User avatar
golfradio
Topic Author
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:35 pm

E195-E2 Vs CS100

Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:58 pm

Here's what I know about the spec for two aircraft. Obviously, the CS100 is a superior aircraft. It is a clean sheet design so has an optimized fuse but a slightly over sized wing. But the E195-E2 is getting a new wing as well.



















CS100 E2-195
MTOW 60781 kg 60700 kg
Max Payload 15127 kg 16150 kg
Max Range 3100 nm 2450 nm
Wingspan 115 ft 115 ft
Thrust 21000 lbf 23000 lbf


My question is, why would an airline pick the E195-E2? Even if it does not need the range, doesn't the range come for free? I don't have the payload-range charts for them. But even for shorter missions up to 1000 nm, wouldn't the burn be comparable?

I know there are other considerations like cost, commonality, type ratings, maintenance and training facilities already on site. But for net new operators?

I would really like to know, what influences the decision strictly from a technical perspective?
Bring back the old site.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:43 am

Quoting golfradio (Thread starter):
I would really like to know, what influences the decision strictly from a technical perspective?

What are their respective capacities?
What are their respective wetted areas?
What are their respective wing areas?

The E2-195 probably has the more optimal fineness ratio, as the CS-100 is the "shrink" version of the family.
CS100 probably has a shorter fuselage for a given wetted area, meaning more empennage area and weight.
CS100 may have MLG capable of reinforcement to CS300's MTOW, which would add weight.

OTOH, the 195's higher thrust would add mx cost.
Given the equal MTOW, this suggest that higher takeoff speeds might be required by rotation issues stemming from perhaps a shorter MLG and longer fuselage.

...surely many other decisional points as well. The point being that airline design is really complex and there's no way to know which is more efficient at equal range from the 5 data points given.
 
Okie
Posts: 3676
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:24 pm

Quoting golfradio (Thread starter):
I know there are other considerations like cost, commonality, type ratings, maintenance and training facilities already on site. But for net new operators?

Maybe COST should be in capital letters. You made no mention of deliveries.

The CS100 is listed $11,400.000.00 more than the EMB 195-E2. Yes I know airlines do not pay list price but that is roughly 1/3 more the cost for the airframe for an CS100 vs and EMB195-E2.

Hard to justify that much up charge between the two aircraft unless you can figure out how an CS100 can save those costs somewhere.

Okie
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:03 pm

Frontal area. The E2 has a smaller fuselage, meaning that there is likely to be less drag. The E2 195 carries more people, but with a longer fuselage. It though really should be compared to the Cs 300.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:40 pm

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 3):
Frontal area. The E2 has a smaller fuselage, meaning that there is likely to be less drag.

THere's really no such thing as frontal area drag for a fuselage. It's a matter of wetted area times coefficient of drag (Cdp).

Cdp decreases with fineness ratio (length/circumference). So yes, a narrower fuselage will have less drag all else being equal.

But as you say the E2-195's fuse is longer than CS100's so its overall wetted area may be greater despite the smaller circumference.

The answer to this issue depends on the numbers, which is why my reply asked for more data.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:24 pm

The E2 will be longer than a 738 i believe, and must have longer gear then earlier embraers? I dont see how these aircraft can be popular with thier fuselage size, unless they are much more efficient. Ive heard they are difficult to turn because of ramp loading, and in the united states the carry on issue would be a true nightmare.

Does anyone know how the wing compares in size to say a 737 classic, the span is definitely greater.
 
Okie
Posts: 3676
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:59 pm

Quoting flyboy80 (Reply 5):
The E2 will be longer than a 738 i believe, and must have longer gear then earlier embraers? I dont see how these aircraft can be popular with thier fuselage size, unless they are much more efficient. Ive heard they are difficult to turn because of ramp loading, and in the united states the carry on issue would be a true nightmare.

Does anyone know how the wing compares in size to say a 737 classic, the span is definitely greater.


You realize that the information is easily available with a click, right here on A.net on the top bar of any page "Aircraft Data"

EMB 195E2 length 126ft 10in: wingspan at 94ft 3in.
B737-800 length 112ft 7in: B737-300 wingspan 94ft 9in.

Okie
































 
cloudboy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:20 pm

I thought the E jets were able to take regular carryon items overhead. My understanding is that the bins have been redesigned to be able to handle bags wheels first. And two seats per row versus 3 seats per row will mean improved carry-on issues.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:37 pm

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 7):
I thought the E jets were able to take regular carryon items overhead. My understanding is that the bins have been redesigned to be able to handle bags wheels first. And two seats per row versus 3 seats per row will mean improved carry-on issues.

I hope that is true. Riding in one the other day I was looking overhead and thinking with the space given how it could possibly be reengineered to fit wheels/handles first. From the pictures it looks as though the E2 bins are more slanted and perhaps they are gaining space that way.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12454
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:22 am

Quoting golfradio (Thread starter):
Obviously, the CS100 is a superior aircraft.

For range? Yes. But what other criteria? Embraer is working hard to reduce maintenance costs. If the purchase price were identical, I would agree with you, but there is a difference. The advantage of an amortized production line. While the E2-195 has many new features, much of the R&D was paid for.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
OTOH, the 195's higher thrust would add mx cost.

Not much with flex takeoffs. It will only be a large impact on short fields. The plane has a promised 5,184 ft MTOW field length. Yes, longer than the 4,000ft of the CS100 (actually, I haven't seen the final numbers, that is promise). Probably due to the body length/gear height despite the thrust.

Quoting Okie (Reply 2):
The CS100 is listed $11,400.000.00 more than the EMB 195-E2. Yes I know airlines do not pay list price but that is roughly 1/3 more the cost for the airframe for an CS100 vs and EMB195-E2.

Wow... I didn't realize the price difference. That is significant.

Quoting Okie (Reply 6):
wingspan at 94ft 3in.

That is the E1-195 wingspan. We're discussing the E2-195 which has quite an extended wingspan.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
golfradio
Topic Author
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:35 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:47 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 9):
Embraer is working hard to reduce maintenance costs

I am not sure about the plan that Embraer is working on but the CSeries has a much simplified maintenance schedule. Here I am paraphrasing what Rob Dewar mentioned in an interview:

A-checks are at 850 hours and C-checks at 8,500 hours, with heavy structural checks at 12 years compared to the usual eight years for most other types. There are no daily/weekly checks,. The first check is at 100 hours and everything before that is on demand. In practice, an operator can fly the aircraft for over a week before needing to do the first check.
Bring back the old site.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1048
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:03 pm

Quoting Okie (Reply 2):
The CS100 is listed $11,400.000.00 more than the EMB 195-E2. Yes I know airlines do not pay list price but that is roughly 1/3 more the cost for the airframe for an CS100 vs and EMB195-E2.

CS100 list: $72.5m
E195-E2 list: $62m

17% difference.
That's 1/6th, not 1/3rd.





http://ir.bombardier.com/en/press-re...ircraft-s-canadian-launch-customer

www.embraer.com/en-us/imprensaevento...oes-para-ate-50-jatos-e195-e2.aspx
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:57 pm

How come the CS100, as a shrink, has a smaller payload than the E195 which is a stretch? Wouldn't the added weight of a stretch reduce payload?

edit: oh it's a slightly smaller airplane, that explains it. . .

[Edited 2016-04-29 10:18:37]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:39 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 12):
How come the CS100, as a shrink

The CS100 is not a shrink, it is an original size. BBD designed two aircraft that share a common wing, just like the E170/175 and E190/195 share the same wing, respectively.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Fri May 06, 2016 4:44 pm

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 13):

All I've heard is that BBD designed the 300 first and then the 100 so they shrunk the 100. The design was optimized for the the 300 and the 500 will be a stretch.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6555
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Sat May 07, 2016 12:56 am

Quoting flyboy80 (Reply 5):
Does anyone know how the wing compares in size to say a 737 classic, the span is definitely greater.

195-E2 wing span is 115ft. That's almost identical to 737NG, and 20ft more than 737 Classic.

195-E2, CSeries, 320 and 737 nowadays have the same wing span give and take a foot or two, That makes them fit into an ICAO code C airport gate which accepts planes up to 36m wing span.

Code D gates are more scarce, more expensive to use, and accept up to 52m - DC-10, L-1011, A300, B767 and such.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2827
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Sat May 07, 2016 2:57 am

Embraer is also banking on selling these to existing E-Jet operators as they should share a common type with the E1 variants. The 170 has been in operation for close to 15 years and some of those original airplanes are getting long in the tooth. Fuel savings will also be a great cost saver as few expect crude oil to stay as low as it is right now.
DMI
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12454
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Sat May 07, 2016 3:04 am

Quoting golfradio (Reply 10):
A-checks are at 850 hours and C-checks at 8,500 hours, with heavy structural checks at 12 years compared to the usual eight years for most other types. There are no daily/weekly checks,. The first check is at 100 hours and everything before that is on demand. In practice, an operator can fly the aircraft for over a week before needing to do the first check.

Both will do very well on maintenance. Embraer is promising 15% to 25% lower maintenance costs than the original E-jets. Now some of that is the CF-34 vs. GTF. Much is the subsystems.

Bombardier has worked hard to reduce maintenance costs by extending intervals.
Embraer has worked hard to reduce maintenance by re-designing sub-systems to be far more reliable (lessons learned from improving an existing type with FBW technology).

Both have extended intervals, for the E2-jets:
On the maintenance side, intervals are being extended to 7,500 flight hours compared to 6,000 flight hours of the competition.

https://leehamnews.com/2014/01/13/embraer-continues-and-refines-its-strategy-at-the-low-end-of-100-149-seat-sector/

So we'll see which is cheaper to maintain.

I'm very curious which will be the more economical plane for 1 to 3 hour missions. As a Pratt fan, how do I loose?  
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 15):
195-E2, CSeries, 320 and 737 nowadays have the same wing span give and take a foot or two, That makes them fit into an ICAO code C airport gate which accepts planes up to 36m wing span.

Amazing to have two new entrants in that space.

Actually, with the C919 and MS-21, it will be a very crowded field. Will anyone make a profit in narrowbodies? So far, I only see the A321NEO having an uncontested space and the CS300 having a low enough cost per flight and low enough CASM to thrive. But only if the C-series sells a few hundred more. Economies of scale will drive this sector. Embraer has sold 325 E2-jets as well as a significant number of the original e-jets that have given them economy of scale.

Interestingly, the sum is officially the same, but Bombardier is at 285 (after removing Frontier's orders).

I am personally surprised how well the CS100 has done. It gives me reason to believe it will continue to do well.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Jomar777
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:51 am

CS100 did well because of heavy subsidies from the Government/aggressive cut price offered.

The fact it costs substantially more on list price than the E2 and the lack of commonality with current frames, leaves BBD with a mountain to climb if, for example, subsidies from the Canadian Government are to be dropped which can happen quite quickly once they are deemed either unfair on the overall market (it happened before with a Trade War between Brazil and Canada and which Canada did not come out lightly) or by tax payers no longer wanting to foot the bill.

Maintenance-wise, both have come with different ideas in reducing costs and both actually do work so no much to evaluate here until both airliners do start to reach consistently the period where that maintenance is due.

Performance wise, there are several angles you can look into that. To say the CS100 is way better than the E2 is naïve to say the least as much as it is to say otherwise.

I know everyone is excited by the BBD revival and this brand new Aircraft but I repeat - until they start selling the CS100 and CS300 without reliance on subsidies or heavy discounts (which need to be really heavy since the frame is already way expensive compared to the E2), we cannot evaluate how well they will do.

Worse case scenario is another Concorde (or, maybe, another A380 if the NEO continues to prove a big obstacle) - may be beautiful and great to fly with but will not be there for long/in significant numbers.

The E2 is already building up from the success of the previous E-Series - it is not a new aircraft - it is an upgrade of a very well known, efficient and respected product.
 
Nean1
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:18 pm

The E195E2 aircraft will have lower costs than the CS-100, no doubt about.
- Lower acquisition cost;
- Minor CASM;
- Probably lower maintenance cost
- Lower cost of crew training (for current E1 operators)
The CS-100 is an niche aircraft, with advantage when:
- There is a need for greater range;
- Takeoff and landing performance is critical;
- There is a lot of baggage (eg. international travels)

Anyway, in these special applications the 190E2 will be a tough competitor.
 
gloom
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:01 pm

If (have not checked that) the performance data in first post is correct, then:
1. Since MTOW is similar and thrust significantly higher, it's likely that E195E2 can be either operated from shorter runways, or with higher thrust reduction.
2. CS100 performance is better on longer range. However, since range is not overly extended, I'd say Embraer is more protecting its own playground, than challenging new territories.
3. Payload on E195E2 is 1 ton higher.

I think Embraer is looking at a very specific market - "new regional" thin routes up to 1000nm, 3hrs maximum, where it probably will be able to get with MTOW and reduce climb time to cruise. This is quite a market - it's very useful on thin Europe routes where A320/737 is too large/too heavy, feeders in USA, also in Africa and South America lines where capacity required is around 100 pax. They're making a move to get the replacement orders, and they target very specific market where they managed a success last decade. I feel it's a very well placed (and wisely placed) aircraft.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: E195-E2 Vs CS100

Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:27 pm

gloom wrote:
If (have not checked that) the performance data in first post is correct, then:
1. Since MTOW is similar and thrust significantly higher, it's likely that E195E2 can be either operated from shorter runways, or with higher thrust reduction.
2. CS100 performance is better on longer range. However, since range is not overly extended, I'd say Embraer is more protecting its own playground, than challenging new territories.
3. Payload on E195E2 is 1 ton higher.

I think Embraer is looking at a very specific market - "new regional" thin routes up to 1000nm, 3hrs maximum, where it probably will be able to get with MTOW and reduce climb time to cruise. This is quite a market - it's very useful on thin Europe routes where A320/737 is too large/too heavy, feeders in USA, also in Africa and South America lines where capacity required is around 100 pax. They're making a move to get the replacement orders, and they target very specific market where they managed a success last decade. I feel it's a very well placed (and wisely placed) aircraft.

Cheers,
Adam

Well the CS100 can be fitted with the PW1525G that does about 23,000 with up to 25,000 in non-static conditions and AFAIK only can have the PW1923G which I believe caps out at 23,000. Then one must also consider other variables such as wingloading and rotation angle which would lead me to expect the CS100 to have better runway performance. After all, the 195 is a stretch and the CS100 is more or less a sort of shrink in a way. I can't wait to see both fling side by side in service though, I think Embraer has put in a good effort with the E2 in the light of such a strong competitor from BBD.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172S P2006T

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BaconButty, Raventech, snowingairlines, spudsmac and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos