hiya
I see madog's point but I also think that at this stage it would be interesting to know why the F100 is so much lighter than the B737-600.
On balance I think you are on to a goos thing keesje, but I am going to throw a few spanners.
My most basic question is why you are using such a conventional layout when there is a layout that rather clearly is a very good fuel saver and is happily competing with jets in it's field: the Piaggio Avanti II.
Details for the config are here:
Showcase
25% better than a normal turboprop sounds too good to miss if you are planning to compete on fuel cost. Scaling could get interesting, but the Avanti is not that unknown an aircraft anymore. And I am sure Piaggio could be persuaded to a joint venture.
The other problem I have is that as a passenger I have a severe dislike of the BAe 146 in 6 abreast layout. I once sat in a row with 2 other big guys and we actually had to tile our shoulder in order to fit! I consider 737-width to be the bar minimum. What I am wondering is why you are not using an ovoid fuselage such as the A350 in order to make more space?
On a very basic level I'd also say that the income from freight is so significant that that rather makes the space for it worthwhile.
Other points from this discussion:
- I would support a ceiling of at least FL320 or so to be able to avoid the weather.
- Speed: 380 kts or so I am thinking. For the jet proponents:
SAS are already flying slower with their jets in order to save fuel:
SAS flies slower to save costs and emissions | Environment | Reuters
So I would not think that that is any kind of criterium for these kind of flights.
Overall I love this idea and am looking forward to the further development of this. I have also seen the posts on airliners.net
cheers
Bernhard