PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10th Mar 2011, 23:50   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
ECR-20, 200 seater optimized for flights <700 nm

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

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



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

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

What do you think?

Last edited by keesje; 22nd Mar 2011 at 14:58. Reason: spelling..
keesje is offline   Reply
Old 11th Mar 2011, 07:29   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
On the cabin, I guess the need for speed and efficiency will grow when fuel prices further rise. To make steps new concepts will be tried out.



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

Last edited by keesje; 22nd Mar 2011 at 14:11.
keesje is offline   Reply
Old 11th Mar 2011, 16:11   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 39
Posts: 122
Why is one of the guys wearing a spider man mask?
Golf-Sierra is offline   Reply
Old 11th Mar 2011, 16:24   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 3,671
Slower than a 737 on even a 1200NM sector means, from boarding to disembarkation, including taxi at a congested airport, around four hours STANDING UP!!

The tickets better be PLENTY cheap!
Wizofoz is offline   Reply
Old 11th Mar 2011, 17:52   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
Quote:
Slower than a 737 on even a 1200NM sector means, from boarding to disembarkation, including taxi at a congested airport, around four hours STANDING UP!!

The tickets better be PLENTY cheap!
People are "standing" like on a motor cycle or scooter. 1200NM in the 600 million people European market is a minority of flights. Plenty of other aircraft options to fit those segments..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1299868627

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



Quote:
Why is one of the guys wearing a spider man mask?
No idea, he must have sneaked in..
keesje is offline   Reply
Old 12th Mar 2011, 15:23   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
ECR-20 Specifications

The final slide..



rgds

Last edited by keesje; 16th Mar 2011 at 08:22. Reason: spelling..
keesje is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 10:59   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 39
Posts: 122
Quote:
People are "standing" like on a motor cycle or scooter. 1200NM in the 600 million people European market is a minority of flights. Plenty of other aircraft options to fit those segments..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1299868627
Wouldn't those pairs be better served by high speed trains?


Golf-Sierra
Golf-Sierra is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 15:54   #8 (permalink)
CR2

Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 45
Posts: 2,289
LengTH

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

I'd take the train too.
CR2 is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:04   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
keesje -- your concept is the same size as a 320-200, but with a whopping 30% increase in cabin width.

A few questions:

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

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

3. How did you lose 4.6 tonnes OEW?

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

5. Is spiderman going to blow the cockpit door open with an airbag charge?
Machaca is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:12   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Sounds pretty innovative, though i'd agree with the above posters about the train. Considering the amount of crap u got to put up with at the airport regarding security & stuff, you're way better off in a train for numerous reasons given the short distances.
mattpilot is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:37   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 478
Ho do those seat-ettes work for kids (say age 12 and below) and those with babies? It appears you have 28 conventional seats... doesn't seem that would be anywhere near enough.

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

- GY
GarageYears is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 19:18   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Up in the OFCR
Posts: 379
Don't roast him for the seats, they are pretty much what the industry has come up with in the past years in response to tentative proclamations of interest from customers... Hmm, what you have there basically is a Dash 8 on steroids with massive engines - why not? Look at Lufthansa, they are letting their tired 737-300s and -500s do 40 minute runs, this ought to be a whole lot more efficient...
STBYRUD is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 20:44   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
Golf-Sierra Agree high speed trains are great, if you could do a direct train from e.g. Paris to Hamburg, it would take a few hours. Thing is there aren't. You have to change and the train will stop in the big cities on the way. Advantage of trains IMO are the comfort, low price, frequency and quality time, lack of airport compared to air travel..

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

Quote:
Open rotor is "more 2023-2025 in timescale" and "pretty much targeted at the middle of the market, something like 25,000-35,000lb of thrust", says Nuttall. "We are still convinced that this is the only potential game changer."
Rolls-Royce details next-generation engine studies

Quote:
What are the weight, drag, and fuel penalties of the increase in fuselage diameter over A320?
The fuselage has a bigger cross section. But as you can see it is flatter reducing the frontal area. Keep in mind drag increases squared with speed, cruise speed of the ECR-20 is about 10% lower then a A321.

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

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

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

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

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


London City "lounge"

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

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

Re cabin, gate / boarding music suggestion: Dailymotion - Elton John - I'm Still Standing - a Music video

Last edited by keesje; 14th Mar 2011 at 21:34.
keesje is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 21:44   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
i suppose as long as the pilots still get to sit, why not
mattpilot is offline   Reply
Old 14th Mar 2011, 22:53   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 39
Posts: 122
It is interesting to think what changes in airport infrastructure are needed to maximise the benefits of such an airframe? I would not be impressed by the prospect of flying standing say from Europe to Gatwick in 40 minutes only to spend 60 minutes at check in and on arrival a further 20 minutes riding the treadmills and another 30 on the tube ;-)

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,

Golf-Sierra
Golf-Sierra is offline   Reply
Old 16th Mar 2011, 00:40   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
Golf-Sierra, interesting questions. An aircraft like ECR-20 could provide a capacity boost from airports like London City. It won't be more quiet then a e.g. 737 currently is, but would offer better takeoff performance / steeper approaches (DLC) and airport operations would be different. An automated engine shutdown procedure would start as soon as the aircraft leaves the runways after landing.

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


http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault....y-1/51_read-3/

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

Last edited by keesje; 16th Mar 2011 at 00:54.
keesje is offline   Reply
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 14:22   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
Boeing considers 2-3-2

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



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

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

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

Boeing weighs narrowbody options

Last edited by keesje; 23rd Mar 2011 at 00:30.
keesje is offline   Reply
Old 28th Mar 2011, 10:57   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 407
I think the props will be rear mounted, noise is an issue. With composites the weight disadvantage will be reduced and a twin aisle makes more sense to move the C of G a bit closer together. High mounted rear engines will mean the cabin is lower to the ground and it will have quicker boarding (twin aisle will also help) and lighter stairs.

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

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

Quote:
I just wondered - has anyone analysed how many millions of $ of baggage handling costs airlines incur [non lo-co] solely so that pax can take a tube of toothpaste or shaving cream - items not readily available in <100 ml sizes??.
Asda has a large range of travel cosmetics, miniature containers of many full size products. Quite cheap, as well.
peter we is offline   Reply
Old 28th Mar 2011, 15:19   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 648
Quote:
With composites the weight disadvantage will be reduced and a twin aisle makes more sense to move the C of G a bit closer together.

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

Quote:
High mounted rear engines will mean the cabin is lower to the ground and it will have quicker boarding (twin aisle will also help) and lighter stairs.
I've seen the designs. From what I heard authorities object. They find the risk of engine #1 taking out engine #2 too high. They want something inbetween..

Quote:
Range and seating capacity should be less than the a320, but forget 700nm, thats for rail travel. 150 seats and 1500 nm range.
I notice many people tend to pooh-pooh anything with a max range below 1500NM.

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

keesje is offline   Reply
Old 28th Mar 2011, 15:35   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 407
Quote:
I think many composite parts such as the fuselage don't scale down that well.
I meant purely for the additional strengthening for rear mount.

Quote:
They find the risk of engine #1 taking out engine #2 too high. They want something inbetween..
The put something in between, its not impossible. Just don't use passengers as armour.

Quote:
In reality, it's where 90% of the action is..
Maybe but LCC airlines tend to buy a single type and therefore it needs to cover all their needs and 700nm means that almost your entire market could be cannibalised by train travel.
peter we is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 13:33.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network