PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - New big prop, facing the A320 & 737: TurboLiner.
Old 17th May 2008, 00:28
  #69 (permalink)  
keesje
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Simplifications

Would your design be better than this for comfort? If not, passengers will eventually shun it.
Hi Pettifogger, I've flown several times on F27 variants and F28. Both are very loud indeed on the outside and on the inside. Deafening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vycf4odW1_Y&feature=related A proud dutch product but developped 50 yrs ago.

The new engine / prop I proposed is the TP400. It is developed to turn slower and avoid the typical tip effects and has better turbine noise isolation.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-V5jzSslZo It will allow the A400M to use civil airways flying M0.7 at up to 37.000 ft.

Apart from that it seems passenger comfort is really moving down the priority list as airlines struggle to survive the constantly rising fuel prices. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/24/business/turbo.php

As said earlier, the shorter the trip, the better the turboprops look. I summarized a selection of city pairs in Europe. More then 700 million people live in Europe, but the more wealthy ones live in the western part, all very close together. As can be seen most major city pairs are closer then 400nm. Very high frequency flights are flown, often even by twin aisles.. Then there are flogs of 737 / 320 aircraft doing low cost flights within the same area. The big hubs are seriously restricted. A different situation then e.g. the US or Asia..



I think you'd need means to assist evacuation from the emergency windows (as there is no wing there). Given this, I think a smaller door (739 style) will be better to be put where the emergency exit windows are, or maybe move it clear off the sponsons... as you need a slide from the exit and you don't want it to get poked by the wheelbay door or landing gear mechanism.

PK-KAR good point. The doors won't very very high, but high enough to have some kind of slope. I moved them and made them bigger.

I was wondering if someone would do a mini Tu114 twin
It didn't happen. Antonov studied a 720 seat prop version of the Anteus, but obviously did not build it. Luckely I guess, there would be (even more) deaf old people in Siberia. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7136291503511317285&q=&hl=en

I don't think that's a consistent approach; you're going to have to build in a level of hydraulic redundancy to address the roll axis, so you may as well use the same systems for the other axes too.

I'm not convinced of the need for a "high speed" aileron option, nor am I convinced that not having spioilerons is a good choice
Mad (Flt) Scientist thnx for your comments. I removed all trims to avoid unconsistancy. I think if one looks close more deatils can be found to be inconsistent. That is because it is a powerpoint concept. On the horizontal and vertikal stabelizers; both are bigger then the similar sized but heavier A320.

I see no provision for ground lift dumping, other than the slightly oddly located "direct lift spoilers". Why are they so far forward - they are going to infringe on the fuel tank volume sat in the middle of the chord. Usually they'd go just ahead of the flaps so they could mount on the rear spar.

The DLC is something different then ground spoilers. They are used inflight to decent is a very precise without changing angle.The lift distribution on a supercritical wing is spread out over the chord. Placing close to the flaps would have limited effect. Aircraft like the L1011, F14 and gliders have a DLC system. The spoilers on the Turboliner are not as big as conventional spoiler and can be fully extended when the gear is on the ground.

On the wheeltug system: most see it as a burden. I guess if you fly an aircraft priorities are reliability and performance. When buying and aircraft and negotiating with airport authorities on landing right & evening slots, rising fuel prices, environment targets, growth and noise pollution, other priorities come in. In terms of weight and reliability electric systems aren't what they used to be (ref. 787). The installation would be a few hundred lbs but save fuel.

Still I changed the design to a conventional ARJ type of gear to satisfy concerns put on the table by many (airfoilmod)



thnx for the comments! rgds keesje
keesje is offline