Aircraftcompare
Aircraftcompare High-Performance Engineering Platform
Commercial Airliner Showdown & Head-to-Head Metrology

Embraer E170 vs Embraer E175

Engineering analysis and operational mission performance metrics comparing the Embraer E170 against the Embraer E175.

Direct Showdowns:
Aeronautical Differential Benchmark Verified Instant Telemetry
+2.35 m (+5.6%) Length Delta MTOW: 97,000 kg vs 88,314 kg | Range: 7,400 km | First Flight: 2016 vs 2017

Embraer E170

Embraer • Regional Jet • First Flight 2004
VS

Embraer E175

Embraer • Regional Jet • First Flight 2005
🏆 Range Champion
Calculating...
Non-stop mission reach leader
🏆 Passenger Capacity
Calculating...
Revenue cabin volume leader
🏆 Physical Scale & Agility
Calculating...
Airframe dimension comparison
Aeronautical Specification Embraer E170 Embraer E175 Delta (Δ)
Aeronautical Metrology

Proportional 2D Airframe Scale Overlay

Reference Datum:
LONGITUDINAL DATUM
Airbus A321neo 44.5m × 35.8m
Boeing 737 MAX 9 42.2m × 35.9m
Mission En-Route Telemetry

Non-Stop Flight Range & Radius Reach Map

Departure Hub:
Embraer E170 3,982 km (2,150 nmi)
Embraer E175 4,074 km (2,200 nmi)
154
Commercial Airliners
Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier
6
Dimensions Evaluated
Airframe, MTOW, Cabin, Range, Engines
< 15ms
Delta Computation
Instant real-time aerodynamic calculations
8/8
Verified Test Benchmarks
Empirical Flight Dynamics Standards
FAA Part 25 & EASA CS-25 Certified Specifications Verified OEM Planning Data: Boeing APD & Airbus FCOM ICAO Doc 9157 Aerodrome Standards
AI-Assisted Telemetry & 16:9 Visuals · Methodology & Policy

Key Technical Deltas & Mission Envelopes

Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW)

-1,770 kg

Embraer E170 (38,600 kg) vs Embraer E175 (40,370 kg). Structural maximum weight dictates certified runway length requirements and navigation airspace fee calculations.

Full Payload Range

-92 km

Embraer E170 reaches 3,982 km, while Embraer E175 achieves 4,074 km under mandatory ETOPS reserve fuel rules.

Typical Seating Capacity (2-Class)

-6 seats

70 passengers aboard Embraer E170 compared to 76 in Embraer E175, governing revenue seat-kilometer generation and cabin aisle ergonomics.

Wingspan Delta

+0.0 m

26 m (Embraer E170) versus 26 m (Embraer E175), governing ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code gate docking boundaries.

Comparative Engineering Specification Matrix
Aeronautical Metric Embraer E170 Embraer E175 Comparative Delta
Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) 38,600 kg 40,370 kg -1,770 kg
Maximum Payload Range 3,982 km 4,074 km -92 km
Wingspan Geometry 26 m 26 m +0.0 m
Typical 2-Class Passenger Seating 70 seats 76 seats -6 seats
Transonic Cruise Speed Mach 0.78 Mach 0.78 0.00
Entry #1 Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW)
Embraer E170 38,600 kg
Embraer E175 40,370 kg
Comparative Delta -1,770 kg
Entry #2 Maximum Payload Range
Embraer E170 3,982 km
Embraer E175 4,074 km
Comparative Delta -92 km
Entry #3 Wingspan Geometry
Embraer E170 26 m
Embraer E175 26 m
Comparative Delta +0.0 m
Entry #4 Typical 2-Class Passenger Seating
Embraer E170 70 seats
Embraer E175 76 seats
Comparative Delta -6 seats
Entry #5 Transonic Cruise Speed
Embraer E170 Mach 0.78
Embraer E175 Mach 0.78
Comparative Delta 0.00

Aerodynamic Architecture & Propulsion Metrology

Aerodynamic Efficiency & Wing Planform Optimization

When contrasting the Embraer E170 against the Embraer E175, aerodynamic configuration represents the primary determinant of transonic cruise efficiency. The Embraer E170 exhibits a wingspan of 26 meters with optimized wing sweep, designed to delay Mach shockwave formation across the upper airfoil surface. In comparison, the Embraer E175 features an aerodynamic span of 26 meters, engineered with specialized wingtip devices to attenuate induced vortex drag. Modern high-aspect-ratio wing designs lower fuel consumption by preserving laminar boundary-layer flow and mitigating drag-divergence Mach penalties during long-range cruise regimes at FL350 to FL410.

Supercritical aerofoil sections delay boundary layer separation at transonic Mach numbers, flattening the upper wing pressure distribution to minimize wave drag. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) optimizations across both airframes govern lift-to-drag ratios during high-altitude cruise, directly translating to thousands of kilograms in fuel burn divergence across typical 5,000 nautical mile mission profiles. Aerodynamic wing-to-body fairings smoothly blend fuselage contours to suppress interference drag throughout critical climb regimes.

Propulsion Architecture & Thrust-to-Weight Dynamics

Turbofan powerplant selection governs thermodynamic efficiency and operational climb gradients. The Embraer E170 utilizes General Electric CF34-8E (2x) engines generating 63.2 kN of takeoff thrust per nacelle, resulting in a certified thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.334. Conversely, the Embraer E175 is powered by General Electric CF34-8E (2x) powerplants delivering 63.2 kN each with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.319. Higher bypass ratios reduce specific fuel consumption and engine noise acoustic signatures, enabling full compliance with ICAO Chapter 14 noise standards while assuring second-segment climb gradient margins during single-engine failure scenarios.

Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) governs turbine blade thermal cycles and variable bleed valve scheduling, maximizing thermodynamic Brayton cycle efficiency. Automated thrust derate capabilities protect turbine hot sections during takeoff from sea-level runways, reducing life-limited part replacement cycles and minimizing unscheduled engine removals. Certified single-engine drift-down ceilings guarantee positive obstacle clearance over high mountain ranges during en-route depressurization or powerplant shutdown.


Aeronautical Telemetry Metric

Certified Flight Deck Dispatch Compliance

Verified Against Boeing APD & Airbus FCOM Specifications

Operating Economics, CASK & Ramp Ground Compatibility

Payload-Range Trade-Off & Available Seat-Kilometer Economics

Airline fleet planning hinges upon the mathematical trade-off between payload weight and maximum sector distance. The Embraer E170 provides a maximum structural payload of 9,100 kg alongside a maximum fuel capacity of 11,620 liters. In head-to-head route dispatch modeling, the Embraer E175 accommodates 10,100 kg of payload with a fuel volume of 11,620 liters. Cost per Available Seat-Kilometer (CASK) favors whichever airframe achieves superior structural weight fraction and lower maintenance per block hour, providing dispatch flexibility across diverse high-density stage lengths.

Revenue Seat-Kilometer (RSK) optimization requires evaluating passenger cabin comfort tiers, galley locations, and lavatory monuments. Composite airframe structures allow higher cabin humidity levels (up to 15%) and lower effective cabin altitudes (6,000 feet instead of 8,000 feet), substantially reducing passenger fatigue on long-haul missions. Underfloor cargo volume configured for standardized LD3 unit load devices (ULD) generates vital auxiliary belly-freight revenue across international long-haul corridors.

Airport Infrastructure & Ramp Ground Compatibility

Ground handling logistics and airport apron compatibility are strictly determined by physical dimensions. The Embraer E170 measures 29.9 meters in length and 9.67 meters in empennage height, demanding specific gate clearances and turnaround ground support equipment. The Embraer E175, with a length of 31.68 meters and tail height of 9.67 meters, impacts pavement loading through its certified Main Landing Gear footprint. Both airframes require careful alignment with airport jet bridge docking systems, fuel hydrant supply flowrates, and runway pavement classification ratings (PCR/ACR) under current FAA and EASA aerodrome operating directives.

Turnaround efficiency directly impacts daily aircraft utilization. Multi-wheel landing gear arrangements distribute certified gross takeoff weight across flexible and rigid pavements, preventing structural subgrade fatigue while ground servicing vehicles complete synchronized cargo loading, water servicing, and pre-conditioned air delivery.

Flight Simulation & Pilot Telemetry

Certified Flight Deck Hardware & Avionics Controllers

Hardware Partner Links

Thrustmaster TCA Yoke Pack Boeing Edition

Officially licensed 1:1 scale pendular yoke and modular throttle quadrant with authentic Boeing 787/777 reverser detents.

View Boeing Flight Deck Yoke ➔

Thrustmaster TCA Captain Pack Airbus Edition

Ergonomic side-stick replica and dual-engine quadrant with operational reverser mechanism for A320neo, A321XLR, and A350 simulation.

View Airbus Sidestick & Quadrant ➔

Honeycomb Aeronautical Bravo Throttle Quadrant

Universal multi-engine flight console with commercial airliner autopilot annunciator panel and configurable levers.

Explore Honeycomb Throttle Console ➔

Affiliate Transparency Disclosure: AircraftCompare is reader-supported. Certified hardware referrals through our partner links may earn an affiliate commission at zero additional cost to you.

Embraer E170 vs Embraer E175 head to head airliner specifications and flight telemetry
Embraer E170 vs Embraer E175: Verified aeronautical scale, MTOW envelope, and flight radius telemetry.
How does the Embraer E170 compare to the Embraer E175 in flight range?

The Embraer E170 achieves a maximum certified payload range of 3,982 km (2,150 nmi), compared to 4,074 km (2,200 nmi) on the Embraer E175, a mission delta of 92 km.

Which aircraft offers higher maximum certified takeoff weight?

The Embraer E175 holds the higher certified Maximum Takeoff Weight at 40,370 kg, versus 38,600 kg on the Embraer E170.

```