Still haven't read the reason, the impetus for changing out the 'system'.
I saw a flight department close because the chief pilot took months to change a GNS XL to a UNS1. He said the GNS was 'dangerous'.
Long before glass and GPS units, planes still went from Point A to B. Big surprise huh?
This thread lives and dies in the world of people wanting new toys in the cockpit and having such a lack of situational awareness that the only way they can fly comfortably is by following a little white airplane on a screen.
Relax! Its just a university project. We are not doing anything, we are just proposing mods to improve DOC so I best come in with something as opposed to saying that its a pointless exercise and I should get and A for doing no work on this whatsoever as the F27 is not worthy of being modded at this time in history.
You appear to be considering operating costs purely in terms of maintenance cost, whereas that only accounts for a proportion of DOCs.
A good start might be to establish, for typical F-27 operators, what proportion of DOCs is actually represented by maintenance. That will then give you a better idea of the maximum savings that maintainability improvements would produce, which you can then compare with the cost of any such changes.
The DOCsys formula I am using contains "depreciation", "fuel" and "maintenance". I could also facor in delay and cancellation costs but this is outside my scope of knowledge.
My biggest problem is the "fuel" part of the formula. The calculation for this is extremely complex with variables I simply can not fimd out from the public domain so I have no idea how to apply the formula or if I can just use verbal reasoning with respect to a fuel saving for a system.
WRT the laptop, simply make it an installed class 2 EFB and that should cover the "Modification" criteria. It could also cover a lot of the functions of an FMC at a much lower cost.
Awesome, thanks a lot!
You mentioned mods cannot be too expensive. Right at the beginning of your assignment it will be necessary to define the chosen F27 model and the limitations of your studies, as it does not sound like this has been done for you. If all those working on the project could agree on a commom philosophy, it would be a tiny bit more like the real world where there would be an overall project manager for such considerations.
You might just need to show innovative thought, not just a rehash of what some VIP operator did to one aircraft 20 years ago.
F27 had water injection available for take-off. This provided a respectable amount of extra power for more difficult conditions or for high weight take-off. If these conditions did not exist, water injection is not needed, meaning there was less power and quite a bit less wear on the engine. Reduced wear is a DOC advantage. That is an existing procedure, but could be further refined by "reduced thrust take-off", common on modern jets.
Using a Dry Take-off with further reduction in power would further reduce engine wear. A laptop (avionics) program for each planned airfield could provide the further refined take-off power settings. You would need to co-operate with those who are responsible for engines. Maybe such co-operation is an intended feature of your studies?
Improved navigation would be relatively inexpensive. Even the type of GPS fitted to light aircraft would be usefull. One navigation advantage is more direct tracking can be authorised by ATC with this equipment. A less obvious advantage is that fast and accurate recording of head and tailwinds can help in selection of efficient flight levels. Lower cruising levels are less efficient, but if there is a tailwind at 10000 ft and a 50 knot headwind at 20000 ft, a lower level should be considered to save time and therefore fuel. Again, co-operation with those responsible for operating procedure DOC would be essential.
Some older electronics might be expensive to maintain. Over a few years, a modern full or partial suite of communication and navigation gear might reduce DOC.
I cannot think of any practical thing that could be done with flight controls. Closest would be a modern autopilot. Expensive to fit, but might also be less expensive to maintain. There would be obvious certification problems that might be very costly. Rather than just not mention controls, there would be scope in your studies to list modifications that were considered but rejected.
Thanks for the info. And speaking of the a/p, could it be removed altogether to save weight? Ok so the crew will have to have a decent workout but there's other turboprops out there that fly happily without a/p. Just curious if this is a decent enough weight and maintenance saving?