Time for a large, short range turboprop airliner?

[Proplinerman]

Last week, I flew from LHR to M/C on a BA A319.

We all got on and then the captain came on to apologise/explain that there was going to be a thirty minute delay before ATC would give us permission to push back and start engines.

Such a delay duly ensued, we then pushed back, started engines and began taxiing out. It was a relatively short taxi run, but it took a long time, presumably because of aircraft queuing to take off. Finally, we took off and an uneventful thirty minute flight to M/C ensued, at the end of which we taxied direct to our gate.

I am old enough to recall, as a child, flights over the same route on BEA Vanguards in the 1960s. I know from my knowledge of the Vanguard and posts here, that it was, for its time-and perhaps still today, were it still flying-a very fuel-efficient airliner. Flights on the Vanguards, London to M/C, used to take about fifty minutes, block to block. The stated time for these flights on today's jetliners (which aren't all that much faster than the Vanguard, which was a fast cruiser for a turboprop) is one hour, tho in the case of my recent flight, it was of course a lot longer than that, due to the ATC and queuing delays.

Essentially therefore, faster aircraft on such a route, but in today's much busier skies, mean slower flights. A modern high capacity turboprop airliner would be just as prone (I think, unless it could gain by flying at a turboprop's rather lower altitude than jets-I'd welcome people's guidance on this, possibly quite important point) to ATC delays etc, but it would surely be much more economical to operate over such a route, than a jetliner, even with today's highly efficient engines etc.

I think passengers' absurd resistance to propellor airliners has now softened, with the widespread use of types such as the ATRs and Dash 8s, but these are relatively small airliners, so perhaps a large, new, two-engined version of the Vanguard, with modern aerodynamic features and today's more efficient turboprop engines, would be the right type for this type of short, high capacity flight. Perhaps a scaled-up Dash 8 would fit the bill?

I'm a propliner fan, as you can see from my pen name and I don't know a great deal about modern airliners, plus I'm not a pilot, but what do other more knowledgeable contributors here, think of such a suggestion?

[DozyWannabe]

A quick Google brought up the following article:

Turboprop vs jet: Likely productivity drives the choice, says Lufthansa: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/ain-and-ainalerts/aviation-international-news/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/turboprop-vs-jet-likely-productivity-drives-the-choice-says-lufthansa-8445/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews)[story_pointer]=5&tx_ttnews[mode]=1

Interestingly, reliability is not an issue from Lufthansa's perspective - it's more to do with the fact that a jet can cover more sectors. From a passenger's perspective I suspect that room and noise levels inform the general preference for jets - I wouldn't call that reasoning "absurd".

[evansb]

Indeed. I think the time has come to reconsider something like Lockheed's proposed RECAT (Reduced Energy Commercial Air Transport):
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/1e01f31d1.jpg

[Proplinerman]

Thanks Dozywannabe-very interesting article and perhaps I was being a bit OTT in my use of the word "absurd."

[Proplinerman]

EvansB: this looks very interesting, but I can find almost nothing about it on Google. Do you have some more details?

[siftydog]

Curiosly, there are operators talking to the likes of ATR right now about requirements for a 90-100 seat turboprop that would cover short stages at a speed of 300+ kts and be something more ermmm.......reliable than say the Q400 for example.
I think Mt Cook airlines in NZ, although a very small operator are talking something with underfloor hold space to boot.
Whether there's enough interest globally to kick start such a project would be interesting - but certainly IMHO there's going to be a future gap in the market that the RJ's through to the A318 won't fill in economy terms.
And Boeing and Airbus are playing painfully slow game of chicken to reveal their future strategies for the narrowbody market.............

[Proplinerman]

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a reliability problem with the Dash 8. It doesn't seem to have affected its sales. Please could you fill me in on this.

It might also be relevant to say that, whenever I go to London, unless I'm flying on from LHR (something I try to avoid if I can), I would not dream of going to the trouble etc of flying, even tho I live only three miles from MAN airport. I much prefer to take the train, as my work is invariably in the West End or the City. As for driving there tho...........

[TwinAisle]

Another bit of info to ponder.... a turboprop can maintain cruise speed much further down the approach than a jet, which starts decelerating much further out. Have a look at sector times on domestic routes between jets and turboprops, and there is surprisingly little difference, especially on shorter sectors.

TA

[Props]

If we have to fly on short journeys then the Turboprop might just be the answer

[chevvron]

In a time long ago (early '70s) when BEA used to operate guardsvans on routes to Scotland, 3 would depart Heathrow at about 6 pm having all filed FL180 for cruise. Invariably all 3 would ask for lower levels and they would end up at 120, 140 and 160. Are there any still around I wonder? (apart from the one at Brooklands that is!)
Maybe there could be a case here for a civilian Airbus A400? It would make the production line more viable, what with various countries constantly threatening to canel or reduce their orders.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

TwinAisle.... At busy terminals a standard speed is called for to achieve consistent landing rates.

Take-off and initial climb may not be affected as the aircraft are all in a queue. Turboprops don't usually fly as fast as jests so may be placed in a lower speed category, which would incur extra delay for jets behind.

The one thing I recall about the Guardsvan was the interminable time they took to line up and go. I assume that the pre-take off check list must have resembled the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

[TwinAisle]

Thanks HD. The regional I did some work with didn't go near airports with large flow rates, so the pilots used to bang them down the approach, then drop the flaps and gear quite late in the day. Can see that sort of hooliganism would cause issues in a more congested environment!

TA

[chevvron]

My first tower posting was Glasgow, and I remember there that if you put a 1-11 on the ILS followed by a Viscount, you often had to give late landing/land after due to the Viscount catching up.

[Proplinerman]

Thanks for all the replies-some very interesting stuff here, especially the info that turboprops can maintain cruise speed a lot longer into approaches than jets-I never knew that.

[Herod]

Bring back the Brit.:ok:

[Proplinerman]

"Bring back the Brit"

And the Vanguard and the Electra-there are still quite a few of the latter flying, mainly as firebombers-but only one Vanguard remains and that's firmly a non-flyer in a museum. Until I win the lottery of course, when I will launch "Vanguard to the sky!"

[Rory57]

When FlyBe take me to Perpignan from Birmingham in a Q400, the door to door time doesn't feel any longer than when Ryan Air take me in a 737-800.
I haven't timed the trip, but remember, if you have to measure an improvement, you haven't made one!
I would rather go by 737, the noise in a Q400 is bad, even with ear plugs in.
Surely the costs saved in fuel burned are well offset by the maintenance cost of the propellers and their control system?
Whatever, it would be good to see just such a large turboprop twin introduced; how about a scaled-up Beech Starship pushed along by a pair of those EuroProp TP400 power packs from the A400M?

[VX275]

In an idle moment I got to thinking what other uses the TP400 could be used for and the fightening fact is that just one of these has more shaft horses than four RR Darts combined. Would a single engined Viscount work?

[evansb]

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/EasyJet20concept1.jpg
EasyJet ecoJet 2007 design proposal.



Tupolev TU-180 design proposal.
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/241432162.jpg

[Krystal n chips]

For those with a prop addiction.....three little letters that should invoke a rapid change of heart.....ATP...:mad:

[tail wheel]

A modernised version of the Lockhart L188 Electra / P3 Orion perhaps? Only five minutes slower that a 727 on the Sydney - Melbourne sector. :ok:

[Proplinerman]

Those are Caravelle windows on the Airbus design proposal. I wonder why?

[Rory57]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[chevvron]

Wonder how many seats you could get in an A400 - 300, 400? Quick someone tell Micheal O'Leary it would be cheaper to run than a 737.

[Jig Peter]

"ATP" was surely a vaiant of the 748 with a canted fin & rudder to please Marketing who thought that would be "really modern". It probably didn't do much good, and as the 748 had already been beaten hands down by Fokker's F-27 was a last ditch effort at "re-branding" ... Ho Hum ...
The name could also have been aimed at Aerospat's "ATR", whose "A" stood for "Avion", which is still doing fairly well in the market - I read that they're looking at clocking up 1,000 sales in a nearish future, after a longish spell in the doldrums and a hiving off from its progenitors.

[chevvron]

I think you'll find ATP stood for Advanced Turbo Prop but as you say, it wasn't much of an advance over the 748. It was re-branded as the Jetstream 61 for one Farnborough show but the name never caught on. Poor rate of climb when loaded along with an objectionable noise from the props (it was the only turbo prop that Farnborough got noise complaints about) meant it wasn't popular and it (and 748s) were eventually banned from Farnborough.

[Rory57]

Chev., Doesn't Michael O'Leary want to move to "standing room only"? That would be fun, he could get 1000 SLF up that big ramp in no time.

[chevvron]

Yeah just think, using the new 'saddle' seats he could get huge numbers on board paying £2 each to use the bogs plus 4 quid for a dry sarny etc. I travelled with Ryanair once; do you know the whisky isn't even in a plastic bottle, but in a polythene sachet!!

[proteus6]

The design proposal wasn't by Airbus it was by Easy jet

[evansb]

Yes, you are correct. The question is will this or similar propulsion technology be quieter, more fuel efficent, and more economical than a high by-pass geared turbo-fan ?
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/Progress_D-27_propfan_Antonov_An-701.jpg

[Rollingthunder]

Was watching some tv program and saw pax climbing into a rather large modern Bi-Plane. Never had seen that type before - unk type, airport or country.

[chevvron]

Antonov An 2 maybe?

[RatherBeFlying]

Collaborative
Carbon Fibre
Contra
Prop Fan

was a leading article in Flight back int the 80s'

evansb's posting reminded me of that.

Somehow I don't think it will be quieter;)

[evansb]

Yes, low noise now a primary goal. The May 14, 2010 issue of Aviation Week's 'Airliners in 2030' article outlines the GE-designed Ultra Quiet and Efficient Turboprop (UQET). The engine has a low NOx combustor with an 8-blade composite airscrew with "proplets". A much more powerful engine would be required for a medium-large transport, still it is a technological advance in the right direction.

[WHBM]

This sounds like yet another aviation "solution in search of a problem".

There was a comparable one a generation ago, the "DC3 replacement", this went on for ever (in fact until after the DC3 was finally gone) where there were a raft of proposals to develop a type that could operate on the work then still done by the DC3. They, of course, missed a couple of points.

1. The DC3 was already effectively replaced from its original tasks.
2. They were proposing replacing something that cost $100,000 with something that cost upwards of $10m a unit.
3. They were proposing replacing something that was worthwhile to have and use for 10 hr/month with something that needed utilisation at 10 hr/day to be worthwhile.
4. Nobody wanted to order one.

The same approach seems to apply to the "short haul large prop". Some of the points (particularly point 4) are the same, others are different.

The current crop of largish short-haul props have been trickling out in small numbers from the two principal manufacturers for a decade without becoming too common around the world. Both seem subject to having whitetails hangng around their factories for a long time looking for off-the-shelf buyers. One type looks like something that is 30 years old, the other comes fresh from the factory with the reliability of something 30 years old ........

[fdcg27]

"The current crop of largish short-haul props have been trickling out in small numbers from the two principal manufacturers for a decade without becoming too common around the world. Both seem subject to having whitetails hangng around their factories for a long time looking for off-the-shelf buyers. One type looks like something that is 30 years old, the other comes fresh from the factory with the reliability of something 30 years old ........"
Good point.
Still, could there be room for a new design turboprop, offering good reliability as well as good economics?
One of the most pleasant commercial flights we've been on in the past ten years was a Dornier 328 from CLT to DAY. Roomy, fast and comfortable.
Also not very economical for the operator, which is why, IIRC, all of them are now parked.

[twochai]

Still, could there be room for a new design turboprop, offering good reliability as well as good economics?


Gentlemen (and ladies): I fear you've been listening to too many ill informed posters: Lufthansa Regional says their regional turboprops are more reliable than their regional jets!

Considering reliability “that might surprise you,” Hild reported that turboprop airliners are “not really inferior” in comparative schedule performance. “Turboprops at Lufthansa Regional partners operated in 2006 with considerably lower technical delay rate and technical cancellation rate than jets,” he said.


Note that LH Regional operates turbo prop and jet regional aircraft from all thee manufacturers.

Use of faster Q Series turboprops lowers the differential, with the jet advantage ranging from 11 minutes over 200 nm to 15 minutes over 400 nm. Still, a CRJ700 can operate five full round trips per day on Dusseldorf-Dresden services, while the Q400 can manage only nine of the 10 sectors. But the turboprop’s lower fuel burn and maintenance cost offset the disadvantage to some extent. “Speed has a price,” Hild reminded regional airline officials.

As quoted from Aviation International News, June, 2007.

[411A]

Forget any type of (really) large turbopropellor aircraft....the public simply will not fly on it.
Joe Public demands jets...JP will have jets, make no mistake.

[chevvron]

fdcg27 'without being to common around the world'?
Hope you don't include the Caribbean in that as they're the mainstay of services eg Trinidad - Tobago every 30 min or thereabouts by several different operators.

[PAPI-74]

Modern TP are pretty quiet and fine for flights upto 2hrs. They can keep their speed for longer (much longer) and if ATC give a 'free speed', can leave the jets miles behind during the descent - although they will always argue the point, but the facts are there.
They burn much less fuel and can powerpack from stand while the jets are still waiting for a tug.
They take less time to fuel and with less capacity, boarding is done in 3-5 mins. On strong, gusty days I'd rather be flying one of these that's for sure.
The modern TP's with the better P&W engines are great. They are fast and can climb very well above the weather, unlike the older ones capped at FL190. The passengers like the smaller capacity and the personal service that they get. All that is required is the snobbery to be diluted. Lets face it, both jets and TP's are good at what they are designed for. TP's are king at regional flying. Why fly in a tiny barbie jet when you can have comfortable TP?

[WHBM]

The real issue with turboprops is they do not offer the flexibility to do something else with them. Take the London City to Edinburgh route, which has BA with Embraer 170/190s, and Cityjet with Dornier 328s. All the arguments about little/no speed differential, etc apply, but the Embraers have now allowed BA to start offpeak/weekend routes from London City to the Mediterranean, which are well beyond what the Dorniers could manage. Few short-haul routes have a constant demand all day, 7 days a week.