Keesje - I'm unclear on your response to my question regarding weight:
the Turboliner and A320 share the same seat capasity, but that's about all.
They share the same physics and math too.
Thw A320 is a heavy aircraft for short haul passenger service.
Yes, I agree the A320 is a bit heavy for max efficiency short-haul pax service. So how do you carry the same # of pax with 14 tonnes less airplane?
The MTOW of the Turboliner is much lower because it is not a medium haul aircraft like the A320.
Certainly. However, I asked about OEW.
The Turboliner would have significantly less then half the range / fuel capasity. (1500nm vs 3200 nm)
This is mostly determined by wing volume available for the fuel tanks and powerplant fuel burn.
No serious cargo capability is foresee, contrary to A320 which has containers/pallet capability and loading system.
I don't agree with your cargo market evaluation, but for the sake of it let's dispense with the pallet/container sytems. OK, that'll save 1.5 more tonnes. 12.5 to go!
Turboliner wings, tail section and floor should be CRFP like all modern designs but unlike the A320.
So what are the calculated weight savings due to use of CFRP? The A320 is already 28% composites by weight, including the entire tail structure. The A380 saved almost 15 tonnes by the use of composites, including a CFRP wing center wing box and entire tail structure - that shaved its OEW by 5% to 277 tonnes!
The fuselage cross section would be narrower then A320, 3.7 m vs 3.95 m. Turboliner fuselage & cabin are closer to the BA146.
Why? Your OEW kg per seat is lower than a Cessna 172!
Some rough numbers for comparison (single class, ~31" SP):
- A320-200 = 243 kg/seat
- B737-500 = 242 kg/seat
- Emb 195 = 230 kg/seat
- BAe-146 = 225 kg/seat
- DHC Q400 = 224 kg/seat
- ATR-72 = 191 kg/seat
- Cessna 172 = 162 kg/seat
- Turboliner = 161 kg/seat
The service ceiling of the Turboliner would be around 25.000ft vs 40.000ft and max speed are lower influencing the pressure cabin / structure weight.
How much weight does this shed and from where - fuselage skin thickness?
Lighter galleys (no ovens) just small meals, less lavatories etc, no IFE, etc.
Basicly everything is lighter because its a dedicated passenger short range turboprop without the medium haul flexibility (& MTOW) the A320 and 737 offer.
OK, galleys just like a Q400 & ATR-72 (can't cut the lavs or pax will spend entire flight in the queue!). So how does the Turboliner get to be so much lighter?
I really like the idea of a 150 seat twin TP-400 powered airliner, but more hard numbers are needed to assess its feasibility.