ECR-20, 200 seater optimized for flights <700 nm

[keesje]

Hi, in the past I did a (clumsy) concept named "Turboliner" with the help of some folks around here and immediately wanted to do a bigger one.

That's 3 years ago.. A year ago Henry Lam (kaktusdigital.com) made some great artist impressions. A few weeks ago we spend some more hours and this night I did 4-5 hours of powerpoint. :bored:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ECR20_1keesjeconcepthenrylamgraphics.jpg?t=1299803593

- It's slower then a 737/A320
- It has less range the a 737/A320
- It can't fly as high as a jet
- It's got inferior cargo capability vs a A320
- It hardly meets stage IV noise requirements
- It's less comfortable then a 737/A320
- It reduces fuel burn per passenger by over 30% vs a 737/A320 and has some other features.

http://www.kaktusdigital.com/images/TL_V02.jpg

What do you think?

[keesje]

On the cabin, I guess the need for speed and efficiency will grow when fuel prices further rise. To make steps new concepts will be tried out.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ECR20_12keesjeconcepthenrylamgraphics_2.jpg

Superior ticket prices, speed, ecological awareness combined with the right product positioning and perception will have target groups adapt new procedures.

[Golf-Sierra]

Why is one of the guys wearing a spider man mask?

[Wizofoz]

Slower than a 737 on even a 1200NM sector means, from boarding to disembarkation, including taxi at a congested airport, around four hours STANDING UP!!

The tickets better be PLENTY cheap!

[keesje]

Slower than a 737 on even a 1200NM sector means, from boarding to disembarkation, including taxi at a congested airport, around four hours STANDING UP!!

The tickets better be PLENTY cheap!

People are "standing" like on a motor cycle or scooter. 1200NM in the 600 million people European market is a minority of flights. Plenty of other aircraft options to fit those segments..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Europecitypairs.jpg?t=1299868627

Disembarkation should be quicker with the twin aisles, cross over, wide doors. The "low" speed (~M 0.7) could largely be compensated by the use of secondary runways, steeper approaches and simplified taxiing / push back procedures.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ECR20_12ckeesjeconcepthenrylamgraphics.jpg

Why is one of the guys wearing a spider man mask?
No idea, he must have sneaked in..

[keesje]

The final slide..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ECR20_1keesjespecificationshenrylamgraphics-2.jpg

rgds

[Golf-Sierra]

People are "standing" like on a motor cycle or scooter. 1200NM in the 600 million people European market is a minority of flights. Plenty of other aircraft options to fit those segments..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1299868627 (http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Europecitypairs.jpg?t=1299868627)


Wouldn't those pairs be better served by high speed trains?


Golf-Sierra

[CR2]

LengTH

People pick up on spelling in Powerpoint presentations to the distraction of the message.

I'd take the train too.

[Machaca]

keesje -- your concept is the same size as a 320-200, but with a whopping 30% increase in cabin width.

A few questions:

1. What powerplants are those that produce similar power to CFM56 for 28% less fuel burn? How much do they weigh? Prop diameter?

2. What are the weight, drag, and fuel penalties of the increase in fuselage diameter over A320?

3. How did you lose 4.6 tonnes OEW?

4. How do pax use their laptop? Stand on their briefcase/laptop bag?

5. Is spiderman going to blow the cockpit door open with an airbag charge?

[mattpilot]

Sounds pretty innovative, though i'd agree with the above posters about the train. Considering the amount of crap u got to put up with at the airport regarding security & stuff, you're way better off in a train for numerous reasons given the short distances.

[GarageYears]

Ho do those seat-ettes work for kids (say age 12 and below) and those with babies? It appears you have 28 conventional seats... doesn't seem that would be anywhere near enough.

Looks plausible if you are slim, but for those passengers with more girth/weight I can't see this working.

- GY

[STBYRUD]

Don't roast him for the seats, they are pretty much what the industry has come up with in the past years in response to tentative proclamations of interest from customers... Hmm, what you have there basically is a Dash 8 on steroids with massive engines - why not? Look at Lufthansa, they are letting their tired 737-300s and -500s do 40 minute runs, this ought to be a whole lot more efficient...

[keesje]

Golf-Sierra Agree high speed trains are great, if you could do a direct train from e.g. Paris to Hamburg, it would take a few hours. Thing is there aren't. You have to change and the train will stop in the big cities on the way. Advantage of trains IMO are the comfort, low price, frequency and quality time, lack of airport compared to air travel..

Machaca Powerplants are under study. Coincidently RR gave an update in todays Flightglobal. RR is busy doing open rotor tests and sees it as the way forward after 2020.

Open rotor is "more 2023-2025 in timescale" and "pretty much targeted at the middle of the market, something like 25,000-35,000lb of thrust", says Nuttall. "We are still convinced that this is the only potential game changer."
Rolls-Royce details next-generation engine studies (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/14/354205/rolls-royce-details-next-generation-engine-studies.html)

What are the weight, drag, and fuel penalties of the increase in fuselage diameter over A320?

The fuselage has a bigger cross section. But as you can see it is flatter reducing the frontal area. Keep in mind drag increases squared with speed, cruise speed of the ECR-20 is about 10% lower then a A321.

OEW is lower because of

the higher structural efficiency of the larger cross section
application of 25 yr newer materials and technology
the 9m shorter fuselage (!)
lack of cargo capability
carries half the fuel
flies lower and slower and carries less, reducing structural loads


Compare the OEW of a 120 seat A318 to an 120 seat F100. The first is a lot more capable and is nearly 15t heavier too. Compared to a 7 abreast 767, the cross section of the ECR-20 is flatter and the floor lower.

The bigger cross section of the ECR-20 makes the application of composites feasible that do not scale down to NBs so well. (skin thinness becomes limited by impact and other mechanical properties. )

Pax cannot use their laptop, nor do they have much time after take-off, a drink, a bite and preparing for landing. Anyway, who won't have an Iphone7/ Crackberry / look alike by 2022?

About the seats, there are some conventional seats in the back. Familiy flights to Spain / Greece aren't the target group though. Short, busy morning - afternoon, evening flights between highly populated areas are.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/112529152_6bca865b79.jpg
London City "lounge"

GarageYears For the flights that are longer, have kids, need comfort, there will be the thousands of 737s, A320s, C919s, 757s, MS21s, CSeries etc.. so I do not see a big issue there..

Re Spiderman, we can't say anything pending further investigations..

Re cabin, gate / boarding music suggestion: Dailymotion - Elton John - I'm Still Standing - a Music video (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9i7l3_elton-john-im-still-standing_music)

[mattpilot]

i suppose as long as the pilots still get to sit, why not :ok:

[Golf-Sierra]

It is interesting to think what changes in airport infrastructure are needed to maximise the benefits of such an airframe? I would not be impressed by the prospect of flying standing say from Europe to Gatwick in 40 minutes only to spend 60 minutes at check in and on arrival a further 20 minutes riding the treadmills and another 30 on the tube ;-)

So, for instance - will this aircraft be quiet enough and capable of operating from sufficiently short runways so that more airports can be used? Would advanced avionics allow the plane to provide scheduled service from an aerodrome which today is only available to GA? How many aerodromes/airports are there around London with a sensible paved runway vs. how many are there from which I can fly to Paris/Amsterdam/Berlin on a scheduled service?

Registered luggage - firstly the aircraft should allow a lot more cabin luggage to be taken on board. Secondly - the issue of taking only hand luggage vs. security concerns should be somehow addressed. (I just wondered - has anyone analysed how many millions of $ of baggage handling costs airlines incur [non lo-co] solely so that pax can take a tube of toothpaste or shaving cream - items not readily available in <100 ml sizes??.) How about secure overhead bins, locked between pax on and pax off. If a pax has restricted items (e.g. a bottle of shampoo or a nail cutter) in their handluggage it is placed in some kind of tamperproof container/foil? If the container/foil is tampered with prior to placing the item in the secure overhead container - an alarm sounds. Could the overhead lockers not be redesigned so that they open somehow from below, rather then from the side? That way I could take my hand luggage out without having to wait for the aisle to clear.

APU powered taxi - would that allow airports to be organised more efficiently? Could pax disembark at a point from which it is quick and easy to catch transport into town, afterwards the plane would taxi to a departure stand? At KGX or Euston it often takes me less then 5 minutes between the moment the train stops to the moment I'm on the tube.

Would an airbridge which simply lowers from above/ascends from below not work much quicker than one which has to translate towards the plane? Would the aircraft avionics be able to position the plane automatically so that the airbridge can be quickly placed in position?

The point I am trying to make is that - in the case of Europe - it is more about increasing the efficiency of the overall air transport process than the plane itself.


Regards,

Golf-Sierra

[keesje]

Golf-Sierra, interesting questions. An aircraft like ECR-20 could provide a capacity boost from airports like London City. It won't be more quiet then a e.g. 737 currently is, but would offer better takeoff performance / steeper approaches (DLC) and airport operations would be different. An automated engine shutdown procedure would start as soon as the aircraft leaves the runways after landing.

The aircraft would arrive at the gate/parking place with the engines out. At departure there would be no pushback required and starting of the engines would be done during taxiing to the runway. It could become quiet around the gates. It seems Airbus will (finally..) do live tests next month.

http://www.dlr.de/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/standorte/stuttgart/Bugrad-380.jpg
http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-6216/10226_read-28858/gallery-1/51_read-3/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTsdpaXUi1Y

For quick (de)boarding the ECR-20 concept has twin aisles, a mid cabin crossover and wide doors front and aft and integrated airstairs that can be deployed as soon as the aircraft halts. The aircraft taxis away as soon as the doors are closed, no more push back and engine starting procedures, saving manpower, fuel, noise and minutes.

[keesje]

Boeing is considering 2-3-2, but won't compromise on cargo capability, which probably is necessary on longer flights.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=38723

Boeing wants to have at least transcon range (3000NM).

The price is no doubt a higher OEW and all associated costs.

It might have an issue effectively competing with lean/mean 140-150 seaters like the CSeries.

Boeing weighs narrowbody options (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/21/354513/boeing-weighs-narrowbody-options.html)

[peter we]

I think the props will be rear mounted, noise is an issue. With composites the weight disadvantage will be reduced and a twin aisle makes more sense to move the C of G a bit closer together. High mounted rear engines will mean the cabin is lower to the ground and it will have quicker boarding (twin aisle will also help) and lighter stairs.

Range and seating capacity should be less than the a320, but forget 700nm, thats for rail travel. 150 seats and 1500 nm range.

I'm convinced this will be airbus's next product.

I just wondered - has anyone analysed how many millions of $ of baggage handling costs airlines incur [non lo-co] solely so that pax can take a tube of toothpaste or shaving cream - items not readily available in <100 ml sizes??.

Asda has a large range of travel cosmetics, miniature containers of many full size products. Quite cheap, as well.

[keesje]

With composites the weight disadvantage will be reduced and a twin aisle makes more sense to move the C of G a bit closer together.



I think many composite parts such as the fuselage don't scale down that well. The skin thickness of the 787 will probably be the same as on a narrowbody. It made MHI move away from composites for their MRJ. (They make large parts of the 787)

High mounted rear engines will mean the cabin is lower to the ground and it will have quicker boarding (twin aisle will also help) and lighter stairs.

I've seen the designs. From what I heard authorities object. They find the risk of engine #1 taking out engine #2 too high. They want something inbetween..

Range and seating capacity should be less than the a320, but forget 700nm, thats for rail travel. 150 seats and 1500 nm range.


I notice many people tend to pooh-pooh anything with a max range below 1500NM.

In reality, it's where 90% of the action is..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/RobertNuttallRRNButilization.jpg

[peter we]

I think many composite parts such as the fuselage don't scale down that well.

I meant purely for the additional strengthening for rear mount.

They find the risk of engine #1 taking out engine #2 too high. They want something inbetween..

The put something in between, its not impossible. Just don't use passengers as armour.

In reality, it's where 90% of the action is..

Maybe but LCC airlines tend to buy a single type and therefore it needs to cover all their needs and 700nm means that almost your entire market could be cannibalised by train travel.

[keesje]

Then put something in between, its not impossible. Just don't use passengers as armour.

Peter, you are right in that that's one of the most mentioned disadvantages of open rotors. I wonder if its a bit opportunistic reasoning though. For 100 years hundreds of aircraft design were developed, build and operated that way, thousands are flying around.

Is the TP400 illegal / useless? Or the Q400, ATR-72, An-70, DC7 or Conny?

f the prop is a little stronger then the ATR and the skin a bit stronger too, is there a problem?

[twochai]

Can anybody name the last time an aircraft was taken down by the failure of a propellor blade??

[irishpilot1990]

i suppose as long as the pilots still get to sit, why not :ok:


FACT.:}

Great idea IMO, doesnt seem right for B737 and A320 to be doing 20-30 minute "hops". Guzzling fuel. As the man said its the shorter routes he targets! B737 has bigger range so let it off..nobody will stand going to tenerife anyway!!Plausible idea..I would say more like over due. Could well see these coming in and out of London and big densely populated capitals.

Passengers dont know if the plane is goin Mach 0.84 or .7!Is at 10,000 feet or 40,000feet and dont know difference between props and jets. Time of landing is all that relevant to them.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

The ideal solution to this problem is an aircraft with VTOL capabilities, a little like an Osprey. Maybe 50 pax or so. Take off from the centre of London, land in the centre of Paris, 1 hour door to door. No faffing about with taxiing etc, and very little airport infrastructure or space needed.

(C) Ex Cargo Clown

[peter we]

"Take off from the centre of London, land in the centre of Paris, 1 hour door to door. No faffing about with taxiing etc, and very little airport infrastructure or space needed."

So about a four hour journey with security etc. I don't think there is a market left for such a journey, hasn't 90% of flights been replaced by Eurostar? Similar situation with Spain, high speed train and completely replaced air travel for certain journeys. EU policy will encourage this in future.

[keesje]

high speed train and completely replaced air travel for certain journeys.

I think that is right for some (major) city pairs.

However if we look at the 20-25 most populated cities/city areas in Europe with their 500 million inhabitants, they create hundreds of citypairs.

Take the train from London to Berlin, from Turin to Bruxelles, Milan to Amsterdam. Madrid to Manchester, it doesn't work (yet?) to get to that 10 o'clock meeting.

And those are bigger cities, dozens of <1 million places. Same in California, US and China East Coasts.

I think city to city VTOL flights have been sought after for decades and they never became profitable. The only aircraft in service capable of carrying such loads is the Boeing Osprey, it's reliability is questionable, its seat mile cost are staggering, how much it has costed during the last 25 years, nobody wants to know / be reminded of..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/CV-22_Osprey_flies_over_the_Emerald_Coast.JPG

[peter we]

Take the train from London to Berlin, from Turin to Bruxelles, Milan to Amsterdam. Madrid to Manchester, it doesn't work (yet?) to get to that 10 o'clock meeting.


EU policy is to ban this sort of thing by 2040. They intend to ban petrol cars from cities in that time scale as well. Of course this needs a major upgrade to high speed rail.

Travelling internationally so you can have a chat with colleagues is a waste of energy and its only done now because its feasible and economic.

"Great idea IMO, doesnt seem right for B737 and A320 to be doing 20-30 minute "hops". Guzzling fuel. As the man said its the shorter routes he targets! B737 has bigger range so let it off..nobody will stand going to tenerife anyway!!Plausible idea..I would say more like over due. Could well see these coming in and out of London and big densely populated capitals."

As has been discussed many times on pprune, standing up is and always will be banned on safety grounds. It will never be allowed.

[theficklefinger]

When I saw this thread I wasn't sure if it was tongue and cheek or if it was serious, especially after I saw the standing passengers..

So you want to chase efficiency? Ok...

Standing passengers, no drinks, one stew, only water is offered.
Single engine, big Williams, run it out as far as trend monitoring will allow.
Engine operated on long range fuel economy, optimized for winds/alts.
Single pilot operation, UAV pilot on the ground monitoring flight.
Simple avionics. No EFIS or FMS, basic two ILS heads, GPS, steam guages.
Reduce all weight, use of composites, fast wing, no TRs, no extras

[keesje]

As has been discussed many times on PPRuNe, standing up is and always will be banned on safety grounds. It will never be allowed.

They sit.

Like on a motor cycle or scooter.

http://www.traveldebate.com/images/smallseat.jpg

or the Riddlers Revenge ;)

http://www.coastergallery.com/sf/Chang1.jpg

[keesje]

Interestingly Boeing features an even more radical engine configuration.

An "open rotor N3". Boeing, not being engine maker, freely combined technologies devlopped by RR and PW..

Flightglobal made an artist impression:

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?ItemID=40146
Engine Programme Updates (http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Paris-special/engines/)

(ground clearance doesn't seem ok, but its about the concept)

[oldchina]

I've been around long enough to remember the mistakes of the Dassault Mercure and the A310.

Don't, ever, make the error of building a plane optimised for short range.

The day it comes out the customers will want longer range.

It's the best way of losing money I can imagine.

[keesje]

Don't, ever, make the error of building a plane optimised for short range.

When fuel was cheap and anything with capasity had to be able to fly coast to coast, standarizing on 1 type was a good idea.

That's why 737 and A320 fly 3000nm.

For almost all flights the 500 million Europeans make within Europe it is a total waste, a gross overkill.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Europecitypairs.jpg?t=1267566303

ATR andBombardier will come with bigger props, as will India. Embraer said they will probably make their new 5 abreast optimized for shorter ranges too.

Times change.

[oldchina]

It's nice to see the same old analyses I saw when I was a kid 30 years ago.

Don't join the party if you can't satisfy the family market. Niche market demand is no way to build a business case. It will always let you down.

Anyone who buys a plane optimised for short haul immediately starts demanding the same efficiencies but on longer ranges.

Unless you want to lose your customers your engineers will spend the next ten years tweaking and re-tweaking to extend the range.
It's very tiring, and costly.

Plus Airbus and Boeing will match you on operating cost any time you go head-to-head with them.

I know. Get out now...

[keesje]

Old china, RJ's were a bad idea until they took off 25 years ago. The A380 was a dead end for many, until recently. The Cseries under the 737/A320, don't go there.. The 100 seat E190; haven't you seen what happended to the F100 & BAE146? Just no market.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1371/547015361_4c5625c850.jpg

Hopping around with 40t birds is OK when fuel is cheap. It aint.