SAAB's new turboprop

[jackx123]

obviously with fuel prices hitting the roof and airlines going bust it may not seem to be a mad idea after all.

Saab considering return to civil aircraft manufacturing (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-considering-return-to-civil-aircraft-manufacturing-372211/)

[oceancrosser]

Well the SAAB 2000 at 63 built can hardly be considered a success story. The 340 fared better mostly due to large US orders. Probably a longshot.

[concordino]

I very much hope they do. :ok:

The Saab 2000 was ahead of its time. The ERJ/CRJ Were heavily discounted and fuel was cheaper...that only hampered Saab's sales.

If they make a comeback, Saab better look at how ATR is selling it's turboprops and how they are current number one with a modest product.

[RVF750]

I think ATR's best sales weapon is Bombardier's after-sales department!

[BALLSOUT]

I thought they went bust!

[jackx123]

as far as i know it was/is the fastest turbo cruising above weather at close to jet speed with the only drawback being both props turning the same direction.

the bombQ400 has 6,000ft lower alt and slower.

maybe they want to bring it out of mothball with improved avionics, improved engines and revised flight envelope competing with jets on 2hour flights at much lower cost.

not a bad idea at all.

[oceancrosser]

cruising above weather

I have sometimes thought about that dated cliché sitting in the s**t at FL370 or bypassing a CB at half its height.
This was used to describe the difference between flying in pressurized or non-pressurized radial engine tin-cans 50-60 years ago! :ugh:

[stepwilk]

I thought they went bust!

That was Saab Automotive, which became totally separate from the aircraft company decades ago (despite the fact that Saab advertising, at least in the U. S., would have had you believe the cars were "Born From Jets"). They were as separate as Rolls-Royce aero engines and RR cars.

[stepwilk]

that dated cliché...

I don't think anybody really assumes "above the weather" means "above towering Cu's."

[Mazdata]

It takes a U2 or SR-71 for that :=)

[BALLSOUT]

Thanks Stepwilk, the car adverts over here claimed to be the same too.

[Golden Rivit]

We need something with a hot wing,and conventional tail,Deice boots are dangerous,and high maintenance. The Convair 580 with the Allison T56 was a great aircraft.

[Bally Heck]

The airframer continues to build the Gripen, but has focused in recent years on expanding in other fields, such defence electronics and security systems.

Airframer? Airframer? Isn't that someone who frames air? Can the "flight press" please avoid falling into text speak and use terms like "aircraft manufacturer"?

Well done SAAB. The 340 was an inspired wee airframe, and wings' and lights, and engine, and....continued on page 94.

[jackx123]

the question remains. will it be based on the 2000 or a completely new design.

as stated above the 2000 at its time was a product before its time and could easily compete in with the most advanced t-props even today.

[stepwilk]

Airframer? Airframer? Isn't that someone who frames air?

Quite a common term.

[20driver]

He noted that Saab is also "cash-rich" at the moment, and is keen "to explore new business opportunities".

Developing a new plane should take care of the cash rich problem

[mdieker]

By how many years will it be delayed by?

[Torquelink]

Interesting that Embraer, who also know a thing or two about turboprops and had been considering re-entry into that market, recently announced that they had concluded the market was big enough for just two manufacturers at a pinch and wouldn't go there again.

Still, as 20Driver said, it's a fun way to burn through the cash pile!

[scarebus03]

There really is a gap in this sector with the BBD's and ATR's being the only game in town at the moment and BBD less so. Recent sales performance puts the 30-60 seaters as dead so it would have to be a 70-80 seater with equal or better performance and maintenance figures to the ATR, which believe it or not is an expensive piece of equipment to maintain.
Everybody went mad with RJ's in the last 15 years or so and didn't account for the rise in fuel prices which now has TP's as a viable venture when 6 years ago everybody thought they had run their course.

The S2000 is a very good aircraft it just came along at the wrong time, however now the sky's the limit.

[CargoOne]

Sf2000 is a narrow long unconfortable tube with overhead bins you cant fit your jacket in and same time world leader in cost of maintenance. Do you want a 50 seater prop which cost you MORE to maintain than A320 or 737?

[Heathrow Harry]

torque has it right - two manufacturers just about making a living out of projects certified some time back - why bring in a third???

[DaveReidUK]

why bring in a third???

Nobody is going to "bring in a third". If Saab, or anyone else, decides to enter the market, it will be of their own volition.

Yes, of course it will end in tears for someone, with too many manufacturers chasing too few orders, but that's how markets (not just aerospace ones) work.

[jackx123]

cargo:

you bring a smile to my face. I don't think anyone disputes that old is worse than new, except Bugatti.

however, SAAB has the experience in avionics, simulation, manufacturing and integration so if their research comes up with a feasible model that can satisfy their sales network with offset financing or other incentives, I think they have a winner.

I remember everyone said the 340 was a total failure but they still managed to sell 450+. Not bad for a failure.

Therefore, SAAB may had some enquiries from a potential a launch customer.

[Sqwak7700]

And they could not have been that much of a failure, because most are still flying. SAAB 2000s are quite rare and hard to find, yet operators still acquire and choose them over a used ATR 72 or Q400. It would seem since the ATR and Bombardier products are still in production, that supporting them must be cheaper than a SAAB 2000.

So obviously, the aircraft got something right, otherwise they would all be in the desert or turned into beer cans.

I would love to see an improved SAAB 2K with all the latest technology, I think it would make a fine aircraft. I think it was ahead of its time when released, but with oil only getting more expensive in the long run, turboprops (or whatever is the most efficient) will surely be the way to go on certain trip lengths. Especially when you start bumping into jet speeds like the S2K and the Q400 do.

[CargoOne]

Sqwak7700

Saab 2000 is absolutely the worst aircraft in its class in terms of pax comfort. Especially you can't get advantage of its speed on the short sectors and have to find routes which are 1) long enough 2) pax don't care.
Engines are most unreliable of whatever you can find on todays turboprops except CT7 which powers Saab 340. Maintenance costs are sky high both airframe and engines.
Operators "preferring" Saab 2000 to ATR72 and q400 simply have no money to get anything better (and btw this is wrong comparison, you should think along fokker 50, atr42 and dash8-300 line which are all 50 seaters). Saabs 2000s are very cheap to lease or buy these days, recently there was a portfolio transaction involving a bunch of them and I can tell you a single q400 would cost you more to buy.

and jackx123, anyone who ever been signing the checks to pay saab 340 or saab 2000 maintenance would never smile about this junk. So did I. what's about you?

I'm not following this but I believe this year there will be no original 1st tier operators remaining for either type. This tells a lot about SF340 if you think that there is no replacement in 33-36 seat category.

[TWT]

The 340's haven't been replaced by Rex Australia.In fact,they've been acquiring more.
According to their website,they operate more than 51 of them.I've travelled on them as pax,they are fine,no complaints at all.

[ChicagoHeights]

Im surprised that nobody has mention that sweet Brasilia e-120 skipper of the skys

[Jump Complete]

I'm not sure about this 'uncomfortable for pax' statement. I currently operate the ATR 72 and have flown in them plenty of times down the back as a pax and also flown the Q400 as a pax several times. I have only experienced the Saab 2000 once as a passenger (Edingburgh to Norwich with Eastern in 2005) and remember it as being impressively quiet, comfortable (and fast) in the cabin in comparison with the other types. I liked being in the single seat on the left. I admit that at that time, I wasn't regularly flying on TP's (was flying an Islander for a parachute centre at the time and was positioning back from delivering the aircraft for maintance) and may have been influenced by the complimentry bubbly and salmon sandwichs. (My boss, an ex Parachute Regiment Sergent, when I told how much I'd liked the in-flight sevices said "You bastard, do know how much that flight cost me!):E

[Sqwak7700]

Cargo

I'll give you that the 2K is more comparable to the smaller ATR42 and Q300 with regards to seats. But if SAAB enter the TP market again I would guess they would stretch their 2000 in order to seat closer to 70 like the other bigger models.

I don't think I agree with your other sentiments though. You are entitled to your own opinion, but there are still many big airlines operating SAABs.

[OpsSix]

Having flown in a Saab 2000, an ATR 42 and a Dash8 Q400, I'd take the Saab anyday. A far more pleasant experience compared to the others.

Also, having once worked for the largest Q400 rotable component supplier in Europe, I can tell you that Q400 reliability is beyond poor. The support from BBD and the vendors isn't much better either.

[Heathrow Harry]

it's not that long since both ATR & Bombadier were thinking of getting out of the business

Building new SAAB's will just cut everyone's throats - 3 manufacturers chasing a marginal market

[CargoOne]

Saabs are the smallest cross-section comparing to all competitors. Many people cannot stand up in cabin without tilting their head. Extremely nice when it is a de-boarding time. Also because of smallest cross-section overhead bins are pretty nonexistent. You can fit a very slim case like laptop bag, nothing more. In the winter capacity of overhead bins are not sufficient to accommodate overcoats etc. Toilet is a joke. Galley is tiny.

The only relatively big airline operating SF340 is Australian Rex and they never been an original user. All american feeders has quit or at last stages of doing that. There are no big 2000 operators anyway. There are people who switched from SF340 to ATR42 or Fokker 50 even they had no prospects of more passengers. Simply the difference in total operating cost is pretty marginal and you getting much more seats as a bonus. I have first hand experience (or should I say misfortune?) operating these birds and therefore my opinion is a bit more based on a facts as opposed to observations from outside.

ps I especially like comment about 2000 seats vs A320 seats. There are several dozens of seats certified and used on A320s ranging from no-frills super slims to flat-bed suite-style installations, so without being specific it is quite pointless. Same time there are only 2 types of seats for Saab 2000, and I will keep my opinion about their comfort (and especially reliability) with me.

pps hopefully you know that Saab Leasing is set to be closed in 2 years and they actively disposing their portfolio? This is how much trust in this product people have...

[Copenhagen]

People seem to forget the inservice disaster that was the S2000:

Saab improves 2000 dispatch reliability (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-improves-2000-dispatch-reliability-12437/)

The design goal for the Saab2000 was set at 99,2 % dispatch reliability,

With crossair and dba it fell as low as 98%

Proposed changes were not successful, and dispatch issues continued, where fleet wide, it was still below 98.5% in the northern winter 01/02. This resulted Deutsch BD cancelling their remaining order

Deutsche BA suspends deliveries of Saab 2000 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/deutsche-ba-suspends-deliveries-of-saab-2000-17398/)

"DEUTSCHE BA HAS suspended further Saab 2000 deliveries to its fleet, after both it and Swiss carrier Crossair were hit by poor dispatch reliability during the harsh European winter. "

[jackx123]

Having no affinity to SAAB or any other t-prop it is still remarkable to see ignorant comments like this.

How can someone (Darwin) triple it's profit with a seemingly useless aircraft if, the maintenance and/or operating cost is higher than any similar aircraft? 6xS2000 and 2xQ400. Why not the other way around?

Including "news" that is 16 years old? It's like saying gas it record levels 16 years ago.

Disposing of an asset portfolio is - disposing. Nothing else. I would read into it that SAAB may want to use the proceeds to perhaps develop the new machine and set up a new leasing company.

Back to topic: It would be nice to get some insider what SAAB may consider. Two versions and what would be the DOC.

[Dufo]

Saabs are the smallest cross-section comparing to all competitors.

Larger than Embraer 120/135/145. But it doesn't make any difference on a short flight.

[STBYRUD]

I could well imagine that there is a gap in the market between the currently available turboprops and the armada of regional jets (C-series, Embraers, the Superjet etc..) - wouldn't surprise me if they would present a large and economical turboprop (or even UDF?) for short to medium sectors. Interesting stuff. On the pax experience: I remember the Saab 2000 as very comfortable and a LOT quieter than any Dash or ATR I have been on - just the cabin felt a little cramped (on Crossair at least).

[Domi]

Go to the bottom of this page : Warbird Information Exchange • View topic - Grumman, the people that made the planes 12 SEPT 2010 (http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13327&start=780)

and see pictures of the Fairchild / SAAB commuter project :ok:

[evansb]

OpsSix said the "Q400 reliability is beyond poor". Hmm...just read that Toronto-based Porter Airlines achieved a 99.4 percent dispatch reliability with their Q400s. Other quotes on the internet indicate other airlines are experiencing 99.5 and 99.59 percent reliability. I do recall the collapsing landing gear problems associated with the Q400 a while back, but that problem was rectified. Passengers seem to like them, and controllers appreciate their near-jet initial climb rate.

[Typhoon650]

I'm 184cm tall and quite big, I've never found the Saab 340 small or cramped. I don't even recall the lack of headroom as being even the slightest issue when boarding and I've flown in them several times.
I'll take a faster flight time over overhead bin capacity any day (it's not exactly hard to get the baggage out of the hold at a regional airport, is it?) Besides, under the seat worked just fine for me last time I flew one.....

[43Inches]

Saabs are the smallest cross-section comparing to all competitors. Many people cannot stand up in cabin without tilting their head. Extremely nice when it is a de-boarding time. Also because of smallest cross-section overhead bins are pretty nonexistent. You can fit a very slim case like laptop bag, nothing more. In the winter capacity of overhead bins are not sufficient to accommodate overcoats etc. Toilet is a joke. Galley is tiny.


The SAAB is not camparable to the ATR or Q400 for cross-section as it is only 3 abreast seating. The SAAB seats generally are wider and have more seat pitch than the ATR and DASH 8 due to this. Agreed the overhead bin space is limiting but this is not a huge issue if the company has good policies for excessive items in the cabin. Any toilet on a turboprop is for emergency use only, especially if you know how well cleaned they are.

The S2000 engine is a version of the C-130J Herc engine the AE2100 so it cant be that unreliable. Any reliability issues in such a small fleet would be compounded due to the lack of operational spare aircraft to call on. The dispatch reliability articals quoted are from 1996 a year or two after the aircraft entered service, most if not all aircraft have issues early on and many far worse than 98%.

Noise level in the 340 is bareable and better if it has the ANC system. The S2000 has ANC similar to the Q400 so has good noise and vibration supression compared to other turboprops.

Most of this comparison to the older aircraft is a waste of time as SAAB will no doubt introduce an updated package that includes all modern avionics, engine, noise suppression and seating.


There are people who switched from SF340 to ATR42 or Fokker 50 even they had no prospects of more passengers. Simply the difference in total operating cost is pretty marginal and you getting much more seats as a bonus. I have first hand experience (or should I say misfortune?) operating these birds and therefore my opinion is a bit more based on a facts as opposed to observations from outside.


Sounds like rubbish the ATR and Fokker burn at least 10% more fuel than the 340. Engines and systems are probably of very similar costs however i would say the 340 is still less. They also have to carry an extra flight attendant under present rules. Many of the operators that have made this switch had to drop out of smaller routes and some went broke.

[DaveReidUK]

Most of this comparison to the older aircraft is a waste of time as SAAB will no doubt introduce an updated package that includes all modern avionics, engine, noise suppression and seating.

And even more of a waste of time if the new project turns out not to be a warmed-over Saab 2000 at all, but a completely new aircraft.

[Heathrow Harry]

in which case it CERTAINLY will lose money..............

[THE ORACLE]

Gentlemen, here are a few current facts concerning one large and successful Saab operator.

Regional Express in Australia operate 51 Saab 340's (A, B, B+ and WT models and variants).

REX is among the most profitable airlines in the world based on its relative turnover. They operate Saabs over longer sectors than any other operator (550NM single sectors, several times per day and every day).

The despatch reliability and on time performance at REX is consistently above most other operators in Australia (Regional and Domestic).

The GE CT9B/5A-2 has a much lower fuel burn than its competitors, etc., etc.

The Oracle

[halas]

@ CargoOne

Rex is the the incarnation of Hazelton Airlines and Kendell Airlines.

Both were dragged down by the collapse of Ansett for being subsidiaries.

Both were substantial original operators of Sf340.

halas

[DaveReidUK]

The GE CT9B/5A-2 has a much lower fuel burn than its competitors, etc., etc.

I think you mean CT7-9B and -5A2, but point taken about the fuel burn.

Unfortunately, no matter how good that engine is, it's too small for any successor aircraft.

[ihg]

The real question is, is there any "game changing technology progress" with respect to structures and aerodynamics that would really justify a new plane compared to the ATR72 or Q400..

I seriously doubt that.

The real progress is and has been on the engines in the recent years. Just look at the A320Neo, B737MAX, and also C130J.

Putting up to date engines on an "old" airframe obviously still results in a very competitive aicraft.

All the "all composite excitement" seems to have significantly "calmed down", and even an "all new" design as the CSeries doesn't seem to have a "game changing advantage" over the A319NEO even though Bombardier had the chance to integrate latest aerodynamic or structural technology.

So, once comparably advanced new engines are available for this class of turboprops, ATR or Bombardier could right as well retrofit it to their legacy designs.

What's left is to go for an unallocated market niche, i.e. 90 seats.
But the question is then, is there really a market for 90 seat turboprops? And if so, could this be covered by ATR or Bombardier by simply stretching their legacy design one more time and thus by far less cost than SAAB with a completely new design.

Regards,
ihg

[THE ORACLE]

Dave,

Yes, I did leave out part of the designation for the little GE motor in the earlier post. Thanks for the correction.

Didn't the R.R. T 56/ Allison 501/ AE-2100 /AE-3007 (without the propeller gearbox) receive a "gong" the other week for its longevity and reliability?

For a powerplant first produced in 1954, with a production run of 18,000 units and over 200 million flight hours recorded, surely there is scope for further refinement using FADEC, etc?

Not to mention the new GE 38 powerplant derivative under development from its original application in the CH 53K (Super Stallion military helicopter).

[CharlieRomeo]

Hi guys,

from what i gather the 2 EFIS (eadi and the ehsi) screens on the 340 won't have any support beyond 2015?
I heard last time i was in sweden that there is studies into 3 possible optional retrofit glass flight decks a la BAE ATP? do you guys know anything more on this?

if saab do venture back into the turboprop market then if the 340 and 2000 have more in common and warrant a common type rating it could be more successful in the future???

the operator i fly for utilise the 35kt x-wind on the 340 very frequently and for that reason alone there is nothing in its class to compete with the saab. Dornier 328 is 21kts i believe and the ATR-42 is 25kts? both of which are more expensive to operate.

[The Ancient Geek]

There is a definite gap in the market between the 19 seat and 70 seat classes. This is not a large market sector but the existing contenders are getting old so there should be a replacement market for several hundred over the next decade.

A credible contender should be capable of short field operation while offering low operating costs and good comfort for between 30 and 50 passengers.

Nobody wants to operate 40 seat jets nowadays, their high fuel costs make them too expensive to operate.

This is a niche market but it could be a nice profitable niche for the company that can get it right.

[CargoOne]

Ref Rex - they are good operator but I will attribute their success to Kim Hai leadership and his team rather than any particular aircraft type. Those guys will make it work using any equipment, no doubt.

It is true that there is no direct replacement for SF340 on the market, other two - EMB120 and Do328 are even worse to operate, however as I said there been a number of operator switching to 50 seaters. ATR42 will burn marginally more fuel but it is considerably less expensive to maintain. To quantify fuel, 10% fuel burn penalty is 50 dollars per hour while maintenance gap is measured in hundreds. CT7 overhaul price has skyrocketed over last few years, it grew 50% on my eyes over just a relatively short period of time.

Saab Aerotech is quite good in supporting operators, no complains on this front, but the costs are way too high.

[DaveReidUK]

Saab are reportedly talking to both GE and P&W about a new engine, that's only to be expected.

But I don't see any signs that either OEM is targeting markets under 70 seats, thought I could be wrong.

[jamestkirk]

In reference to the Saab2000.

You are full of useless, incorrect nonsense.

[jackx123]

My take on this is that SAAB has a history in:

Successfully launching a commercial prop which has proven to be competitive even today.

Successfully integrated components with its own wing design to produce a low cost high performance fighter that outperforms much more expensive ones.

So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.

With fuel cost being an incremental problem we can expect, no surprise, a new more efficient engine, a new wing design, latest avionics, improved aerodynamics and obviously aiming a lowest DOC in its class. With this comes speed, climb, altitude and presumably greater pax comfort.

Having already certified the 340/2000, which is an expensive adventure as we all know, they will most likely stick to the current one meaning time to market will be relatively short.

Presumably they are aiming at lowest crew cost meaning 1 cc and improved SOP, having flight deck performing ground duties (see southwest).

The question however, how many sections (as in length) will they offer?

Any comments/ideas?

[CargoOne]

jackx123

So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.

You may find out that little to none of present Saab operators would be really willing to go into new Saab purchasing. People may publicly say otherwise (I did too when was interviewed) but internal opinions are quite definite.

[jackx123]

cargo:

I think you need to show some substance in what you claim since not many posts here agree with you and the thread is about what SAAB intends to do, not what they have done.

I still fail to understand how so many operators around the world still use the SAAB if it's such a failure as you make it out to be. Especially with the fierce competition prevailing in the industry.

Facts clearly oppose your bigoted opinion.

[Cyrano]

My take on this is that SAAB has a history in:

Successfully launching a commercial prop which has proven to be competitive even today.

Successfully integrated components with its own wing design to produce a low cost high performance fighter that outperforms much more expensive ones.

So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.

With fuel cost being an incremental problem we can expect, no surprise, a new more efficient engine, a new wing design, latest avionics, improved aerodynamics and obviously aiming a lowest DOC in its class. With this comes speed, climb, altitude and presumably greater pax comfort.

Having already certified the 340/2000, which is an expensive adventure as we all know, they will most likely stick to the current one meaning time to market will be relatively short.

Presumably they are aiming at lowest crew cost meaning 1 cc and improved SOP, having flight deck performing ground duties (see southwest).

The question however, how many sections (as in length) will they offer?

Any comments/ideas?

I think you make some good points, and I agree that it would seem to make more sense for Saab to go after the 30-50 seater replacement market, where they already have an installed base and an updatable platform, rather than trying to build a 70-90 seater up against Bombardier, ATR, and anyone else.

The big challenge for replacing the several hundred 30-seaters in service, though, is the economics. Operating regional routes is financially precarious enough that cheap aircraft are a big part of the equation. If Saab (or anyone) produces a nice 30-seater and then wants to charge $10m for it, it's not going to do too well. Hopefully if they go with a modernised existing design (and maybe outsource production to a lower-cost country?) they might reach a viable price point?

[kristofera]

Cool.

Now, all I want and need to know is: does it allow you to retract gear in ground mode. (An age old question that was argued and settled by two [former] Saab test pilots.)

[His dudeness]

I still fail to understand how so many operators around the world still use the SAAB if it's such a failure as you make it out to be.

I have no idea about the SAABs pro and cons, but if 'you' own a few SAABs and try to sell em and can´t get rid of em, then you continue to fly em.

Likewise probably with low lease rates, and changing an gnd/mx organization when you have only 1 type is costing too.

So there are probable causes to keep an airplane one is not too fond of.

[CargoOne]

His dudeness

Spot on!

jacx123 - I'm not going to prove anything here. Absolutely most of comments I've seen on this tread are coming from people who have no first hand experience operating those beasts and are rather guesses and observations. With all due respect what you see from outside is not necessarily how it is in reality. Wanna try them? I have a few available for immediate sale.

[Dufo]

Now, all I want and need to know is: does it allow you to retract gear in ground mode. (An age old question that was argued and settled by two [former] Saab test pilots.)

It does, by pulling 'ldg relays' c/b and selecting gear up :E

[43Inches]

It is true that there is no direct replacement for SF340 on the market, other two - EMB120 and Do328 are even worse to operate, however as I said there been a number of operator switching to 50 seaters. ATR42 will burn marginally more fuel but it is considerably less expensive to maintain. To quantify fuel, 10% fuel burn penalty is 50 dollars per hour while maintenance gap is measured in hundreds. CT7 overhaul price has skyrocketed over last few years, it grew 50% on my eyes over just a relatively short period of time.


The SF340 costs a lot less to maintain than the ATR, there is even evidence that the ATRs maintenance costs average out at higher than the Q400 but is offset by the much lower fuel burn. That is the figures around suggest ATR-72 is 10% more expensive to maintain than Q400 but when fuel and purchase price are thrown in the ATR works out much better. The ATR 42 is just a short 72 so will not cost a lot less to run.

To compound the ATR figure further the ATR 42-500 and 600 have more powerful engines which burn around 550-600kg/h leading it to being around 20%-30% more fuel hungry than the 340 which burns around 450-500kg/h. I would suggest that 50-100kg per hour even over a day is a lot of fuel, let alone over a fleet for an entire year.

Most CT-7 operators do not pay for overhauls as such, the engines are on engine management programs from GE and pay by the hour rates.

The S340 design is very flexible and easy to modify. The original design allowed for either a GE or PW powerplant however orders prefered the GE so the PW option was dropped. Avionics and systems are modular and easily refitted, there are already some pretty up to date refit options for the SAAB. The aircraft was designed basically to be plug and play and is therefore very easy to maintain and upgrade.


I have no idea about the SAABs pro and cons, but if 'you' own a few SAABs and try to sell em and can´t get rid of em, then you continue to fly em.


As with any aircraft low time airframes are heavily sought after and high time ones are harder to dispose. The As are now slowly getting converted into freighters and are still changing hands quite routinely.

In the US the heavy investment in RJs in the 90s has left many operators with no other choice but to push the saab against the wall as this is the lowest cost to mothball. They are forced to use the RJs to try to get some cash back on the investment and have been pulling out of many smaller regional routes as a result.

Considering many of the small regionals were doing well with the saab/emb and smaller dash and have now been slowly all going bankrupt with the larger aircraft you have to wonder whether they were smart to upgrade.

[THE ORACLE]

43,

Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful post on this topic.

Do you have any other similar insights to share concerning the Saab 2000 and or initiatives Saab might look to introduce if they decide to re-commence turboprop production?

It was my understanding that when production ceased in 1996 Saab disposed of their forming machines and metal presses, while retaining all intellectual property associated with both aircraft types.

[43Inches]

By far the biggest problem facing regional airlines with regard to new aircraft is the initial purchase cost. SAAB would be far better off trying to market an upgraded 30-50 seater from their existing aircraft. This would keep any development cost to a minimum, the original airframes already used advanced composites and joining processes.

The SAAB 340 only needs a few modifications to be up front in the market, currently the airframes already have a number of modifications which inprove performance from the original.

- Wingtip extensions already improve field performance greatly with pretty much no adverse affect. Only the later B+ aircraft currently have this.
- New engines could possibly reduce fuel flow and or increase performance.
- New props, again performance or fuel flow reductions.
- Modern ANC with vibration supression would make the aircraft whisper quiet
- Modern avionics will reduce weight
- Modern materials in the furnishings will reduce weight significantly
- A new anti-ice system

The SAAB 2000 is hard to improve on as it came out with most of the above. Most improvements would be in reducing fuel consumption through a new powerplant. SAAB could have interest in the new larger 90 seater engine possibly as a derate for the 2000 the same as the AE 2100 is derated for the current 2000.

If SAAB decides to go to 70+ seats it would require an entirely new design which would cost huge amounts in R & D.

[epsum]

One company currently operated SF340, daily trip to close-by island (100nm per leg) around 80% avg payload and making profit. Tried to change 340 to AT42, just found out that 42 actual cost is 30% more for this flight. All profitability gone and operations for that route ceased.

[CargoOne]

43Inches

I have a first hand data proving ATRs are much less expensive to maintain and all folks who had first hand experience with both types shares the same opinion.

With your awareness of SF340 particulars, no doubt you aware that GE ECMP (that's the engine program me you referring to) hourly rates has skyrocketed too? The only few who still feeling comfortable are those who signed long term commitments to GE many years ago, when it was relatively cheap.

And by the way, conversions into freighters has halted. After some 30 or so been converted in a span a 2-3 years, there are almost none afterwards. There is no market demand for more, that's life.

There is nothing to improve in Saab 2000 with it's USD 1200 per hour total maintenance cost, it is just easier to scrap them.

[DaveReidUK]

Re-reading the article linked to in the original post:

"Meanwhile, both GE and P&WC are designing rival next-generation engines to power a projected market for 90-seat turboprops"

That pretty well puts the kybosh on any suggestion that Saab's discussions with GE are about powering a development of the 340/2000 family, fascinating though the debate about the strengths and weaknesses of those two aircraft has been.

[jackx123]

43:

This is precisely my point. Certification already done. Minimal cost to do a supplemental certification. Production rigs etc. already there. If they can achieve a fuel reduction of say 15% it would truly kick some butts.

I also think that t-props will take over more and more of the jet traffic in europe.


Hopefully if they go with a modernised existing design (and maybe outsource production to a lower-cost country?) they might reach a viable price point?

Interesting enough China has flagged it will invest euro 1 billion in Sweden. Perhaps you have the low cost manufacturing right here.

We all know that China's domestic aviation is growing at an enormous rate.

[tallaonehotel]

Pretty safe to say that Cargo One isn't a great fan of Saab products....
And has the figures to prove it.
Figures can be manipulated in many ways to read what you want them to...

As I have been dealing with this size of aircraft for most of my career, the Saab 340 is pretty hard to beat IMHO, and I have maintained and managed ATR's, Dornier 328, J41's, ATP's and Dash 8's.
Saab are historically an expensive company to deal with, but you get decent support and that these days is hard to come by.

[tallaonehotel]

Cargo,

What MSN's are you looking to get rid of?
Are they Sub -160?

[Heathrow Harry]

Unfortunately I always put airline management in with the passengers when it comes to making decisions- they all SAY they like good service but when it comes down to it they always go with the cheapest provider

[AN2 Driver]

As some here said, I'll take a Saab 2000 any time over an ATR or a Q400.

I used to fly on it during it's Crossair days as a passenger a lot and loved it. By contrast, I hate the Q400 and avoid it whenever I can, much louder and more vibration than the S2000. And I will not get onto an ATR, seeing as how many of them have come to grief in icing conditions. My personal take, but for me, that is it.

The Saab 2000 was many things, all of them right at the time. It was fast, used half the fuel a comparable Jet would use on the same route, had an increadible range for a turboprop regional airliner and a performance which was made for the airports it was designed for, namely places like Lugano, short runways in difficult areas. Even OEI it outperforms many similar sized jets. The flight deck was similar to the CRJ in many regards, but more advanced in terms of automatisation. It has a huge baggage area which was a delight to load, if you compare it to say a CRJ or RJ70/100, actually within Crossiar it happened several times that we asked them to give us a S2000 on a RJ sector if we had bulky cargo items. It could be a bit tricky in Weight and Balance if they insisted on making a huge C - Class up front and stuff all the pax in the rear... but that is hardly the airplanes fault.

Personally, I did find it a lot more comfortable to sit in than even the ERJ135 which was supposed to replace it. I did fly longer trips in it, up to 3 hours and more, personally again, I found the seating very comfortable. When travelling alone, I did find the 1 + 2 seating very nice.

What its main problem was at the time was passenger acceptance. It had to compare to aircraft like the CRJ, which obviously has a more spacy cabin and is a jet. At that time, passengers often made the remarks that they did not like to be transported on "old propeller planes". They were comfortable on a 30 year old 737 but uncomfortable on a 2 year old propliner... well, who sais the world makes sense.

I got the chance to fly it in Crossair's sim several times and was very impressed by it's performance and great flying characteristics. I also spent many flights in the jumpseat and knew how much the crews liked to fly it.

I felt a lot of frustration at the time when Saab gave up on the 2000 and the Q400 won over the market. Personally, for me, the S2000 is a much superior aircraft over the Q400, not to speak of the ATR.

It is still in use with many airlines very successfully, Darwin being one of them. They have been looking into acquiring more airframes and have brought back quite a few ex Crossair planes so far. Not sure if it's true but I also hear that they do consider getting rid of the Q400's they took over when they acquired Baboo and replace them with S2000's once the lease gets finished, I'd be happy if they did.

So if Saab goes and corrects that mistake, they do get my thumbs up. A SB2000 upgraded to maybe newer engines and avionic for a competitive price should do very well indeed. Today, punters have gotten used to seeing turboprops again and they will appreciate the difference.

[Heathrow Harry]

" for a competitive price" - and therein lies the rub.......

they will have to pay the cost of upgrading/renewing the certification plus the costs of restarting the line and that will have to be spread over a relatively limited number of airframes

Can't see any bank/govt/local authority shelling out any aid in the current climate

Maybe sell it all to the Chinese?

[jackx123]

1-1. GENERAL.

a. The two objectives of Aircraft certification is to encourage and foster the development of civil aviation, and to ensure aviation safety. One method used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fulfill these objectives is the aircraft certification system through which aircraft design and modification must be approved. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) define the minimum required safety standards for FAA certification. By demonstrating compliance with these regulations, an aircraft modifier may obtain the necessary FAA approval for a modification.

b. Types of aircraft certification design approvals are determined by the magnitude and complexity of the change. Aircraft modifications can be subdivided into minor and major changes (14 CFR part 21, section 21.93). Minor changes are those which do not appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, airworthiness characteristics, power and noise characteristics, or emissions. Minor changes may be approved under a method acceptable to the Administrator before submitting to the Administrator any substantiating or descriptive data (14 CFR part 21, section 21.95). Major changes are those which are not minor. The type of FAA approval is applicable to a given modification. Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) are required for most major changes to existing Type Certificate (TC) products affected by a modification or installation when the change is not so intensive as to require a new TC (14 CFR part 21, section 21.19). STC's are not issued for minor changes or for approval of replacement and modification parts meeting the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, section 21.303. More than one STC may be necessary for a given modification. One STC may be required to approve the change to an engine or propeller, while a second STC may be necessary to approve the aircraft installation of the modified engine or propeller. An STC will probably be required if a significant amount of analysis or flight tests are required, or if extensive flight manual changes are necessary. An STC is issued through the FAA ACO or Engine Certification Office (ECO) which serves the geographic area of residence of the STC owner. Significant STC applications will require coordination with the Directorate, and may involve more time to process the application. See Order 8100-5.

NOTE: If there are any questions whether the modification is major or minor, the applicant should contact the ACO.

1-2. SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATES.

a. Privileges are associated with the issuance of an STC.

(1) Standard Airworthiness Certificates may be granted to specified aircraft that are modified in accordance with the STC.

(2) Multiple installations may be achieved on any certificated aircraft designated in accordance with the STC.

(3) Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) may be obtained by the STC holder to manufacture and sell parts/kits when it is demonstrated to the FAA Manufacturing Aviation Safety Inspector that the applicant has established a Fabrication Inspection System which meets the requirements of 21.303(h) to ensure that production is consistent to adequately duplicate the parts.

NOTE: The STC must be a "Multiple" Installation STC.

b. Responsibilities of the STC holder are the accomplishments of the modification or installation in accordance with the STC, and reporting to the FAA any failures, malfunctions, or defects per 14 CFR part 21, section 21.3. The holder of an STC, is also required to maintain an updated data file related to the STC.

c. Types of STC's are classified as either "one-only" STC (aircraft/engine/propeller) or "multiple" STC (aircraft/engine/propeller).

(1) "One-only" STC's apply to only one aircraft/engine/propeller serial number.

(2) "Multiple" STC's are necessary if two or more aircraft/engines/propellers are to be modified, and it must be demonstrated that the modification can be duplicated.

d. AC 21-5M, Announcement of Availability: Summary of STC's, is an FAA publication listing all existing MULTIPLE STC's for each aircraft model. A copy of this publication is available for review at the local FAA ACO, FSDO, and MIDO and a disk (updated once a year) may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). This publication may be reviewed to determine if another STC has been issued that would satisfy the intended requirement, and thereby prevent a duplication of effort.

NOTE: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44704; If the holder of an STC agrees to permit another person to use the certificate to modify an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, the holder will provide the other person with written evidence, in a form acceptable to the administrator, of that agreement. A person may change an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance based on an existing STC only if the person requesting the change is the holder of the STC or has permission from the holder to make the change. See chapter 9.

e. No STC activity is covered under our bilateral airworthiness agreements in any country except Canada. Additional guidance should be sought from AIR head quarters before proceeding on any STC project involving a foreign entity to any degree.

f. 14 CFR part 21, sections 21.137 and 21.601 require the FAA to make a determination that there will be no undue burden on the United States in administering the applicable requirements of Title 49, U.S. Code (Transportation), and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations when production approvals are requested at manufacturing facilities located outside the United States. Once the foregoing criteria have been satisfied by the certificate management Directorate and the PC holder, the FAA office responsible for certificate management of the PC holder should prepare a decision paper.

NOTE: The decision paper should be signed by the Aircraft Certification Directorate Manager who has certificate management responsibility for the PC holder prior to forwarding the decision paper to AIR-200 for concurrence and to AIR-1 for approval. See AC 21-24..

1-3. KEY ASPECTS OF THE STC APPLICATION PROCESS.

a. The applicant's responsibility for substantiating the modification is accomplished by showing the FAA that the modified aircraft/ engine/propeller complies with the applicable regulations.

b. FAA Form 8110-12, Application For Type Certificate, Production Certificate, or Supplemental Type Certificate, should be submitted to the geographically responsible ACO. See appendix 8. The most current version of AC 20-126, Aircraft Certification Service Field Office Listing, contains an address, telephone number, and geographic area listing of all ACOs.

c. Certification requirements are located in title 14 CFR's, or the predecessor to them, Civil Air Regulations. These regulations are extensive but only certain portions apply to a particular STC. See chapter 3.

d. Design feasibility should be discussed with a local FAA engineer to determine if the proposed modification design is feasible for approval BEFORE MODIFYING THE AIRCRAFT. An unapproved modified aircraft may be subject to grounding and Airworthiness Certificate removal.

e. Data submittals are to contain sufficient descriptive and substantiating/compliance data to completely describe the design of the modification or installation, and demonstrate that the design meets the applicable regulations. See chapter 5.

f. Inspections are for conformity and compliance. The conformity inspection verifies that the modification conforms to the descriptive data, while the compliance inspection verifies that the modification meets the applicable regulations. See chapter 6.

g. Tests may include verifying the component, ground requirements, and flight requirements. Component or certification testing demonstrates that detail parts, components, or subassemblies function as required to meet the applicable regulations. Ground testing and flight testing are performed to demonstrate the completed modification or installation complies with the regulations. See chapter 8.

h. Timing/scheduling necessary for obtaining FAA approval varies with the complexity of each modification. Inspections, meetings, tests, etc., should be planned, scheduled, and provided well in advance to the FAA to assure appropriate personnel are available. Scheduling flight tests has the added complication of weather. All proposed changes to the schedule should be kept to a minimum and provided to the FAA immediately for concurrence.

i. Use of designees authorized by the FAA to approve data, conduct inspections, witness tests, etc., may expedite the approval of a modification. See chapter 4.

j. Issuance of an STC is the final product and goal of the application process. See chapter 2 and chapter 9.

k. Subsequent change procedures to the original substantiating data should be submitted for approval and inclusion in the FAA data files. Major changes must be FAA approved prior to inclusion in the design data. Minor changes may be accom-plished in any manner found acceptable to the FAA. See 14 CFR part 21, sections 21.95 and 21.97.

[Heathrow Harry]

very interesting but it doesn't tell us how much it will cost ................

[jackx123]

as far as i can read into this a new development of ERJ 140 was US$45 million so since this will be potentially upgraded avionics, wings and engines which affect w/b requiring multiple STC (speaking FAA) i'd guess $6-7 million.

Hopefully we can get a prune with experience to comment more precisely.

However, if they aim at a replacement for 300+ aircraft the cost is minimal not withstanding expanding sales with say another 200++. Considering fuel prices and pax expectations of more non-stop routes it seems IMHO that t-prop is the way to go.

So. despite some deragatory comments SAAB might be on to something very good.

[DaveReidUK]

as far as i can read into this a new development of ERJ 140 was US$45 million so since this will be potentially upgraded avionics, wings and engines which affect w/b requiring multiple STC (speaking FAA) i'd guess $6-7 million.

You're kidding, of course.

If Saab could have upgraded the avionics, airframe and engines on the 2000 for not much more than the selling price of a single aircraft, don't you think they would have done it years ago ?

Anyway, we're clearly not talking about a warmed-over 58-seater here, but a brand-new aircraft programme in the 90+ seat size bracket. In round numbers, I'd say a couple of US$billion in development costs.

[Heathrow Harry]

the problem isn't the purchase cost of the new electronics and the new screens - it's the time and cost involved in re-certification

The US magazine "Flying" reckoned last month that it was a basic USD 100 mm to certify even the smallest plane in the US these days never mind a full-on passenger aircraft

As Davereiduk says you're really talking about a new-build 90 seater with all that implies and not just a bolt-on upgrade to the airframes currently flying

If Embraer aren't interested in building a new turboprop it suggests the market is limited

[Dufo]

There are already packages available to upgrade avionics on SF340 that are less than $1mil US an aircraft.

For example?

[jackx123]

Dave, not sure why you pull "billions" out of the hat.

there was once a boeing developed called 737-100 that grew and grew without costing the billions. it was considered a failure at the beginning but, the rest is history as they say.

[DaveReidUK]

Dave, not sure why you pull "billions" out of the hat.

More than 20 years ago, the non-recurring costs for developing a 44-seat regional jet (which never got beyond the drawing board) were calculated at US2bn.

Most of the airlines to whom we presented the project expressed scepticism that it could be done so cheaply.

Here, we're talking about an aircraft twice the size, albeit a turboprop rather than a jet.

How much do you think it will cost to develop, then ?

[Golden Rivit]

This is why all the regional,deice booted turbo props are now "snow birds"(relegated to warmer climates) in the USA,With exception of the low wing loaded 100,200 and 300 series dash 8's.
litigation.
Turboprop Aircraft Unsafe In Ice :: The Wolk Law Firm :: Philadelphia, PA (http://www.airlaw.com/Commentaries/General-Commentaries/Turboprop-Unsafe-In-Ice.asp)

[henra]

I think it's more than unfair to say that the ATR is unsafe because of the Roselawn accident some two decades ago. ATR have completely redesigned the Icing awareness systems, training and de-icing systems to ensure that another similar accident does not occur again.


Although I wouldn't say the ATR is an unsafe aircraft, I'm afraid your statement is a tad overoptimistic.

Since these modifications at least 2 more ATR- 72 (excluding UTAir) have dropped from cruise altitude due to icing.
Admittedly the crew did not adhere to the procedures.
But still there is no other modern passenger transport aircraft with a similar rate of icing accidents even with the modifications applied.

[jackx123]

Douglas DC-3 1936 4.3 Million
Douglas DC-6 1946 144 Million
Boeing 707 1958 1.3 Billion
Boeing 747 1970 3.7 Billion
Boeing 777 1995 7.0 Billion
Airbus A380 2007 14.4 Billion

all figures in US$ 2004 constant values

however, we are talking about STC and not new development :ok:

[goodpic]

Colgan Q400 accident:

Colgan Flight 3407 NTSB Animation of Buffalo Accident Q400 - YouTube

Any q400 drivers here? The initial stick shaker activation was the result of the lately applied power after landing gear extension.

The nose was kept up until the the plane really stalled and the nose went down .

There's a switch called "increase ref speed"-this shall be switched on as you encounter icing and switch on the boots. In this case the red bar will come up with 20 knots on the speed tape. That means the stick shaker will be on at a speed 20 knots faster than usual, in order to simulate the degraded performance of the wings due to ice/boot operation.

They were tired-speed dropped-switch was on-speed approached the top of the red bar much quicker than usual-stick shaker on-confusion.

Flap retraction during the stalled condition-they thought about? tailplane icing?-speculation-but if you look at the NASA video on tailplane icing that's exactly what it says. (and it starts with:tailplane icing is an issue with light planes and turboprops-and not planes with hyd actuated elevators).

[DaveReidUK]

however, we are talking about STC and not new development


You might be. I'm talking about an all-new aircraft.

The notion that a 90-seater could be developed from the Saab 2000 is ludicrous.

[Cyrano]

The notion that a 90-seater could be developed from the Saab 2000 is ludicrous.

Indeed, and I wasn't aware it was being proposed in this (very interesting) thread. There has been one strand talking about a hypothetical 90-seat new design, and another (maybe two) talking about the possibility of putting an updated S2000, or even S340, with modern systems, back in production. These are fundamentally different markets and fundamentally different development program price tags and there isn't really any overlap between the 30-50 seat question and the 90 seat one. One could perhaps manage to stretch the S2000 slightly, but only slightly, and 50 seats is a fairly "standard" size unless you can get close to 70, which may well already be impractical.

[Castle Don]

FlyerGuy,

With all due respect......sad as it is, the Colgan accident had nothing to with icing. Unfortunately it was 2 underqualified/inexperienced pilots making a major mistake. The icing they experienced was fairly insignificant compared with the conditions encountered daily by hundreds of other turboprop pilots all over the World. They stalled a fully serviceable aircraft then applied utterly flawed control techniques, leading to.......well, we know the rest.

The ridiculous aspect of the whole affair is the NTSB fixation on fatigue. Flight crew fatigue and overwork is most certainly a global issue, however, I am almost certain that the outcome in the Buffalo incident would have been the same even if the crew had been alert and rested. It was a fundamental stick and rudder failure.

My final comment is.........I have many years experience with the SF340 and have the highest respect for the people who designed it, some of whom I have met. If anyone is designing a "new" turboprop, then I have non doubt the SAAB folks will do a superb job as usual. I wish them all the best.

[ZeeDoktor]

From a driver's perspective, both SF34 and SB20 (to use the correct type identifiers) are/were very well engineered AC. The SB20's I flew were full glass with FMS, so unlike someone else suggested, an avionics upgrade is certainly not required! They're fast, economical and apart from being slightly overpowered (so much so that the YD was a MEL item), very safe to operate. SB20 as of this writing has 2 all time hull losses, neither with fatalities. One where mechanics taxied into a closed hangar door, the other when former colleagues of mine made some poor decisions and stripped it of its landing gear after touchdown. The SF34, given the much larger number of units delivered, has an even more impressive record. Only 0.8% of all airframes were involved in fatal incidents, a number similar to Dash-8's (0.5%), and compares very favourably to ATR's 42/72, both variants lost 2.5% of their fleet in fatals, that's a safety record 3 times worse than Saab/Dash!

Regional air transport (which is the market for this sort of aircraft) has its inherent dangers with generally less experienced pilots, and sometimes lesser capable and more overworked crew. It's therefore no surprise that regional turboprops suffer higher accident rates than long range... or do they!? Let's have a look at the hull loss numbers involving fatalities as a percentage of the manufactured fleet, extracted from ASN, terrorism not counted, in ascending order:

SB20: 0%
B777: 0%
A340: 0%

A318-321: 0.2%
A330: 0.3%
B767: 0.4%
DH8x: 0.5%
B757: 0.5%
SF34: 0.8%

B737: 1.4%
B747: 1.4%
AT4x/AT7x: 2.5%
A310: 3%
JS31/41: 3%
B190: 3.7%
SW4: 5%

Well who'd have thought it? Hull loss rates lower than 1% are pretty good even for bigger aircraft and probably indicate an air frame and systems that are forgiving. I'd say there is some evidence in those numbers stating that Saab made two fantastic aircraft, and I would welcome them back on the scene!

I haven't been inside a SB20 in about 20 years, however, fairly regularly use Rex's services here in Oz serviced by SF34s, and it's a clear cut case: Even though the average Rex crew tends to frighten me, I'm fairly confident the hardware is OK. That can't be said for some other locals here I refuse to board, such as Aeropelican's Jetstreams (3% hull loss) or anyone flying Metros for that matter (5% fleet hull loss).

Just the Doctor's opinion, but with some interesting numbers!

[Island-Flyer]

Flying the DHC-8 and ATR I can tell you both have good and bad aspects. Nothing beats the DHC-8 into short runways and the Q400 has great speed that can compete easily with jets on short haul flights (a flight from PHNL-PHOG is 2 minutes longer on a Q400 vs a B717). However the ATR has a lot of nice piloting features and engine protections, plus the ATR-72 is more fuel efficient than the Q400 but climbs slower.

I can't speak much to icing and while I found the ATR to be extremely tricky in icing I don't think it's unsafe. Pilots just must observe the precautions listed in the oeprating practices of the aircraft.

That said, I hope Saab does enter the TP market. In Hawaii turboprops can easily outperform jets due to the constant engine cycles that eat through the B717, B737 and CRJ engines. The 30-52 seat TP market has really only been serviced by ATR since Bombardier abandoned it and some more competition would be welcome.

[DaveReidUK]

In Hawaii turboprops can easily outperform jets due to the constant engine cycles that eat through the B717, B737 and CRJ engines.


Could you explain a bit more about the link between the two, please ?

The 30-52 seat TP market has really only been serviced by ATR since Bombardier abandoned it and some more competition would be welcome.

IMHO Saab are unlikely to compete in that market.

[Island-Flyer]

Could you explain a bit more about the link between the two, please ?

In Hawaii there are four major players that operate inter-island. Hawaiian Airlines, island Air, Go! and Aloha Air Cargo. Hawaiian and Go! operate jets, Island Air operates turboprops and Aloha operates a mixed fleet of jets and turboprops.

Average inter-island stage length is about 38 minutes, which puts a tremendous amount of cycles on the engines over the course of a flight day. I believe most inter-island aircraft operate 16-20 cycles per day depending on their routing. In this environment it has been noted that while the TP aircraft have required an average of two engine replacements over the last five year period, the jet operators have nearly double that average.

An inquiry was placed with Rolls Royce on the cause of this problem (since the B717 fleet is equipped with the BR715). I was curious because one of my previous employers operated Gulfstream V aircraft very heavily and I the BR710 was extremely reliable. basically what i was told is the engine's life is dictated by an average 1 hour stage length for cooling at altitude during its run. Since aircraft in Hawaii rarely exceed 1 hour during flight legs and the engines are usually operated below FL200 that there is insufficient cooling. Combine this with a higher number of high stress periods of flight (start and takeoff) and there will be heavy wear on what is otherwise a very reliable engine, which requires increased unscheduled engine replacements. The CRJ has similar problems with the CF34.

On the other side, the Pratt & Whitney 100 series is designed around the short commuter needs. The engine has been built with a 45 minute stage length as "ideal minimum" (according to figures provided by Bombardier) and as such can handle more frequent starts and takeoffs.

While I can't speak for the technical details of this, I can tell you the figures make a compelling business case for the effectiveness of turboprop aircraft in the >45 minute stage length versus jet aircraft. This case goes beyond the fuel efficiency to engine life span.

[nomorecatering]

So would you like to see the S340 done to modernise it.

Garmin G5000 cockpit

New engines.

Some more speed...say 320 kts ?

There are many routes that just cant service a 50 seater and theres not much to choose from for new airframes.

[DaveReidUK]

While I can't speak for the technical details of this, I can tell you the figures make a compelling business case for the effectiveness of turboprop aircraft in the >45 minute stage length versus jet aircraft. This case goes beyond the fuel efficiency to engine life span.

OK, understood now. I'd assumed that when you referred to turboprops outperforming jets, you were talking about their flight characteristics rather than economics.

[Heathrow Harry]

I guess the REAL question is what is the size of the 50 seat (and under) market?

The fact is that the current players don't think it's worthwhile

[Torquelink]

The question really boils down to seat-km cost. Other than in a few special cases, the days when yields on regional routes were high enough to cover the costs of a 34 - 50 seater - whether jet or turboprop - are gone. In the US cost-plus contract flying for the majors has either gone or become hugely unprofitable, and in Europe and other places the advent of pile 'em high sell 'em cheap LCCs has severely limited the opportunities for traditional regional aircraft flying. It seems that 70 seats is around the minimum that can deliver competitive seat-km costs and, although the ATR42 remains in production, it is being comprehensively outsold by the ATR72.

Therefore, it is is difficult to see where a warmed-over SB20 would gain traction - the nature of the beast means it needs to use its speed to gain additional rotations per day to compensate for its higher costs - just like the Q400 vs the ATR72 - and also operate in an environment where it can attract premium yields. There just don't seem to be that many such combinations around. All of which would seem to indicate that, if they are to re-enter the market, Saab would look at an all-new larger aircraft. But, if they did, ATR and Bombardier would be there first with much lower cost derivatives no doubt using the same engine technology.

Interesting times!

[jackx123]

tork:
agree BUT, remember you also need to consider why people pay for first class tickets in the first place.

if SAAB can come up with metal that sniffs jet but still maintain prop cost of say 2-3h legs which means europe then i see a real business case.

[Torquelink]

Jack,

I agree but I think in Europe at least, no-one can get the premiums they used to - even LH is pushing more seats into every short hall airframe and diluting the product to reflect the actual yields they're getting in the face of the LCCs. With the possible exception of BA's LCY - JFK op, the current yield environment just doesn't seem to support operations focused exclusively on high yield operations. But if you start with equipment that has to generate high yields to be successful (i.e. a 50 pax high speed turboprop or RJ) options to reconfigure the aircraft to enhance overall revenues are limited. I guess there might have been a small window post-9/11 and pre 2008 when there were enough unlimited expense-account bankers flying around to make a high yield network feasible but I think that window is now well and truly closed!

[Heathrow Harry]

think Torquelinks last couple of posts really close this issue out - very well argued

[jackx123]

heathrow:

the post is related to what new/revamped aircraft SAAB might have in mind and so far the discussions have evolved around competition and conclusively stated that it's not worthwhile for SAAB to engage contrary to SAAB's own opinion.

it seems most operators are very happy with SAAB 340/2000 and therefore there is an argument on the table.

[THE ORACLE]

Gents, is the glass half full or is it half empty?

Saab have said they are looking to understand both the current market and the possibilities for exploiting a niche'.

Saab's history is one of innovation and definitely thinking outside of the square and some of the unique operational characteristics of their Gripen demonstrate their abilities in this regard.

Bombardier dumped their smaller TP airframes because they wanted to optimise their offering for the populous markets in North America and Europe. By streamlining and offshoring production of Q400 sub assemblies (firstly to Japan and ultimately to Mexico) they oped to minimise costs. ATR have a similar view to Bombardier concerning their major target markets and the features incorporated into the 600 series confirm it as a comfortable short hauler for transport between populous city pairs.

Saab has always been an innovator (they were the first to offer EFIS in a regional TP and convinced a sceptical market that such innovations would prove to be much more cost effective than "stream driven" instruments) and they were right!!

There are 400+ SF34s and 58 of the 63 SB 2000's flying every day world wide. The world wide fleet of 29 to 38 seat TPs numbers somewhere between a thousand and fifteen hundred units and currently there is no replacement.

Despite the prospect for life extension programmes to current airframes (including Saab) there may well be potential for an innovative manufacturer to offer a cost effective current technology aircraft to the existing market segment not serviced by ATR or Bombardier.

Such a project has definite potential and would be less speculative and far safer, from a cost containment viewpoint, than developing a new 90+ seat high technology, high speed and "green" TP for an untested market segment.

History does have a way of repeating itself and Saab deliberately sized the 340 to fit between the Dash 8-100 (which was in production) and the EMB-120 (which was in development).

If they get both their offering and their costs right, they may well profit from their industry and that seems very much up Saab's street!

[CargoOne]

it seems most operators are very happy with SAAB 340/2000

This is very bold statement. What leads you to this idea? Are you a part of Saab operators community?

There are 400+ SF34s and 58 of the 63 SB 2000's flying every day world wide

Incorrect. I don't have 2000 data at hands but last year there was less than 300 SF340 in operation. To be exact last Saab bulletin quotes 239 in airline service, 62 in other operation, 111 stored and 44 decommissioned. Also note some units listed as in service could be in fact stored by airline.

[Heathrow Harry]

there are still DC-3's in service and you could make a good case for a replacement but.............................

[twochai]

Despite the prospect for life extension programmes to current airframes (including Saab) there may well be potential for an innovative manufacturer to offer a cost effective current technology aircraft to the existing market segment not serviced by ATR or Bombardier.

Sorry, but the window of economic viability on any sort of scale to support a 50 seater has passed, particularly one with 6,000 ESHP (thermodynamic) engines, has passed.

70 to 90 seats is the current point of entry for a turbo prop, 100-130 seats for a jet..

[evansb]

Well now, with that said, dust off the LET-610/Ayers 7000 and produce it with current available improvements. Also, take a look at the Xian MA700. Both had (have) potential in this slot, especially since they have all flown. The LET-610 and MA700 airliners are not drawing board divas. I presently reside in a small city where a 60-seat airliner is ideal.

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm sure there is a small market for 50 -60 seaters but its not attractive enough to have a mid size manufacturer develop or redevelop an aircraft for it

perhaps some low rate production by Russian/Chinese/Australian companies might fill the slot but its never going to be a very large market

[jackx123]

Some correction: there are less that 40 SF340 in operation since after the initial batch of 40 SAAB renamed the aircraft to SAAB 340A/B/Plus

It is fair to say "With no new 30-seaters in production, these aircraft are attracting steady interest around the globe from current Saab 340 operators, startups and regional airlines looking to expand their services".

And Cargo: From SAL's own December 2011 report there were 399 operational SAAB 340 and 58 SAAB 2000. Obviously conflicting numbers.

http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/upload/fil_20111229182814.pdf

Some interesting facts in this article:

Jet vs. Turboprop – a debate that dates from the early 1950s | AirInsight (http://airinsight.com/2011/08/19/jet-vs-turboprop-a-debate-that-dates-from-the-early-1950s/)

[CargoOne]

jackx123

SF340 is official type designator for Saab 340, applicable to all produced Saabs 340. There is no conflict of information as it can only happen when conflicting data is coming from the similar weight sources. Your data coming from SAL which is nothing more than sales & marketing BS. My numbers are coming from Saab 340 Reliability Report published by Saab AB as TC holder for operators and it contains the actual data about every single S/N produced. I don't think this document is published in open sources.

This report presents an evaluation of the Saab 340 aircraft performance in operation.
The information presented is based upon monthly data as received from each reporting operator.
All the definitions and computations comply substantially with directives specified in the “World Airlines Technical Operations Glossary”.
Please note the following:
The “Aircraft History” section includes information, which has come to our attention as of the “Report Date”.
The components found in the “Component Reliability” section are an assortment of mainly “repairables” and a number of “consumables” of
interest. Efforts to improve this section are an on-going process.
Please, do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, suggestions or other thoughts concerning this report.
The report is prepared and published by:
Saab AB
Support and Services
Aircraft Services Division

[Cyrano]

FWIW, Ascend database shows 280 Saab 340s (all models) in service and a further 119 in storage. That's a total of 399 which is probably SAL's "marketing" number.

Bear in mind that the potential replacement market for a (hypothetical) new-build turboprop in this size category is not just existing SF340 operators but also many existing operators of Dash 8-100/200s (325 in service), E120s (197 in service), Do328s (121 in service), J41s (70 in service),...

[CelticRambler]

Here we go again. :rolleyes: The assembled "wisdom" says that anyone developing a new aircraft model should target the existing market and go head-to-head with the current vendors, yet all the well-founded examples indicate that there is a gaping hole in the 18-24-36 seat range.

The only reason there is no apparent demand for this size of aircraft is because operators have no choice other than a bunch of machines designed and built a couple of decades before the end of the last century when the technological and socio-economic landscape was very different.

Now that public funding for major road and rail projects is drying up, inter-regional air travel has every chance of recapturing the attention of today's travellers. I, for one, can't wait for a manufacturer to deliver something small, fast and efficient because there's a market I want to exploit.

[DaveReidUK]

Another reason for the apparent lack of demand for this size of aircraft could be that there isn't any.

[maybegunnadoo]

Heres some ideas.....What about a real leap and set it up for single pilot ops. The rules on Single pilot ops are very outdated particularly with modern systems. The only difference between a 10 seater hitting the ground and a 34 seater is the size of the hole! Also I believe Boeing have patented a autoland/anti-terrorist lockout system with control input from a ground based operation. Also the Global Hawk is 737 sized and flys from a desk...

All you need is the trained dog to do the biting.:}

[THE ORACLE]

Cyrano,

Thank you for putting forward some additional perspective with the possible numbers of other aircraft types (additional to saab) currently flying in the 29 to 50 seat market segment.

Gents, this is a lively and interesting conversation.

After the succcess of Saabs SF34, in all its variants, Saab had intended to introduce a "C" model, which would have retained the original airframe, with some minor modifications and incorporated 2,000 to 2,200 ESHP engines offering a cruise speed of 350KTAS+ at F350.

Before proceeeding, Saab with its usual prudence, surveyed the market and the feeback they received from 100 existing and potential operators (at that time) resulted in the SB 2000.

Saab, undoubtedly will complete a thorough analysis of the entire world market and not just the populous European and North American markets segments. Any decisions they make will be in the full knowledge that a lack of North American sales ultimately led to production stopping in 1996.

Saab was a casualty of a "perfect storm scenario" in 1996, with cheap jet fuel combined with a lengthy FAA certification delay (MECs converted to PECs) with the SB 2000, Bank of Brazil and Bank of Canada offering never to be repeated financing deals in support of their national 50 seat jet products (EMB and CRJ) and finally the Roselawn Indiana ATR crash which precipiated an inquiry that questioned turboprop safety in icing conditions.

These factors drove a market rationalisation, which ultimately stalled production with the remaining manufacturers (ATR and Bombardier) and their prodiction figures remained in the doldrums until financial imperatives post September 11 forced a return to service of mothballed, yet cost effective TP's.

Whatever decisions Saab make will be with the full knowledge of these prior events and circumstances and it will be interesting to learn their full views on what might succeed in the current environment.

[Cyrano]

Another reason for the apparent lack of demand for this size of aircraft could be that there isn't any.

There are about 1000 aircraft in the 29-37 seat category currently in operation.

Of course the operators of many of these depend on low capital costs (so may not be able or willing to buy a new aircraft), and some others may perhaps be able to upgauge to an ATR or other 50-seater, but with respect, I find it hard to accept the assertion that there is no demand for this aircraft size when so many remain in operation.

[jackx123]

and a TP has almost half DOC from a jet box. with fuel prices increasing TP's will be even more competitive.

[Torquelink]

Of course the operators of many of these depend on low capital costs (so may not be able or willing to buy a new aircraft), and some others may perhaps be able to upgauge to an ATR or other 50-seater, but with respect, I find it hard to accept the assertion that there is no demand for this aircraft size when so many remain in operation

I think that this is the key to the debate - and where Saab's analysts will be focusing their attention. All things being equal, there will be a demand for the replacement of 340s, 120s, 360s etc but price/funding will be critical. Most, although not all, markets for these aircraft are at the impoverished end of the spectrum so potential users will not be able to buy because they won't get the credit and therefore will need to lease. However, given that their operations are marginally profitable anyway while operating well written down older aircraft, they won't be able to pay much in the way of rental and still make the operation profitable - even allowing for the likely reduction in fuel burn and maintenance costs of a new aircraft. The level of rental which these carriers can afford to pay dictates the maximum value the manufacturer can realise for each unit - and it won't be much. When you add the fact that there is a minimum non-recurring cost threshhold associated with developing a brand-new twin-engined public transport passenger aircraft almost regardless of size, you can see that optimising it at less than 40 or even 50 seats is just loading the dice against you. Even if it were possible to restart 340 production today without incorporating any new bells or whistles, Saab would be unlikely generate lease rates and therefore values high enough to cover costs. And, of course, as this is pretty much a lease-only market which conventional lessors will be unlikely to touch, the manufacturer will, in effect, act as lessor just as Saab, Shorts, DHC did in the past - and that's no way to build a genuinely successful programme.

As mentioned in other posts, the only way the 340, 120, 360 replacement market is likely to be satisfied is for a competent design to emerge from a competent manufacturer in an emerging very low cost country where a competent aircraft could be built at a price which works for the manufacturer and at a rental which works for the market.

[jackx123]

Tork:

Please provide the P&L for your reasoning, if available. This is highly interesting stuff indeed.

Thanks.

[THE ORACLE]

Torque,

I think you have made the essential "link" in this discusssion thus far and nailed it!!

Prior to the press release confirming the "advanced design team study", Saab Aircraft Leasing were planning to retire from the leasing business and had advised the market accordingly.

Does this study initiative indicate S.A.L. may change their mind if production does re-commences in order to continue providing this essential element between the factory and many aircraft operators?

Saab had been doing some work with Hindustani Aviation and a few years back Saab also announced they had invested in some production capability in a former eastern bloc state (possibly Lithuania?). Either location would afford access to cheap labour for any future production initiative, with Saab controlling both the process and product quality to guarantee the result.

Perhaps a combination of the above elements and updated systems and powerplants might translate into a low risk business plan for an aircraft that will find favour within a limited market and be an acceptable commercal risk to the Saab Board!

As Saab AB seems to currently have a very healthy balance sheet with a surplus of funds to invest, an arrangement such as described, would provide the means to both conservatively manage a new production venture and mitigate some of the high end risks associated with such a capital intensive and speculative project.

To do otherwise would be folly and almost inevitably result in a situation such as Bombardier's aircraft production at the moment with several "open" and 'partially open' production lines and one developmental line ("C" Series), all of which are bleeding cash, while the business searches for new orders in what seems a crowded market. The very situation Saab was in for an extended period prior to closing production in 1996.

[stilton]

I thought the SF340 was a good aeroplane.


But whoever designed those Pilot seats should be made to sit in them for a 6 leg day.


They were painful beyond belief.

[Torquelink]

Oracle,

Now that is indeed an interesting perspective - I had always supposed that having to act as lessor for the aircraft that one had produced oneself was a problem and not an opportunity - it certainly was for the Shed at Shorts but that could be because the credits in general were so rubbish that the aircraft were constantly being repossessed. But if, as you suggest, you build a portfolio of good credits paying commercial rentals then the leasing vehicle becomes a profitable venture in its own right and maybe SAL has been/is that. After all, it is generally supposed that aircraft lessors are among the most profitable elements of the aviation industry. Thus for SAL to replenish their fleet by producing updated aircraft in a low-cost country and retain the customer support business etc could be an interesting opportunity.

You are so right that Saab do not want to follow the current rather sorry example of Bombardier. They seem to have taken their foot off the gas on all current programmes leading to rapidly diminishing backlogs and devoted all efforts to the C Series which is itself stuck between Embraer and the NEO/MAX - not a happy position to be in.

Jackxx

P&Ls are way above my pay grade. All I can say is having been intimately involved in a variety of regional and mainstream aircraft programmes the basic thrust of my argument is correct and borne out by experience. The regional / utility end of the market clearly needs new aircraft but supplying them on a genuinely commercial basis is likely to be a nightmare.

[CargoOne]

I agree with most of what Torquelink said.

33 seats (yeah you can fit as much as 36 into SF340 but this is much hardcore than 189 in 738) market is balancing on the edge of break-even. Basically to make a sort of low profit on SF340 you have to charge pax EUR 100 per hour flown at somewhat reasonably good load factor. And we talking about aircraft with market lease rate ranging from 20 to 30k USD. If you have a new machine at USD 12m cost, lease rate would be in 100-150k area and there is no way you can justify it with 33 seater at the current market except a very few niche routes.

[The Ancient Geek]

If a 35 seat airliner is as uneconomic as you claim maybe you could explain how the DHC6-400 which only seats 19 has a healthy order book.

There are many factors at play here, for example island flights are often subsidised for social and development reasons. Thin feeder routes are often subsidised by the airlines that they feed. Many destinations in remote and less developed areas can only be served by STOL aircraft, etc.

[THE ORACLE]

Cargo,

Please accept a minor correction, with respect!

The SF34 was offered in a number of flexible configurations. As a 34 seater it can accommodate up to 38 persons with the last 5 being infants in infant seat belts and of course subject to an individual State's operational regulations. Several SF34's were produced originally for the Japanese market with 36 full size passenger seats (12 seat rows with a forward (galley/toilet)) combination and these are now all in Australia. There was even a 'Combi' version produced for combining passengers with freight and this model too is in Australia.

The SB 2000 is even more flexible and was offered with 47 to 50 passenger seats and a full width "hot" aft galley and all of the original airframes were produced to this specification. Saab, however, offer a modification to the SB 2000 which replaces the aft galley with the forward (galley/toilet) which then provides for up to 58 passenger seats in the existing airframe.

On short haul flights (and 60 minutes in an SB2000,depending on variables of wind and temperature, etc., equates to between a 340 to 370 NM operating radius) the cabin could be quite tolerable for most passengers. Particularly so if Saab were to remanufacture with the new, slimline and more comfortable passenger seating which was showcased at their last two annual operators conferences.

[CargoOne]

Oracle,

Honestly those seats were not looking trustworthy at all to me, I don't believe they are robust enough. We've recently installed new super slim seats on a jet fleet and there is no comparison in how they constructed.

[DaveReidUK]

Basically to make a sort of low profit on SF340 you have to charge pax EUR 100 per hour flown at somewhat reasonably good load factor.

Spot on.

Revenue required per passenger per hour, at a realistic load factor, and taking into account direct and indirect operating costs (and profit) illustrates perfectly why the 19-50 seat market is now so unattractive to manufacturers (Saab included).

If a 35 seat airliner is as uneconomic as you claim maybe you could explain how the DHC6-400 which only seats 19 has a healthy order book.

Much though I love the Twotter, classing it as an "airliner" is stretching things a bit - it has always been aimed at markets where its short-field performance is a bonus and/or its lack of pressurisation doesn't matter.

[The Ancient Geek]

Indeed, but the passengers realise that short flights into difficult places are expensive. For the extreme example of a high seat/mile ticket cost take a look at Westray to Papa Westray.

If the punters are willing to pay you can make a profit.

[Seven Fifty Seven]

Oracle, one of those full 36 seat variant SF340s is actually in the Loganair Fleet in Scotland. They have a mix of 33, 34 and 36 seat 340s. Nothing can do what those SAABs currently do, day in day out, in all weather, up to 35 kt crosswind. Nothing compares to the load they carry and frequency of operations in all weather for that type of business. The US operators may have relegated them to warmer climes, but the UK, Europe and Scandinavia certainly have not (and you don't see them falling out of the sky here). If you actually fly the aircraft the way SAAB specify in the AFM in icing conditions, then they are good, solid and safe machines. It's actually airspeed (or lack of) in icing conditions that kills, not ice. Respect for these flying conditions, crew training and adherance SOPs keep things safe. I'd take a SAAB 340 over a J41 any day. If they can come up with an affordable flight deck and cabin upgrade (and maybe even an engine intake anti-ice upgrade) they will still be hard to beat in 10 years time on this type of route network.

[The Ancient Geek]

In the USA and southern europe there are good road and rail links almost everywhere so short haul airlines are under price pressure and it may be difficult to make smaller aircraft pay.

As soon as the geography gets in the way the alternatives become less credible or often non-existant. In these cases an airline can charge whatever it takes and the passengers will pay. Few pasengers will consider heaving their guts up for hours on a ferry in rough seas when there is an island hopping airline available unless they are seriously skint.
Even fewer will have the courage to face the roads in (for example) Nepal or the Andes.

[jackx123]

We'll be all flying props in the future it seems:
Prop Planes: The Future of Eco-Friendly Aviation? (http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/prop-planes-the-future-of-eco-friendly-aviation-39649/)

However, SAAB seems to have a winning formula and looking at potential cost to come up with revamped design the non-recurring cost will certainly be smaller than that of a new design.

Non-recurring
Engineering
Tooling
Development Support
Flight Test

Recurring
Recurring Costs
Engineering
Tooling
Manufacturing
Material
Quality Assurance

Geek: I think this is precisely SAAB's strategy looking at where their current models are operating.

[DaveReidUK]

I think this is precisely SAAB's strategy looking at where their current models are operating.

What Saab have done in the past doesn't necessarily have any bearing at all on their future strategy.

I'd be surprised if they are spending any time at all debating on whether to warm over a 1980s design.

[grimmrad]

Cash rich? Saab is bankrupt - at least the car division - and seems thank god to be bought by a investor interested in producing electric cars.

[fightthepower]

@grimmrad:

No they are not. Saab Automobile is a completely seperate company and only shares a name with Saab AB, which is the one who used to make civil aircraft but nowadays mostly does defense technology work including the Saab fighter jets.

[stepwilk]

Saab is bankrupt - at least the car division

Thats like saying, "Rolls-Royce is bankrupt--at least the car division..."

[Heathrow Harry]

Geek - the number of places where people are rich enough to pay whatever it takes to fly rather than take a ferry is seriously limited

Even the Scilly Islands - hardly the 3rd world - has people using the damn ferry rather than pay the cost of flying - and that truly is awful an awful boat

[The Ancient Geek]

The Scillies are a rather odd case because the ferry and the airline are operated by the same company. In general the ferry caters for more local traffic from Cornwall whereas the Twotters are aimed at the longer haul from Bristol, Exeter and London via Newquay. In season, however, it is almost impossible to get an air ticket unless you book months in advance so the ferry takes up the slack and passengers face a long road trip of, for example, 4 hours from Bristol to the ferry.

The Twotters make a good profit because they are full for most of the year.

This situation effectively limits the number of visitors to suit the limited accommodation on the islands.

[Island-Flyer]

Many of the airports in Hawaii are unable to support larger aircraft and currently are only serviced by Caravans. This makes service unreliable because in the US single engine aircraft essentially cannot fly IMC unless the visibility ad ceiling is such that they can break out of the clouds and be within gliding distance to shore. This poses a problem at a number of airports.

Additionally there is poor road infrastructure to and from the towns serviced so air travel is the only practical means of transportation. The loads don't warrant a Q400 or even an ATR-42 so a 19-seat aircraft like a DHC-6 is the only sensible option. Currently none service these airports due to their atrocious acquisition price. DHC-8 aircraft service a number of the rural communities but can barely pull a 50% load factor. Pricing must be kept low so the airlines operate a slow loss, only supplemented by tourist destinations where they can charge more during peak travel months.

This is a scene repeated all over the world, in Canada, Alaska, South America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. Just because a 19-seat or 30-seat airliner doesn't make sense from London to Frankfurt or Chicago to Cleveland doesn't mean there is no market for other models. The number of DHC-6, DHC-8-100 and BE-1900 aircraft in service speak to the need for many air carriers to produce a 30-40 seat airliner with equivalent operating costs.

Getting the best CASM isn't always the most practical assessment of an aircraft. If you can only fill 40% of your Q400 maybe it isn't the aircraft for that market.

[ms21043]

a 19-seat aircraft like a DHC-6 is the only sensible option. Currently none service these airports due to their atrocious acquisition price. Flying a 19 seat airplane in the US under part 121 rules tends not to be cost effective... Twin Otters, as much as I love them, don't qualify anyway.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Pricing must be kept low"

exactly - which is why most of us don't think there is a serious market for a new build (or seriously updated ) SAAB

[The Ancient Geek]

The price which can be charged for a flight depends on the alternative methods of getting to the same place.

If the flight is the only viable way to get there the price is irrelevant, there are plenty of places in the world where there is no viable alternative. OTOH in developed nations such as the USA there is almost always a good road or rail link which just takes more time. Here the extra cost of the flight needs to be justified against the cheaper but longer option and prices are under pressure.

Contrary to common belief life does exist outside of the USA. :)

[Island-Flyer]

Flying a 19 seat airplane in the US under part 121 rules tends not to be cost effective... Twin Otters, as much as I love them, don't qualify anyway. Yeah I know they aren't Part 25 or Commuter category certified. there are waivers, in fact one operator (whose name escapes me at the moment, I apologize) is currently operating Twin Otters under Part 121. The Beech 1900D seems to be a good 19-seat airliner that's still in fairly heavy use even in the US. Great Lakes operates a fleet of 32 of them.

But generally I do agree the 19-seat is the bottom of the airliner world and thus difficult to make profitable. However if you can only sell 15 seats on a leg on average then a 19-seat option is certainly more cost effective than a 37-seat or 78-seat option.

My point was that how profitable an aircraft can be on a route is linked with how many seats can be expected to be sold on that route. Overarching comments like "there is no market for a 30-seat airliner" is flawed by the assumption that markets can yield growth beyond 20-30 passengers per leg. There are many markets worldwide that can't grow beyond that and still require air service.

[Heathrow Harry]

Island

I don't think we nay-sayers disagree that there are routes which can only be reasonably flown by small aircraft - the problem is how many passengers can you get to pay the price needed for lease/purchase of an up-to-date aircraft

When you go around places like the S Pacific either the countries subsidise (very heavily) the service or they are v small aircraft or they are very old aircraft

[jackx123]

hence a replacement market exists :ok:

[CelticRambler]

the problem is how many passengers can you get to pay the price needed for lease/purchase of an up-to-date aircraft.

The purchase cost, loosely coupled with DOCs, is the problem, not how many passengers, and at the root of it all is the incestuous nature of the aviation industry that closes (or refuses to open) the door to the multitude of small, innovative companies that could drive down component prices and ultimately whole airframe costs.

Neither does it help that the industry has responded to the many challenges of recent years by increasingly distancing itself from the public upon which it is dependent. That public provides paying passengers but could also offer novel commercial partnerships. The ideas are there, but the welcome is not.

[The Ancient Geek]

Another major issue is the security circus which has added an extra hour to checkin times, reducing the time advantage of short haul flights over the road or rail alternatives.

The less time saved, the less passengers are prepared to pay for a ticket.

Air travel was a pleasant and convenient experience, now it has become a pain in the backside for passengers who are increasingly voting with their feet.

[Heathrow Harry]

Celtic

many people have lost a great deal of money backing "small innovative Aerospace companies"

normally they completely underestimate the challenges they face and the time and costs involved and go bust

it's a great dream that somehow we're going to see innovative technologies at low cost but the record shows that it doesn't happen

[THE ORACLE]

Harry,

With respect to the Swedish population overall, Saab's aerospace division could be considered "small and innovative", but with so many 'firsts' behind them since they started building aircraft in the 1930's only a naive person would underestimate Saab's capabilites and experience.

Saab succesfully launched the Scandia 90 airliner in 1946 and in a tough post WW2 market produced 18 airframes with the entire fleet later sold to Vasp in Sao Paulo Brazil. Could this aircraft have led to the genesis of Embraer? Considering this was done immediately after the war and with all the associated shortages of raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure, etc, it was an amazing effort.

Saab also produced the J29 Tunnan in 1948 and it was the first post WW2 swept wing jet fighter in europe.

The Saab 340 first flew in 1983 with the wings originally supplied by Fairchild in the U.S.. Fairchild left the partnership after 40 aircraft and Saab increased their manufacturing capacity to include the wings and produced a total of 459 aircraft.

In all this Saab has experienced the vagaries and disappointments of aircraft manufacturng and profited from some spectacular successes.

For a small country with a total population of less that 10 million Saab certainly qualifies as a "small and highly innovative aerospace company", but they have consistently 'punched above their weight' and achieved success by doing things differently from others. And such differences include sticking with their own perception of what constitutes a market opportunity and identifying the risks involved.

[CelticRambler]

many people have lost a great deal of money backing "small innovative Aerospace companies"

normally they completely underestimate the challenges they face and the time and costs involved and go bust

But that is normal in the wider business world, especially in any activity that involves technology. It's the foundation of progress.

For reasons that are understandable amongst pilots, there is a terror of failure of any kind but this fear doesn't help the industry evolve. Think about it: for the last twenty years school children all over the world have been designing and building experimental processes and devices and sending them into space for testing and evaluation. Where is the opportunity for a motivated adolescent to "mess about" in aerotechnology and see his/her fifteenth wacky idea accepted as a sheer bloody brilliant? The irony is that the multitude of regulations imposed upon the aviation sector are largely reactive and fail to take account changes taking place in society or business.

Fortunately, it looks like some of the fissures in the system will soon develop into gaping holes and we will all, finally, benefit from useful cross-fertilsation.

[jackx123]

I tend to agree with Oracle. Not only have they (the swedes) produced very good aircraft but to compete successfully with US government financial backing and still succeed is remarkable.

I'm sure something very exciting will emerge contradictory to the Poms who have sold most of their industry and banks to the germans.

A very good friend of mine is a Swedish TRE and he maintains an ultra low profile, just like SAAB. Don't talk, just DO and DELIVER. SAAB aircraft has a record of doing just that with quality.

[Heathrow Harry]

Flight this week remarks that almost every commercial jetliner built today looks like planes designed and built in the late 50's and 60's and that neither manufacturers nor buyers are willing to make a major investment in anything dramatically new

the only really innovative aircraft designer of the last 30 years has been Bert Rutan TBH and he has been building (relatively) small aircraft

I suspect that more aerospace effort is going into designing lighter seats and better cabin electronics than in any new airframe design these days

I agree it's a pity but that's the world we live in - dominated by the money men

[keesje]

I think Saab producing an all new aircraft on their own is an illusion. However there are many parties who would like to be involved in the developing countries. There seems to be demand for 100 seat aircraft, operating with jet like speed and comfort inbetween traditional RJ's on the bigger jets, with better efficiency. In 08 on a.net we created a kind of "Super 340" the Centiliner. A narrow 5 abreast or premium 4 abreast.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Centiliner01-1.jpg

[stepwilk]

When I was actively involved as a pilot in the general aviation world, it was always an unfortunate truth that propellers were second-class and an automatic downer. People would lead clients or friends out to their super-hot Cheyenne 400 or Avanti or top-of-the-line King Air, and the reaction invariably was, "Jeez, I thought you said you had a JET, not a little prop plane..."

Certainly passengers troop out to RJs without a care and are repelled by equally large, and often equally sophisticated, turboprops. Would this be a factor in airlines' choices of aircraft, or are they purely driven by operating economies?

[THE ORACLE]

Step,

In the mid 1990's, when jet fuel was very cheap, RJ salespersons coined the term "prop avoidance" to foster RJ flying with a vew to further sales and had great success in this regard. Over in europe Crossair at that time conducted exit interview surveys with de-planing turbo passengers to gauge whether such an effect crossed the atlantic and had entered the psyche of their passengers.

Crossairs studies determined that provided there were on-time departures and that fares were reasonable and schedules were convenient, they (european passengers) weren't overly concerned as to whether there was a prop on the motor or otherwise. Corssair specifically canvassed passenger thoughts on safety and their results concluded that their passengers had faith in both the competence of technical staff and the design safety of their turbo conveyance.

Crossair, in this case, ultimately concluded that european passengers were more sophisticated than their american counterparts and not given to responding to marketing campaigns that questioned the safety of the turboprop aircraft.

[stepwilk]

I wonder whether it's "safety" that prop avoiders are questioning, though, or simply some kind of perceived second-best status. Certainly the latter is what has always prevented sophisticated prop-driven aircraft from making serious inroads into the midrange of the market--i.e. versus Citations, Lears, Hawkers and the like.

[CargoOne]

Crossair, in this case, ultimately concluded that european passengers were more sophisticated than their american counterparts and not given to responding to marketing campaigns that questioned the safety of the turboprop aircraft.

Quite an irony that later on Crossair replaced all their Saabs for ERJs :}

[Hunter58]

Yes, but who says that companies always do the right thing? Mother wants jets, so we give mother jets, after all mother pays for it. And ATC complained the Saabs were to slow in approach....

Funny enough the same ATC afterwards complained that the Jets were too fast...

The only thing one really should believe is the P&L, the rest is nonsense. And if there is one manufacturer who has shown in the past that they can produce a superior product for less money than the rest, then it is Saab.

Everything that has been said about a lot of the operators of the present is true, but the reasoning behind maybe not. There definitely is a market. There are reasons why people fly even in small quantities from one place to another and pay quite a substantial amount for it. Otherwise all those aircraft would simply not be operated. Is it not more due to the fact that these are the only aircraft available that they are used by the so-called third tier airlines? And is it not more because they are aging, requiring a whole lot of maintenance that the barely manage to make a profit?

Lease rates and financing terms are not the real problem today, it is the cost of fuel and maintenance, and at least in Europe, the absurd amounts for 'security' and other passenger related rip-offs that make the aircraft having a problem to operate making money. However, a lot of these restrictions do not apply in the rest of the world.

As always, KISS is the real determining factor. Anything else is making things complex and expensive. If anything speed is not the imperative, it is simplification, easiness of maintenance and fuel efficiency. The last one is entirely on the engine manufacturers and that may be the real stumbling block.

[MarkD]

2007:
TGAM STORY (http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070725.wporterr0725/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business)
WestJet chairman Clive Beddoe, who announced Tuesday that he's stepping down as chief executive officer in September, said he's skeptical about whether Porter has what it takes to be a serious threat.

“The public at large has historically not liked getting on turboprops. You're going to get banged around by turbulence a lot more. And looking out the window, seeing those propellers spinning is not very comforting to the flying public,” Mr. Beddoe said. “We operate at 40,000 feet with a modern jet, so it's a much more comfortable and faster ride.”
2012:
WestJet picks Bombardier Q400 planes for new service | CTV News (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120501/westjet-bombardier-120501/)
CALGARY — WestJet Airlines has selected Bombardier to supply the propeller aircraft it requires for a new regional service, putting to rest speculation that the order would go to a European rival of the Montreal-based plane manufacturer.

The Calgary-based airline announced Tuesday that it will take delivery of up to 45 of the Bombardier Q400 Next Generation planes over the next six years. They will be used for a new regional service that WestJet expects to launch next year.

[DaveReidUK]

WestJet are by no means alone, airline CEOs make U-turns almost as often as politicians.

Anyone remember this?

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2100/1741384802_e7b7211e1b_z.jpg

That was before Virgin bought their A330s. :O

[GAFA]

The new slogan is:

2 engines 2 save money

[sdelarminat]

I love those 30 seat TPs! But as much as I love them, I find it very difficult for a new project to even see the light of day without a big order.
And that order needs to come from a big player or players, just like happened with the last 19/30-seat generation. And then, over the years, those frames will steer to the smaller airlines and start ups. Just like they do today with those SF34, B1900, SW4, DHC8 etc.

[DaveReidUK]

And that order needs to come from a big player or players, just like happened with the last 19/30-seat generation.

There is no evidence that 19/30 seats is the market Saab are looking at, that's simply an assumption.

They were in that market once, that doesn't necessarily mean they want to be again.

[twochai]

There is no evidence that 19/30 seats is the market Saab are looking at, that's simply an assumption.

They were in that market once, that doesn't necessarily mean they want to be again.


They were also in a 50 seat TP and got their financial fingers very badly burned. I would think Saab's shareholders would be a little more skeptical this time.

[jackx123]

Looking at the article below 2,500 new TP's will be needed and there is also a comparison between A & B.

Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72 « The Flying Engineer (http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/)

[dan gi]

and for saab 2000 x wind of 40 kts is demonstrated that is not restrictive

[Heathrow Harry]

excellent link jacx123!!

the fact they are both predicting a lot more demand still doesn't open the door to SAAB as they will have to meet the startup costs etc as previously discussed ad infinitum in this thread

[THE ORACLE]

Hullo Harry,

Is your point that you think production start up costs are a major obstacle for Saab, should they re-commence an STC derivative SF34 or SB2000 or are you saying something else entirely?

If you are talking about development and production start up costs for an all new larger aircraft, as some are suggesting, then I think I agree with you unless the risk was shared with a number of partners and history has shown that such partnerships are fraught with problems, such as Saab's original partnership with Fairchild in producing the SF34.

[Heathrow Harry]

Oracle

I don't want to repeat the whole thread but to summarise - my position is:-

1. Even restarting production of any airliner is not low cost
2. Modifying or upgrading an old design is high cost
3. designing a new aircraft is immensely costly
4. the SAAB design was a good one but the operators at the bottom (<70 seat) end of the market cannot afford anything other than used aircraft in any numbers
5. even the current TP builders are struggling to make a consistent profit

thus the idea of Saab going back into production is unlikely - a pity but there you go - UNLESS they are relocated to China or similar where the profit motive is less pressing

[Piltdown Man]

I don't think you are right HH. A modern turboprop with 70 seats or more seats, good runway performance and plenty of poke is exactly what the airlines will buy. Jets are good but nothing can really match the kg/seat/nm fuel burn of a turboprop - especially if the sector times are similar. With current (and predicted) fuel costs, there is a large hole in the market.

[Torquelink]

PM,

The aircraft you describe is the Q400 which has sold in respectable numbers but costs $22m and can only be afforded by relatively well-healed carriers or those enjoying sovereign support.

Heathrow Harry was specifically discussing aircraft with <70 seats and, in general, this thread has discussed the demand for aircraft to replace the many 30 - 50 seats tps which are now getting very old. That there is a demand in this segment is not in doubt, it is just the inability of the carriers in the segment to afford anything other than very cheap used equipment which is the problem.

[Heathrow Harry]

precisely Torquelink

it's a matter of financial capability and few airlines operating on thin routes can generate significant income - evern decent airlines such as AirNorth in Darwin operate Brasilias and Metros on most routes

[jackx123]

HH:

Kindly share some of your wisdom regarding your above 1-5 points, backed up with factual numbers, since it seem you know something no one else does.:ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

go read the last 50 years of Janes AWA, Flight & Flying

full of companies grossly underestimating time and cost of development, re development & upgrades on commercial aircraft

[DaveReidUK]

I wouldn't dispute any of HH's 5 truisms , though I disagree with his conclusion.

Having said that, 3 of the 5 points he made are irrelevant - relating to restarting production of an upgraded old design - which clearly isn't what Saab are contemplating.

Yes, developing a new design is horrendously expensive, no argument with that statement. However the fact that Bombardier and ATR are struggling to make a profit competing with each other (with two products, neither of which can be stretched much further) doesn't necessarily mean that an all-new 90-110 seat Saab with the new GE engine wouldn't do well in competition with jets in the under 400nm market.

[jackx123]

Interesting to read the following quote.

"Maritime Airborne Surveillance is a fast growing market throughout the world. With the 340 MSA, Saab has a market position where we will be seeing a substantial increase in airborne systems," says Rickard Hjelmberg, Vice President, Maritime Surveillance Area within Support and Services.

[CargoOne]

No doubt Saab is busy with producing a sort of mini-AWACS on 2000 and 340 basis, however this is irrelevant to building of new aircraft. Vice versa Saab is cashing on hi-tech aviation related technologies, which is everything else than aircraft production (same model was successfully adopted earlier by BAE Systems). If you visit their facility at Linkoping, their hangars are full of airframes undergoing military conversion. But this has nothing to do with aircraft production.

[43Inches]

I think we assume SAAB is developing a new 90 seater because they were in talks with GE regarding their new engine aimed at the 90 seat market. An artical recently suggests the CPX38 will be in the 4000-6000HP range. The original SAAB 2000 had a derated AE2100 set at 4150SHP. GE is looking for a 15-20% reduction in SFC on this engine with similar savings in maintenance costs due to electronic engine monitoring technologies.

Based on 15% fuel saving applied to the S20 it would have comparable fuel usage to the ATR42(500/600) per sector for a few more seats, 50 knots more speed and cruise altitudes up to FL310.

There is still some hope for a new 2000.

* I would expect the 15% reduction would be compared to current technology and offer much improvement over the AE2100 on the S2000.

[THE ORACLE]

43,

An interesting comment that contines this discussion. Furthermore the SB2000 airfame can be configured for up to 58 passengers by replacing the aft 'hot' galley with the smaller forward unit and istalling the 4 across back row bench and an additional seat row.

Extra passengers and new motors producing 15 percent lower fuel burn for the same performance would impressively reduce regional operator unit costs for airlines choosing to operate such an aircraft.

Harry,

I was amused when you cited 50 tears of reading Jane's, AWA, Flight and Flying as your authoritative references to JackX's request for clarification.

I think all your references are reliable organs, where the journalist's indeed did their jobs by reporting the news that aerospace companies (in this case made) and resisted the current journalistic tendency of trying to create the news themselves and fit it into a real time media grap or a sound bite.

My point is that aerospace companies (in this speculation - Saab) do their own thing, which is commented on by journalists at the time as news and afterwards as perspectives on the decisions that were made.

None of the high quality preiodicals you mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, has ever attempted to predict the future. They have only ever commented on the successes or otherwise of the decisions made by their subjects and indeed, when this discussion is over and Saab reveals what they will do, or not on this subject, Flight, et al, will write either a news breaking story or a nice little retrospective feature accordingly.

[Cyrano]

The Saab CEO has been talking to Bloomberg at Farnborough about a possible resumption of civil aircraft production (as a JV with India). I can't find an English-language link - here (http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/industri-och-fordon/saab-overvager-ateruppta-civilflygstillverkning_7338590.svd) is the original Swedish report.

Google translates part of it as:
"We started the evaluation for almost two years ago. There will be a completely new aircraft, and not quite like the Saab 2000, "reported Mr Buskhe have said about the plans, which should require an initial customer order to be realized.

[Nertus]

Saab is considering resuming the manufacturing of civilian aircraft.

Saab considering resuming its production of civilian aircraft, an operation which has been down for 13 years.

July 11th, 2012 at 16:10
Bloomberg News writes after an interview with CEO Håkan Buskhe at this year's air show in Farnborough, England.

"We started the evaluation almost two years ago. It will not be a completely new aircraft, nor quite like the Saab 2000", Håkan Buskhe is reported to have said about the plans, which should require an initial customer in order to be realized.

Bloomberg News writes that the plans were raised due to increased fuel prices, which increases the demand for relatively fuel efficient so-called turbo-prop aircraft (propeller aircraft of the type that Saab 340 and 2000).

For any production, a joint venture with a not yet designated companies from India may be the case, according to Håkan Buskhe, but points out that the Indian market is not large enough alone to justify a resumption of production. India, according to Bloomberg News, expressed interest in a domestically-developed regional civilian aircraft.

Saab's media relation Manager Erik Magni says to News Agency Direkt that the discussions on civil aircraft production so far are at an early stage, and that decisions for production are not included. He also mentions that it is natural for Saab to keep up with the development of civil aircraft, given the large number of Saab 340 and 2000 still in operation.

"Today there is more than 450 Saab 2000 and Saab 340 (our civilian aircraft) in operation and they are expected to fly for years to come. We have a responsibility to keep us updated on the market and technology", said Saab spokesperson Karin Walka in an email to News Agency Direkt on Tuesday, speaking of the discussions on the possible resumption of production of commercial aircraft.

[DaveReidUK]

There will be a completely new aircraft, and not quite like the Saab 2000

It will not be a completely new aircraft, nor quite like the Saab 2000


Methinks one or other has lost something in translation. :)

Bing translates the original Swedish as "There will be an entirely new aircraft"

[43Inches]

Sounds like SAAB might be involved in the RTA-70 program. This is a high wing, T-Tail design starting at 70 seats. An all new design although some initial pictures and mockups looked like a cross between an ATR and the Dash 8. The program seemed to dissapear a few years back after the government wanted it changed to a turbofan design.

[GearDownThreeGreen]

It will not be a completely new aircraft, nor quite like the SAAB 2000

This is the correct translation :ok:

[Nertus]

Yes it is. I am swedish myself and as such I know my own language... ;)

[DaveReidUK]

It will not be a completely new aircraft, nor quite like the SAAB 2000


Thanks, that's crystal clear then. :*

[Nertus]

Exactly. So:
"We might or might not be thinking of building an airplane, which might be based on another, if there is customers available. Maybe."

Talk about a bold statement.

[jackx123]

Heard that a South Korean company is willing to share development risk and to me it seems a perfect match considering the ambitions to enter the global market. see samsung vs. apple etc

[aircarver]

Airframer? Airframer? Isn't that someone who frames air?

Yeah ! ... :E

.

[His dudeness]

I am swedish myself and as such I know my own language...

Sure?

Acc. some german Dudes in an unlighted aviation hazard I got to proof that I can speak german (German national, born in Germany to German parents)...despite the fact that I own a German radio certificate that states that I can do radio in German and English. Following the English level 4/5/6 joke a few years ago...


Sorry for OffT.

[Nertus]

Yep. The fact that Im acknoledge it at all should be proof enough but if you're unsure, dont hesitate to challenge me. :8

[b263354]

love logging in and seeing a post "mature" from a serious discussion to the airbenders, firebenders... makes my day guys! :}

anyways, had to post on this one as the OLD Saab cars were good, untill they went japanes and chinese and sh*t. But... here me this, how in hell's sake is Saab thinking af just "designing" another TP when they have been out of it for more then a decade and can't even sell their prized fighter jet abroad anymore....ooohhh:ugh: I knows, they are now going to sell of everything with the aircraft, making one big splash (with the chinese or anyone interested in their now rapidly becoming outdated fighter jet technology) and then go bust, at least that department, as all the good old trustworthy companies are doing because the managers there are becoming so overly distressed with their appalling remunerations and rather just...move on to another company to disect.

:cool: of course I could be wrong... terribly wrong... but it would be one of my ways of saving the day

[43Inches]

The company that makes SAAB cars and SAABs defence and aerospace corporation are two completly separate entities, and have been that way for some time. Sales at SAAB are regular and the Swiss signed up for new Gripens late last year so that program is still paying off.

The last statement from SAAB regarding the turboprop project was that it was going to be a joint venture with an un-named indian corporation. The aircraft will not be a new design but it also will not be the same aircraft production restarted. This lends to the idea that it will be a S2000 modified airframe with new technology.

The whole project may rest on whether SAAB wins the Indian MRMR contract.

http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8290/7637753094_bfa6dedee7.jpg

[b263354]

Have been apart but still swedish company's of origin, except the cars devision sold out long ago already. No transfer of technology with the product, no sell. Every fighter producer has/is selling the technology with it in the package. Saab's selling but nobody's buying. The Greens or nationalists are pushing for some 10 advanced variants but news abound that if there are no sales the days are numbered. That's the automobile devision and fighter jet devision, now on to the commercial aviation devision...

Selling to India or a cooperation? They are building/going to build a "new" aircraft but with selling of the technology or else it would just design and build them themselves and fly them over. Investments are also say in the company. Just like Airbus has to build it's aircraft in China, it goes along with the (unwanted?) transfer of technology so that in time they can build them themselves. They have the cheaper labour, the means/ infrastructure and at last the technology to do it.

[Thrust Augmentation]

The whole project may rest on whether SAAB wins the Indian MRMR contract.



Exactly my thoughts - interesting to see what does (or doesn't) happen now.

[Torquelink]

Well, at least Saab are considering getting back into civil aircraft manufacturing unlike their UK equivalent. BAE inherited pretty much all of the UK's civil aviation manufacturing heritage (other than Shorts and Britten-Norman) and rather than exploit this leadership position by developing new market-oriented products, they proceeded to invest the absolute minimum to warm over legacy regional and corporate aircraft in order to string them out for a few more years, then terminate them or flog them off (125). To complete their masterplan they then flogged off their (the country's) share of Airbus and exited civil aircraft manufacture to focus on the military. All this at a time when most observers could see that civil aviation was booming with huge regional and corporate opportunities being exploited by Embraer, Bombardier, ATR and others and with record large aircraft production rates being achieved. All the while military budgets were being continuously slashed! Smart or what?!

And now back to the topic . . .

[airnostalgia]

The Convair was a great airplane, but if I remember correctly the hot wing was only certified for "light icing". I don't know if they upgraded it from the recip versions.

[Heathrow Harry]

today's "Flight":-

"SAAB dismisses return to building civil turboprops"

it's pretty clear

"The company....insists Saab is not aiming to go back into producing commercial aircraft"

"The airframer says it still intends to sell all the Saab 340 & 2000 turboprops it owns to concentrate on its core business"

[Vulcan607]

such a shame.

That Eastern Airways Saab 2000 in BA colours does look good - even better seeing the actual aeroplane with your own eyes. See it in the Isle of Man and i thought it looks great.


Interesting to see what operators of the 340 will do in future with the aeroplanes getting older and nothing new in the 30-40 seater market available to replace them.

[THE ORACLE]

Harry,

I haven't been able to locate the story you have quoted. Would you be able to insert the full text from "Flight" of what has been said, including details of the Saab spokesperson and any journalist that may have been involved in the piece.

What you have quoted seems to be at odds with the recent public statements of both S.A.L. and Saab AB in this regard and it would be interesting to read the full article to understand any contextual references associated with any clear decision(s).

Many thanks.

[Heathrow Harry]

Sorry _ I don't have the time but it's on Page 13 of the 28 Aug- 3rd Sept edition - the one with "Ascent of Airbus" on the cover

Refers to Company spokesman, the Company etc etc and has words in quotes so I think we can take it as official

the journo was David Kaminski-Morrow in their London office

I suppose they have only ruled out CIVIL turboprops but really it looks as if they will re-manufacture older planes for any military contract - they have 82 leased out

[Heathrow Harry]

or buy the magazine as I did............

[43Inches]

About 3 years ago SAABs management made a statement that they would never return to civil aircraft manufacturing. Then this year they suddenly about face and state that they had been looking at it for 2 years.

Now they turn around and say its off the table again.

What it seems like is that the ATR sales spurred them into seeing if they could get significant interest in something civil and it just isn't there in the numbers they are seeking, so back to the shelf. By the vague nature of their comments I don't think they actually had a product in mind whether it be a 90 seater or S2000 re-born.

A number of other economic factors currently would limit any sales, primarily due to economic slow down, poor airline financial support and the price of oil not hitting the highs it was expected to get to.

A new (or updated) aircraft in the 20-50 seat bracket is needed but there just isn't the cash out there to justify it.

[fendant]

Saab Aircraft intends to develop a complete new fighter the Gripen E/F. They have a tentative agreement with Switzerland who will buy a whopping number of 22 aircraft for 3.1 Mio US$. Sweden will commit probably to an order of 40 to max. 60 planes. Saab toutes this in recent advertisements in Switzerland as " the most advanced fighter ". Originally planned to fly in 2015 the service date entry is now postponed to 2023.

I doubt that Saab will have the financial strength to survive this adventure and simultaneously develop/upgrade a new commuter aircraft. This segment is the only shrinking segment in air travel and the current Embraer/Bombardier/ATR will be challenged by new entrants like the Chinese ARJ, the Russion Superjet and eventually the Mitsubishi regional jet ( which is heavy loaded with government subsidiaries, that it might never take off ). Add to this lofty plans in India and Korea. Never try to catch a falling knife!

I have done numerous Crossair flight in the 340 and in the 2000. I must admit that I never felt comfortable in it ( maybe Crossair :ooh: was part of it )

[joflin]

There are production plans for India;

Saab establishes a joint venture with Indian company QuEST Global Man (http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/Newsroom/Press-releases--News/2012---11/Saab-establishes-a-joint-venture-with-Indian-company-QuEST-Global-Manufacturing1/)

Let's see if "Quest Global Manufacturing" ( engineering consultants ) have lined up any aircraft customers ..?

[DaveReidUK]

There are production plans for India

Yes - for aerostructures, nothing to do with launching a new aircraft programme:

"This is a long-term commitment in a strategically important market for Saab and it further establishes Saab as a global actor in the commercial aerostructures market”

If anything, I'd say that this new announcement makes the likelihood of Saab re-entering the turboprop marketplace even more remote.

[xchox]

Fairchild was going to stretch the Dornier 328 into the 428 and 428JET but saw no market.

Saab 2000 was a great plane, But then again so was the BAe ATP. There is a reason they went bust. To make a comeback... that takes balls... and for that, I applaud Saab!

A little off topic, Fairchild Dornier also canceled the 728... I am surprised Bombardier didn't jump on that when they had the chance. C-Series would have been on-line years ago competeing with Embraer, as opposed to Embraer having a huge head start in the mini twin market.

Speaking of mini twin market... I also hear the Fokker 100 is making a comeback?!?!?!

[keesje]

Bombardier also talking to Fokker about taking over the F70/F100. A light airframe that needed better engines. I guess the Fokker people at that time where still too proud / stubborn / legally restricted.

[DaveReidUK]

Bombardier also talking to Fokker about taking over the F70/F100.

At any given time, Bombardier are probably talking to most other manufacturers. In this instance, their main interest will be in ensuring that the F70/F100 remains dead.

A light airframe that needed better engines. I guess the Fokker people at that time where still too proud / stubborn / legally restricted.

At the time the F100 was being developed, the Tay was the best fit for the aircraft size and mission.

[keesje]

DaveReidUK, BBD talking to Fokker -> 16 yrs ago.

I wonder if the Tay was the best possible choice. Fokker had a close relationship with RR. However IMO it was already clear the CF34s were superior in nearly every aspect. The BPR of ~3, Spey heritage..

[DaveReidUK]

However IMO it was already clear the CF34s were superior in nearly every aspect.

The original CF34 was far too small for the Fokker 100.

[43Inches]

Fokker would have chosen the best engine available at the time and one which the customer would accept and support.

The SAAB 340 design was initially planned to offer GE or PW engines. Very soon after the launch customer sentiment was very in favour of the GE product so the PW option was dropped.

Sometimes you can offer the next gen engine and customers don't like it and go with older tech because they know its reliability and cost factors. If the S2000 had launched on time and got the two year lead on the 50 seat RJs things may have been different.

[keesje]

The Tay might have been the only real offering and the most practical. However the CFM56, RJ500, V2500 were already in development, using far better BPR's, sfc etc.. Fokker must have know they were introducing yesterdays specs on tomorrow's aircraft..

[DaveReidUK]

Fokker must have know they were introducing yesterdays specs on tomorrow's aircraft

On the other hand, they were probably glad they hadn't bet the ranch on the RJ500 ...