Call me an Embraer E-Jet novice, but before today I was unsure of the differences between the E-190 and the E-195. Looking at pictures of these sister airplanes side-by-side, they look nearly identical, but as typical aircraft naming and numbering would suggest, the E-195 is a slightly longer airplane. Yet, what the E-190 lacks in length it makes up for in range. How exactly do these aircraft compare in terms of origins, specifications and orders / deliveries?
Both the E-190 and E-195 are stretched versions of the the smaller E-170 and E-175 aircraft. The two families of airplanes have an estimated 89% commonality, but differ in engines, wing area, horizontal stabilizer and in the landing gear. The cockpit, including Embraer’s famous yoke and avionics (Honeywell Primus EFIS), allow cross-certification for pilots throughout the entire series. Both families feature a single-aisle cabin consisting of a two-by-two seat arrangement and share the same outer width, inside width, outer height and inside height measurements. Like the E-170/175, the E-190/195 share a 95% commonality, differing only in length. On a technicality note, the E-195′s official designation is the E-190-200 and the “E-190″ is designated the E-190-100. For the purposes of this post, I will continue to refer to the aircraft as E-190 / E-195 for the sake of simplicity.
Looking at the E-190 and E-195 only, here are some key differences in the specifications:
- Length
- E-190: 118′ 11″
- E-195: 126′ 10″
- Passengers
- E-190: 94 two-class, 114 one-class (29″/30″)
- E-195: 106 two-class, 122 one-class (30″/31″)
- Range (note that both aircraft have the same max. fuel load)
- E-190 STD: 1,800 nm
- E-190 LR: 2,300 nm
- E-190 AR: 2,402 nm
- E-195 STD: 1,400 nm
- E-195 LR: 1,800 nm
- E-195 AR: 2,201 nm
Looking at these key specifications, the E-195 has the seat advantage of about 5-15 percent, depending on the configuration and seat pitch. As both airplanes share the same maximum fuel capacity, the extra length of the E-195 adds to the aircraft’s empty weight (63,900 Ib versus the E-190′s 61,900 Ib), thus increasing the fuel burn and reducing the range of the airplane by approximately 200 nautical miles per variant compared to the E-190. Both aircraft feature two GE CF34-10E turbofan engines, powering both aircraft to a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.82 and to a service ceiling of 41,000 feet. With all of these specifications in mind, Embraer has stretched their way into the mainline jet sector of commercial aircraft manufacturing.
Embraer E-190 - Image via Wikipedia
You can consider the E-190/195 as Embraer’s breakthrough into the mainline airliner market as both models flirt with the lower end of the 100-seat spectrum of the commercial airliner market. I would have guessed that the E-195′s few extra seats would be an attractive option for airlines. Yet, the order-books tell a different story (for details on E-190/195 operators, check out CH-Aviation). Most airlines have chosen the E-190 over the E-195. The question is, why? To the best of my knowledge, most E-190 operators are not taking advantage of the aircraft’s superior range (thinking of US Airways, JetBlue and Virgin Blue), which leads me to believe that either the E-195s price-tag does not justify the extra seats, or the E-195′s extra seats are unlikely to be filled on the routes used. Nonetheless, the E-195 is still generating decent sales (Lufthansa CityLine, Azul, etc), but it has not been embraced by carriers as well as the E-190.
Embraer E-195 - Image via Wikipedia
What about the E-195X – it’s in the title, isn’t it? According a FlightGlobal / ATI article, Embraer considered stretching the E-195 a bit more to get it in the 130 seat range. The article cites a source with knowledge of the situation that this aircraft is a response to a request for a Boeing MD-80 series replacement for American Airlines. Yet, American’s plan is to replace the MD-80s exclusively with the Boeing 737-800. About five months after publication of the aforementioned article, FlightGlobal reported that the program was scrapped due to the aircraft’s range. According to Embraer’s chief executive Frederico Curado, the 195X would have utilized the same GE CF34 engines. Thus, Embraer learned from customer feedback the range would degrade the aircraft to an unacceptable level.
Looking at the future of the Embraer E-Jet program, it will be interesting to watch and see if the Brazilian manufacturer follows the path of Airbus and decides to re-engine the series in an attempt to develop a longer E-Jet. The company has a lot of options for the future, but I am interested to see what happens with their competitor Bombardier, now that the engine that powers the C-Series will be used on the A320neo (which could justify selecting the C-Series for some airlines).
–
Happy Friday. I hope everyone has a great weekend! Be sure to follow JetCheck on Twitter 
