over to Embraer joint venture. I know what Embraer is stating publicly that they are concentrating on getting the E out the door, but thats for public consumption.

One has to believe Airbus is working on the same thing hence ATR's hand getting slapped back at the thought of a ATR72 or larger replacement.

Airbus is working on the same concept.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ate-lilium

The Zunum Boeing Embraer tie ins here are pretty clear strategically. Possibly, concepts from the Aurora acquisition (such as lightning strike) will be used too. Could the new joint venture HQ be in Virginia where Aurora is? The engineering prowess of these three groups, with Brazilian manufacturing and Boeing logistical/sales support, is a fascinating prospect.

Oh, and no scope clause issues, plus vastly smaller noise issues, if using electric and vertical lift, the dream of affordable urban feeder hubs could finally work.

They could use the ERJ-135/145 fuselage if the E170/190 cross section is big.

It is not going to be a RJ it seems

keesje wrote:

They could use the ERJ-135/145 fuselage if the E170/190 cross section is big.

keesje,

This news seems to have little ground. Although it is possible to imagine a future modernization of the EMB-120 or/and ERJ-145 aircraft, due to the wear and tear of the aircraft in operation and lack of good options for the segment, I understand that Embraer will avoid a direct confrontation with the ATR in the 60-70 segment passengers.

If PW or GE were to launch bigger and much more efficient engines then Embraer could launch a competitor in terms of weight / passenger, using much of the E2 base.

The aging of the ATR-72 and Q-400 models, low probability of BBD reaction and lack of tradition of ATR projects creates a window of opportunity, with the big question being the availability of adequate motorization for a turboprop for more than 90 passengers.

All seem to focus on the Pratt NGRT under development. A 4500+ shp engine offering 20% better sfc.

the big question being the availability of adequate motorization for a turboprop for more than 90 passengers.

According to ATR statements, both PW & GE would be ready with an engine should a 100-seater be launched.
The NGRT on PW side, and likely the CPX38 on GE side. PW looks to be further ahead. But of course those won't go beyond the R&D stage as long as they don't have an aircraft program to go on. So it is actually more a matter of engines looking for an aircraft than the other way around.

Note also that on the (much) lower range, GE is getting ready to attack the PT6 market with the ATP, now named Catalyst.

A decade ago I proposed a similar configuration. This discussion has apparently been going on that long already. I guess it depends on requirements. Higher speeds / low drag / longer distances seems to favor lower wings, short turns, shorter flights, smaller airports the higher wings.


https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=758341