It’s official: Embraer selected the PW GTF to re-engine the E-175, E-190 and E-195.
In doing so, it looks like the E-170 will be allowed to wither on the vine.
This is a huge win for PW and setbacks for Rolls-Royce, which sorely wanted to win the E-Jet RE for its Advance 2 RR development; and for GE, the incumbent supplier of the CF34 and which was developing the Next Generation variant for the E-Jet.
It’s yet another validation for the GTF. Versions of this engine will power the Mitsubishi MRJ, the Bombardier CSeries, the Irkut MS-21, the Airbus A320neo family and now the E-Jet RE.
It’s a huge comeback for PW, which made a major strategic error in not competing to power the Boeing 737 300/400/500. Boeing continues to use the GE/CFM LEAP engine as its sole-source supply for the 737 MAX, though Boeing seriously evaluated the GTF as well.
Below is EMB’s press release:
Embraer Selects Pratt & Whitney’s PurePower Engines for Second Generation of E-Jets
São José dos Campos, January 8, 2013 – Embraer SA (NYSE: ERJ; BM&FBOVESPA: EMBR3) announced today that Pratt & Whitney´s PurePower® Geared TurbofanTM engines have been selected for its future, second generation of E-Jets, with entry into service planned for 2018. The decision is an important milestone in the program, which is expected to be officially launched later this year.
The new engines – the PW1700G and PW1900G – range in thrust from 15,000 to 22,000 pounds. In combination with new aerodynamically advanced wings, state-of-the-art full fly-by-wire flight controls and other systems evolutions, they will result in double digit improvements in fuel burn, maintenance costs, emissions and external noise.
“We are very happy to expand our partnership with Pratt & Whitney, keeping the E-Jets family as the best solution for our customers, today and in the future”, said Frederico Fleury Curado, President & CEO of Embraer. “The PurePower GTF engines are a great fit to the next generation of our E-Jets and we look forward to another long lasting and successful program with Pratt & Whitney”.
“We are proud that Embraer has recognized the unmatched value of the PurePower engine, and we are committed to supporting a successful launch of the new E-Jet aircraft family,” said Pratt & Whitney President David Hess. “To date, Pratt & Whitney has completed more than 4,200 hours and 12,400 cycles of full engine testing for the PurePower engine family, demonstrating the benefits and reliability of the engine architecture.” Pratt & Whitney is a division of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).
The second generation of E-Jets will be a significant step in Embraer´s commitment to continuously invest in this line of commercial jets, complementing a series of ongoing improvements currently being implemented in the existing family, with great benefits to its customers. Embraer´s objective is to offer the best product and maintain its leadership in the 70 to 120 seat market.
This is good news for competition, but bad news for BBD. Now it’s the CSeries that is squeezed between the neo/MAX and the G2. But if the CSeries delivers on its promises it will be able to gain a substantial share of the market because it has a more modern airframe than the bigger, as well as the smaller, competitors.
E-Jet RE won’t EIS till 2018, four years after CSeries. We have no clue what the purported economics of the E-Jet RE will be, yet. So a little earlier to write doom-and-gloom about CSeries.
Who talks about doom and gloom?
I think this might pull a CS500 forward.
Yes, by a CS500, you mean an even larger version of the Bombardier C-Series, which would compete directly with the same size new engined Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 with same type of GTF engines. Since the higher power P&W GTF engines to be used on the A320, are almost ready and in testing, by the time Bombardier gets the larger 150 to 210 seat CS500 ready for test flights, it is perfect timing.
winglets are gone, replaced with raked wing tips
Why, the E-190/-195 have about the same number of seats as the CS-100, and the CS-300 is bigger.
Bigger wing, bigger engine, no E170. It seems growth is in the air.
A G2 series of E180, E190, E200 seems a future proof build up.
The E190 proved the best seller anyway.
As Embraer reworks the E-Jet, the CS100 will be the most affected. BBD will have no choice but to move up the scale. In that context the CS100 could be harder to sale. That is if Embraer can keep the development costs under control. If not, the E-Jet will loose its pricing advantage while the CSeries retain its performance advantage, even if the E-Jet is equipped with similar engines. Like I mentioned above, the CSeries has a more modern airframe than the competition, including Airbus and Boeing.
I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the selection of the GTF by Embraer. IIRC it was said before that P&W was not in the running. Only RR and GE were. Anyway, it makes a whole lot of sense because it is the more promising engine IMO.
It seems that among the principal airframers on the planet, only one has not selected the GTF so far. Boeing opted for a slightly inferior engine in order to save money for the shareholders. But with more than a thousand firm orders in the books there is nothing to worry about. Right?
Embraer had to make that move. If it had remained idle, the E-Jet would have had a much harder time to compete with the CS100, let alone the CS300. But the E-Jet will remain a four-abreast and will have a shorter range than the CSeries. Unless Embraer uses the opportunity to design a bigger wing, which, along with more efficient engines, could increase the range substantially.
Like Scott pointed out above, we don’t have any hard numbers yet to make valuable comparisons. Still, a re-engined E-Jet poses a real threat for the CSeries, one way or another. But we cannot compare the two like we do with the A320 and the 737, because one is bigger than the other. And there is more potential for growth in the CSeries in terms of stretched variants. Like keesje has indicated, we might see an E180, E190 and E200. But I also imagine, along with the CS100/CS300, a CS500, CS700 and CS900. Bombardier will have to keep Embraer at bay while fighting the Big Two at the same time. Interesting!
But what about the CRJ in the context of a re-engined E-Jet? Does it have any chance? Will BBD consider a major upgrade? or decide it’s not worth the investment, considering that it does not sell very well? But it could stay in the running for a while because it can be offered at a good price.
That’s precisely what worries me most about the upgraded Embraer. It looks like it’s going to be a very extensive, therefore expensive, set of modifications. That could drive the price up dramatically. Sometimes a major modification can be almost as expensive as a new design. That’s why Boeing did not offer the MAX with a new wing. Some would say that Boeing had the choice. Embraer does not.
It looks like Embraer has endosed Boeing’s raked wing tips used on the Dreamliner. But for sure airbus will rabish that technology and trumpet their own fenced wingtips. I sincirely believe in respect with wingtip technology airbus is trailing Boeing.
Shame, then, for your story that Airbus has long adopted wingl… err, I mean sharklets. 😉
Yeah because we can see how much the A320 suffered in relation to the 737 and it’s winglets 🙁
Hmm, why both PW1700 and PW1900? This is quite un-ordinary. The second digit in PW’s naming convention is the application (1 = Airbus, 2 = Mitsubishi, 4 = Irkut, 5 = BBD, suspect 0 is reserved for Boeing, that had this number earlier, or perhaps the missing 3). Assigning a new number to Embraer makes sense, but why two (both 7 and 9)?
One can also speculate what applications are numbers 6 and 8… (and 3 or 0).
Re-start of this numbering in the PW1000 program, e.g. Airbus previously had no. 2, MD then had 1, and Boeing 0. GP7000 program has the A380 variant as 7200 (2 for Airbus, the never produced one for the 747X was 7000 (zero for Boeing).
Different fansize ( and derivation ) for each of the 2 sub-types ?
PW1700G for E170 (7 to 7), PW1900G for E190 (9 to 9) – I guess that’s the only reason.
PW did not have an Embraer engine apllication before and therefore no reserved number.
Your numbering system makes a lot of sense. It’s even obvious. But if it is indeed the case it could also mean that we will never see the PW1700 because it is said that Embraer will not re-engine the E-170. But it was also said at one point that P&W was no longer in the running to re-engine the E-Jet…
The second digit is application as in airframer, not individual a/c… But if there would be two completely different engines from the same series (first digit) on the same a/c family, I guess that would be different… say if a smaller engine was derived from the MRJ engine (PW1217) and the bigger from the C-series one (PW1524). I can’t remember if that has happened before with this naming scheme.
That said, I think the E170 is out judging from what has been published, here and elsewhere.
OEW CS100 73,500lb
OEW E195 63,900 lb
Lets assume the wing of the Ejets and engines are as good as the CSeries, the fuselage cross section smaller, comfort better (no middle seats). Both have useful cargo holds.
1 Against 1, the E195 seems a tough counterpart for the CS100.
However for airlines, its two families with some overlap. 80-120 seats and 110-150 (IMO inevitable CS500) so most likely a niche for both.
OK on the ‘families’ idea, but there’s not many airlines that are ordering both CS100 and CS300, so it doesn’t seem like the family concept has much relevance to the actual customers.
“The fuselage cross section smaller, comfort better (no middle seats).”
keesje, you need to take a close look at the inside of the CSeries. It’s only three inches smaller than a 737, but with five seats instead of six. That middle seat is by far the most comfortable in the industry and it will probably be sold at a premium.
Unless your were talking about that 160 seat version of the CS300. 😉
Normand, you are way off on the weight of the CS100. it is heavier. But, you must compare apples to apples, re seating and pitch between seats. The E195 only holds 108 seats with 32 inch pitch in a one-class configuration. The Bomber CS100, with the exact same pitch in a one-class config, holds 110 people, but that is not the whole picture. By the time new heavier wings and other body support is added to the E915, it will be much heavier than it is now. The Bomber weight is final with the P&W GTF engines. The E195 will still have the old body etc, so the airlines would prefer a whole new plane if the money is close to the same, giving the Bomber the big edge there. As a note, the larger CS300 will hold 130 PAX in a one-class 32 inch pitch config. In China, it will hold 145 tiny persons at 30 inch pitch, one class. By the time the E195 is flying with the new GTF engines in 2018, Bomber will already have a larger version to compete directly with the Boeing 737 and A320 with their new GTF engines and wings. Again, same thing applies to a 737 size 180 PAX Bomber, it will be a completely new large plane, beating out both Airbus and Boeing for the NEW factor. Bombardier has no problem expanding rapidly to a huge jump in business, as many bare planes are flown to Toronto for paint and all interior work there. That old Toronto Downsview Bombardier airport also has a 10,000 foot runway, so running two plants, as they do now, is no problem. By the time first CS100 test flights occur in June 2013, there will be over 200 firm orders for the new C-Series plane. That could jump to double by the time first delivery happens in spring 2014.
V Man, future growth potential of an aircraft is definately on the selection list of any fleet planner. Many orders are converted, even before the first aircraft gets delivered (SW 738, 788-9, A350-800/900, A319-320)
This report makes clear a further stretch is close. A bigger wing, 10% more powerfull engines, stretched landing gear (take-off angels/airfield performance) .
“By integrating the 22,000lb-thrust PW1900G, the second-generation E-195 will have 10% more power than currently available on the CF34-10E. That allows Embraer to consider stretching the fuselage of the E-195 to contain more payload, or burning fuel at a lower thrust setting and prolong the life of the engine.”
“This is something we’re still deliberating,” Silva says.