Embraer 195 E-2 Vs. 737-7MAX Vs. CS300 Vs. A319 NEO

Which aircraft has the most capability in terms of performance?

Which will fill the market's needs?

Which will use the least distance for T/O/Landing?

Which will be considered "Underpowered/overpowered"?

Which will survive?



Embraer 190 E-2 Vs. CS100

Which aircraft has the most capability in terms of performance?

Which will fill the market's needs?

Which will use the least distance for T/O/Landing?

Which will be considered "Underpowered/overpowered"?

Which will survive?

Wouldn't these question's be answered better coming from the people who are buying them? You are going to get a BUNCH of biased answers with something like this.

I suggest as a starting point you visit Wikipedia and build a table with all the basic/common specifications available. Then post that table as the basis for the discussion. It will keep the responses more accurate.

Some aircraft have longer range and have a heavier maximum takeoff weight. These heavier aircraft are usually more expensive to fly on short routes as they have a lot of extra structure to fly around to support that large fuel capacity that won't always be used.

CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) is very important. Basically that's the cost per passenger to fly a certain distance.

A long range 120seat aircraft usually has worse CASM when flying a short trip compared to a short range 120 seat aircraft.

The Embraer aircraft are optimised to be efficient flying short 1000mile flights. The Boeing and Airbus aircraft are shrinks so maintain the large fuel capacity of the larger versions. They have longer range but aren't as efficient on short trips. They have struggled to sell.

The Bombardier C series has a lot of new technology to make it efficient but it also is built to fly long flights up to 3000miles. So there's a lot of excess weight that doesnt make it as efficient as the older Embraer aircraft on short flights.

I'll say all versions will be still being built in 10 years time.

Errr... CS100 competes versus the E2-195. The CS100 has far more range, but the E2-195 is being designed to have lower maintenance costs with an attempt at lower per trip costs.

The CS300 does compete with the A319NEO and 737MAX, but now the 737-7MAX is only a shortened -8 and thus is a larger true 150 seat airframe. So they don't quite go head to head. However, the CS300s greater sales show the benefit of the lighter weight.

The A319NEO has the most efficient engines for range, but the weight kills the initial fuel burn during climb. The cost per flight is only about 3% less than the A320NEO with 24 fewer seats or about 15% less revenue. There is a reason almost no airlines are making that choice. The far lower cost per flight of the CS300 fits the size category much better.

The PW1500G engines are optimized for the 1 hour mission. In other words, diameter was shrunk to cut weight to minimize climb fuel burn at the cost of cruise fuel burn. But thanks to the much lighter airframe, the CS300 always has the per flight cost advantage within its range envelope, including TATL in a low density configuration.

I don't know why you're trying to compare the E2-190 to this group. The hundred seater will end up competing with a stretch of the MRJ eventually. The reality is that due to the NEO and MAX, much lower CASM is needed to compete, so the E2-190 probably won't sell many. I wouldn't hold any portion of the bank side of the lease unless the terms were really bad for the airline (in which case they would pick another model with better terms).

For short missions, the E2-195 will have a slight cost advantage per flight over all of them. The CS300 will have the CASM advantage. The 737-7MAX is for WN and a small number of other airlines that need better short field performance and want to keep 737 compatibility. Due to the upcoming A320NEO short field kit (called "SHARP"), there is no real reason for NEO customers to buy the no-resale market A319NEO.
On the SHARP kit:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... od-a320neo

So as noted above, it will depend on the mission, but also the resale market. But in reality, the market has spoken. The A319NEO and -7MAX are just too heavy for their role and cost very little less per mission to fly than the next size up that has *far* better CASM. So they aren't selling.

The CS300 has much lower CASM than the A319NEO and -7MAX thanks to its lighter weight. I'm trying to find the empty weight of the E2-195.

E2-195 MTOW per wiki 135,584lb
CS100 MTOW per wiki 134,000lb

It actually seems the E2-195 has a higher empty weight. Like RJMAZ, I assumed the E2-195 would be lighter, but it isn't. That is the disadvantage of trying to match the better aerodynamics a CFRP allows via better laminar flow and improved aspect ratio with an aluminum (Beer can) wing. I just don't know how to build a competitive aircraft with Beer can wings anymore. CFRP (or now GFRP is replacing CFRP is the latest designs) is just so much easier to make lighter wings. And yes, prototypes now have monocrytal fibers instead of either. The Embraer also has stretched the 4-across cross section too far. The CS100 is already in the range where a 5-across cross section is lighter. Otherwise, the E2-195 would have the same range as the CS100 due to similar capacity, same engines (excluding better sub-systems on the Embraer), and almost the same MTOW.

Embraer is trying to extend the life of the aircraft by a wing extension, engine replacement, but mostly sub-system improvements to cut maintenance costs. I believe because of the extreme effort to cut maintenance costs they have a market, but the E2-195 will cost more per flight in fuel. If oil prices go above $90/bbl, I think the E2-195 is done.

Just to be clear, I just do not see much market for the E2-190 as in the USA that is mainline pilots and the CASM is just to high when paying professional salaries. So the CS100/E2-195 will be the smallest in the USA. This cuts off too much of the resale market (e.g., DL) for the best lease rates. Just for completion, the E2-175 is just too heavy for its market.

Also, due to how the new engines lower maintenance and fuel burn, the original Ejets are now past their prime sales life. I can see a little top off order of the E-175, but that is about it. The market has moved on otherwise.

My prediction is that only the CS300 will sell well in this market with a few CS100 and E2-195 sales (more CS100 than E2-195 due to the lighter weight brought on by the right sized cross section and CFRP wing). But... I think Bombardier will have to make a CS500 that competes with the A320 (they might do an intermediate to be a 150 seater against the -7MAX too, so who knows the model number that really happens...).

The CS100 in an all business configuration will be able to takeoff from very short runways across the Atlantic.
The plane doubles the range from LCY in high density configurations; LCY is the premier short runway:
http://economyclassandbeyond.boardingar ... uring-lcy/
The CS100 flying E2-195 range missions may operate out of runways as short as 4,000 ft!
http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... en.pdf.pdf
The E2-195 needs 6,128 for 2,600nm range. The CS100 at MTOW will go 3,100nm (transcon or US West coast to Hawaii in a 2-class arrangement that isn't too dense).

I haven't been able to find MAX or NEO "Sharp" runway requirements. That tells me the C-series operates off shorter runways further (otherwise in sales, you shout the successes and just skip over talking the weaknesses like any good car salesman).

I do not think in ten years the A319, -7MAX, or E2-190 will be in production. The C-series, for the size, is just that much more efficient. The SHARP package will tilt the ACJ (Airbus Corporate Jet or the Business jet) sales to the A320NEO which should get another ACJ to get the range to the A319ACJ's (or close enough). Heck, there is a reason Boeing and Airbus deliver a single digit quantity of narrowbody business jets per year versus 80 Bombardier Globals and 65 G650s (yes, Global production is down, that will recover with the 7000).

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/ ... y-outlook/

So the summary: A319NEO and -7MAX were for a few customers and will go the way of the A318/736 due to the increased weight of the new engines and the cost compression to the lower models. The CS100/CS300 are the most efficient in this size range. The E2-195 will compete on maintenance costs. Either Embraer hits target (I think they will, their specifications are excellent for the E2-195, the best in the industry) on maintenance, but they will cost more in fuel due to the cross section and wing weight.

Lightsaber

@Lightsaber

1) "Errr... CS100 competes versus the E2-195. The CS100 has far more range, but the E2-195 is being designed to have lower maintenance costs with an attempt at lower per trip costs." -> The 195 E2 carries 10% more passengers and promisses better CASM.
2) "I don't know why you're trying to compare the E2-190 to this group.": The 190E2 takes 97 passengers in 3 class, 10% less than the CS 100. In this configuration it requires 1 less flight attendant. Theoretically (without computing the effect - which may be decisive - of government subsidies), 190E2 should have a much lower acquisition cost.
3) "It actually seems the E2-195 has a higher empty weight. Like RJMAZ, I assumed the E2-195 would be lighter, but it isn't. That is the disadvantage of trying to match the better aerodynamics a CFRP allows via better laminar flow and improved aspect ratio with an aluminum (Beer can) wing. I just don't know how to build a competitive aircraft with Beer can wings anymore. CFRP (or now GFRP is replacing CFRP is the latest designs) is just so much easier to make lighter wings. And yes, prototypes now have monocrytal fibers instead of either. The Embraer also has stretched the 4-across cross section too far. The CS100 is already in the range where a 5-across cross section is lighter. Otherwise, the E2-195 would have the same range as the CS100 due to similar capacity, same engines (excluding better sub-systems on the Embraer), and almost the same MTOW." Actually the weight of the E195 E2 seems to be about 2% above the CS 100. But the weight per passenger should be at least 7% less and the drag of the fuselage is certainly less than the CS 100.

@Lightsaber

The focus that Emb chose was very different from BBD. Instead of choosing Al-Li fuselage and composite made wings, EMB sought to neutralize the performance advantage of these (more expensive) materials by designing distinct wings optimized for 175/190 / 195E2, which are totally different from those used in the previous generation .

The CS 100 is obviously not an aircraft optimized for a typical route (up to 1000 nm). The mere fact that the wing can serve the future CS 500 demonstrates this.

Nean1 wrote:

@Lightsaber

1) "Errr... CS100 competes versus the E2-195. The CS100 has far more range, but the E2-195 is being designed to have lower maintenance costs with an attempt at lower per trip costs." -> The 195 E2 carries 10% more passengers and promisses better CASM.
2) "I don't know why you're trying to compare the E2-190 to this group.": The 190E2 takes 97 passengers in 3 class, 10% less than the CS 100. In this configuration it requires 1 less flight attendant. Theoretically (without computing the effect - which may be decisive - of government subsidies), 190E2 should have a much lower acquisition cost.
3) "It actually seems the E2-195 has a higher empty weight. Like RJMAZ, I assumed the E2-195 would be lighter, but it isn't. That is the disadvantage of trying to match the better aerodynamics a CFRP allows via better laminar flow and improved aspect ratio with an aluminum (Beer can) wing. I just don't know how to build a competitive aircraft with Beer can wings anymore. CFRP (or now GFRP is replacing CFRP is the latest designs) is just so much easier to make lighter wings. And yes, prototypes now have monocrytal fibers instead of either. The Embraer also has stretched the 4-across cross section too far. The CS100 is already in the range where a 5-across cross section is lighter. Otherwise, the E2-195 would have the same range as the CS100 due to similar capacity, same engines (excluding better sub-systems on the Embraer), and almost the same MTOW." Actually the weight of the E195 E2 seems to be about 2% above the CS 100. But the weight per passenger should be at least 7% less and the drag of the fuselage is certainly less than the CS 100.

I don't see that seating benefit. The E2-195 seats 132 in high density, the C-series 133. So the two compete head to head. Even in 2-class. I see CS100 operators putting in one more row of Y to compete with the E2-195 than the comparison.

In high density, the A319 and CS300 are at 162 and 160. In reality, the -7 is between the A319 and A320 now.

We'll have to see.

@Lightsaber,

In single class, high density (28") the 195E2 carries 146 passengers.
As for the 190 E2 compared to the MRJ 90 keep in mind the big difference in range (2800 vs 2000 nm).

Nean1 wrote:

1) "Errr... CS100 competes versus the E2-195. The CS100 has far more range, but the E2-195 is being designed to have lower maintenance costs with an attempt at lower per trip costs." -> The 195 E2 carries 10% more passengers and promisses better CASM.

The CASM should be better on the E195 as it can take more seats dislike being slightly heavier (a fact that surprised me). We don’t know how big this difference is until both are operating, but the E195 I expect would do better in that measure.

Nean1 wrote:

2) "I don't know why you're trying to compare the E2-190 to this group.": The 190E2 takes 97 passengers in 3 class, 10% less than the CS 100. In this configuration it requires 1 less flight attendant. Theoretically (without computing the effect - which may be decisive - of government subsidies), 190E2 should have a much lower acquisition cost.

2 class configuration is only one way to compare them. Considering the difference in capacity when th E190 and CS100 are configured to maximum seats, the difference in capacity is closer to 25%. When in comparison to putting the CS100 against the E195 E2 where the CS100 seems to fit about 10% less in both typical 2 class and max seating, the E190 looks like less of a factor in this discussion. The E195 is a better match against that CS100 than the E190 is.

Nean1 wrote:

3) "It actually seems the E2-195 has a higher empty weight. Like RJMAZ, I assumed the E2-195 would be lighter, but it isn't. That is the disadvantage of trying to match the better aerodynamics a CFRP allows via better laminar flow and improved aspect ratio with an aluminum (Beer can) wing. I just don't know how to build a competitive aircraft with Beer can wings anymore. CFRP (or now GFRP is replacing CFRP is the latest designs) is just so much easier to make lighter wings. And yes, prototypes now have monocrytal fibers instead of either. The Embraer also has stretched the 4-across cross section too far. The CS100 is already in the range where a 5-across cross section is lighter. Otherwise, the E2-195 would have the same range as the CS100 due to similar capacity, same engines (excluding better sub-systems on the Embraer), and almost the same MTOW." Actually the weight of the E195 E2 seems to be about 2% above the CS 100. But the weight per passenger should be at least 7% less and the drag of the fuselage is certainly less than the CS 100.

Fuselage aerodynamics are a lot more complicated than you suggest. I don’t know the characteristics of either of the designs myself and I’m not saying you’re wrong here by any means, you very well may be right, but the wider fuselage doesn’t always have worse aerodynamics. There are other factors such as fuselage lift, skin friction, aerodynamic properties of the nose and tail and etc, and one of the most important, wetted area. We don’t know for sure which is better when it comes to aerodynamics unless we know these properties.

@767333ER
1) "The CASM should be better on the E195 as it can take more seats dislike being slightly heavier (a fact that surprised me). We don’t know how big this difference is until both are operating, but the E195 I expect would do better in that measure.": I do not know why you think Embraer using conventional materials would design a lighter plane.

2) The difference between the capacity of the 190 E2 and the CS 100 not far reaches 25%. In almost any metric, little exceeds the mark of 10%.

3) I do not need to be a rocket scientist to know that between two tubes of identical volume the smaller section will present less aerodynamic drag. Too long a tube may be too heavy, have poor ergonomics or even prevent proper rotation at takeoff, but none of this occurs and the 195 E2 is perfectly functional.

But the difference in terms of fuselage drag should be more favorable for the 195E2, since the CS 100 actually has a higher volume. This translates into more space for cargo hold baggage. It is worth asking if on domestic travel this space will be effectively used.

Further stretching also allows for smaller empenage, theoretically further reducing drag.

The E195 and CS100 are close.

Very similar weights but the E195 can carry a 13 more passengers but carries 20% less fuel. So it flies around 500nm less.

I can see the E195 having a very slight advantage on CASM with short trips. They both have near identical trip costs.

The CS300 would have higher trip costs but would win on CASM. The CS300 I predict to be the highest selling of all models discussed.

RJMAZ wrote:

The E195 and CS100 are close.

Very similar weights but the E195 can carry a 13 more passengers but carries 20% less fuel. So it flies around 500nm less.

I can see the E195 having a very slight advantage on CASM with short trips. They both have near identical trip costs.

The CS300 would have higher trip costs but would win on CASM. The CS300 I predict to be the highest selling of all models discussed.

I've enjoyed the education. I don't know why the source I used was short on seats, but so be it.

I agree with this statements.
Now the E2-195 just needs orders.

RJMAZ wrote:

... Very similar weights but the E195 can carry a 13 more passengers but carries 20% less fuel. So it flies around 500nm less.
I can see the E195 having a very slight advantage on CASM with short trips. They both have near identical trip costs.
The CS300 would have higher trip costs but would win on CASM. The CS300 I predict to be the highest selling of all models discussed.

Interesting RJMAZ. You described very well the trade off.

Still, I expected the CS100 to be further ahead due to its Al-Li body and composite wings. The CS100 must be really overbuilt then (same structure/wing as the CS300 and the eventual CS500).

(And special thanks to Lightsaber for providing us very interesting/instructive posts)