In the name of pax safety, place the seats facing rearwards.
Rubik101, as firelight said, seats would become heavier. Current seats are designed for 16g forward. Backward facing people could survive (much) more. However the rest of the aircraft structure not. So I guess at 30g you and the seat could maybe survive but the rest of the aircraft would crunch. Thinking about it, I can not remember a 16 g kind of crash. It always seems less or so much more nothing helps..
1/- You can do away with reversers altogether, the props give enough drag in the Betra range ( you'll need to keep that one, if only for line-up ! ) and a 1500 m runway should be ample for your performance.
2/- I do not think that the brake cooling is that much of an issue : your landing speeds would be a lot lower than on an equivalent jet and it's not as though the brake temps would shoot-up immediately.
Lemurian, I have the feeling thrust reverse should remain an option. The props have the mechanism anyways. On slippery runways, tail wind etc. they could be a usefull fall back option. Your second suggestion is very valid I realize. If this is to be a 737/A320 replacement dedicated for short high frequency flight, as I stated in the opening post, very short airfield performance is not a basic requirement. It could be an optional package. I left the power brakes out of the later concepts.
3/- Why not go a bit further and have an APU auto-start + auto switching to the APU generator after landing. As you'll need some cooling / temp stabilisation time before you cut the engines off, the transition from traction to wheel drive would be very smooth.
regarding the main engines, I understood they needed to run a while for temperatures to stabilise. Unlike a car, you couldn't just drive your overgrown electric golf-buggy to the end of the runway, switch from "drive" to "ignition ", light the fires and "balls to the wall"
Cockney Steve, Lemurain, I guess the engines should be started on a specified time and place. I guess it would depend on the airport layout / time/ distance to the runway. LCY and AMS northern "polderbaan" are two extremes. I think a system that can be (de)activated by the crew and performs all actions in sequence monitoring engine parameters, outside conditions etc. would be a doable / practicle solution.
Now a few issues with the flight controls : at the speeds you're considering, a trimmable horizontal tail is the best choice --> The to-day position needs to be re-designed again.
The high-lift devices solution are still not very clear...and the roll control ? high speed aileron, spoilers, low speed ailerons/flapperons ?
The horizontal tail has the similar configuration as the ARJ family. Maybe something better is possible. I made a conservative choice. The highlift devices are a single slotted flap and a flaperon similar to e.g. the 777.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jOG4A1_99mo (I included it in the picture)
would the fuel-burn be considerably less than running the APU?
what would be the feasibility of a big generator built-into the main engine(s) to power the gear-propulsion ? this could "drop-out" at a pre-determined engine RPM, saving mechanical drag. (or is the on-board battery-system envisaged to store sufficient power for ground-manoeuvers?
The Wheeltug guys claim a lot of fuel can be saved, easiliy compensating the weight of the electromechanical components. I think batteries to supply the amounts of energy required would get very heavy. Batteries get better and better, but very slowly..
I would make sure it is possible to close the window blinds on the roof windows while standing in the aisle , blazing midday sun on your face when you trying to doze could result in air rage!
Capster, you are right I foresee the window would be semi transparent, spreading the light into the cabin. Passengers can see the sky is blue but not much more. Of course crew should be able to dim it or shut it like other cabin windows.
Masai, thnx, haven't communicated outside pprune.