Embraer announced that it will take a pass on developing a New Small Airplane in the 130-155 seat class and instead re-engine the E-Jet series, possibly with stretch to 133 seats (smack in the middle of the Bombardier CSeries 100/300 size). Targeted entry-in-service (EIS) is 2018.
Aeroturbopower, which focuses on engine stuff, already has this back-of-the-envelope analysis.
As Aeroturbopower notes, EMB favors a one-stop, trans-continental airplane (2,000-2,200nm) over the full transcontinental range of the CSeries (although BBD offers a lighter-weight CSeries with 2,200nm range as well). About 90% of the US domestic flights are within this range but the E-Jet is 2×2 vs the CS 2×3 seating. Aeroturbopower concludes the E-Jet will have lower seat costs.
Aeroturbopower also compares the E-Jet with the Mitsubishi MRJ.
I think most will agree this is a good choice. The Es aren’t so old, gained market domination and with an upgrade of their dated engines have lots of potential. I cut & pasted an artist impression last year.
Also an slightly stretched E200 will be a no brainer if Embraer stretches the main landing gear.
Another factor no doubt is that E has enough resources allocated making their new 20t transport a success. Another major project would probably be too much.
So, Aeroturbopower, «the next generation of EJets could be a real threat to the MRJ and the CSeries….» Really ? The CS300 is not a static airplane for ever with the configurations of 2013-2014. And for 2018, with some usual modifications of structure and engine, the Cseries will gain some efficiencies. The politic of engineering number’s is only a bad picture of the future…
Of course the engines of the CSeries will get better over time also and the frame itself will get better and lighter, too. But it will keep to be a transcontinental airplane and thus having some excess weight for relatively short flights. This article was not meant to criticize the CSeries at all: it should just show that the CSeries and the EJets are aircraft designed for slightly different markets. Nevertheless they can compete in some airline campaigns…
2-2 has captured the 100 seat market and is now headed to 125. The CSeries 2-3 can capture the 150 seat market. That leaves 3-3 for the 160 to 200 seat range. Who will step forward to take it to the next level, 2-2-2 and a 757 size wing with the potential for 250 seats or longer range?
Good question ! The market, and only the market command the 2-3 configuration to Bombardier. And for tomorrow, what the market will need ? Perhaps the 2-2-2 is a good answer for many reasons. Embraer must wait and see for this kind of plane in 2018-2022…
Using traditional aircraft design knowledge, most current aircraft are too “small” in terms of fuselage diameter. The accepted formula is .47*sqrt(PAX) for the number of seats abreast. That isn’t physics, it is statistics. So based on aircraft build so far.
The 5-abreast region is 110-145, exactly where the CSeries is.
Solving the formula for PAX gives: PAX = 4.53 * (Seats Abreast)^2
7-abreast gives 222 PAX. Just where the B767 is.
Stretched aircraft usually have better weight-per-pax ratio, but weight should not be overrated in this market. I think in the “regional” markets the financial state of the airline is a big factor. Maybe it is smart to screw GE-engines on your future regional aircraft design to have the friendly people of GECAS joining you when going on a sales pitch. 2018 looks late enough to use a downscaled version of the Leap.