REX SAAB Issue?
Thread Starter
REX SAAB Issue?
Flightradar24 suggests SF340 VH-NRX on a SYD-CFS departed an hour ago and has conducted about 6 holding patterns east of Palm Beach/Woy Woy at low level 5000ft. Anyone know anything?
How long can these things go on for? 30 40 50 years?
Metros and Chieftains are still flying commercial ops, does that answer your question?
The only replacement option being the ATR, with 22 fatal accidents costing 675 lives vs the SAAB with 4 accidents and 48 lives lost. Both types having started life in 1984 I know which is the safer bet, even now. I think a types safety and reliability is more related to it's engineering than its age, and if anything they get safer with age as operators get to know their vices. Whether the type is still cost effective is another thing, fuel use and engineering costs, that is the major driver of replacing types.
The only replacement option being the ATR, with 22 fatal accidents costing 675 lives vs the SAAB with 4 accidents and 48 lives lost. Both types having started life in 1984 I know which is the safer bet, even now. I think a types safety and reliability is more related to it's engineering than its age, and if anything they get safer with age as operators get to know their vices. Whether the type is still cost effective is another thing, fuel use and engineering costs, that is the major driver of replacing types.
Last edited by 43Inches; 10th Jul 2022 at 09:40.
The following users liked this post:
The B52 has been flying for 65+ years and on current plans, the last B52 pilots haven’t been born yet. Update the avionics and throw some more modern engines in the Saab, or even just keep maintaining the existing ones, and it’s got plenty of life left.
The basic airframe might still be good, but which new engine is in that thrust class? Who would pay the eye-watering money for a modern avionics integration and certification? A development program like that would simply be unaffordable even if you could get someone to do the engineering.
New ATR-42, $20 million +- a few mil. New cockpit to cat 2 standard, possibly even cat 3, $500k to $1m. T700 core and engine is still being refined as its the basis for the Blackhawk/Seahawk helicopter. So it would not take a lot of imagination to get GE to refine the CT-7. Overall you could probably refit and zero time a SAAB 340 to a modern standard for under $10m. That is a full gut and refit with digital, avionics, led lighting, extended low weight composites, passive and active noise control, new engine and props etc etc.... Problem is right now how long will fossil fuel and its technologies power the aircraft. Even $10 mil needs to be spread over at least the next 20 years to be viable.
New ATR-42, $20 million +- a few mil. New cockpit to cat 2 standard, possibly even cat 3, $500k to $1m. T700 core and engine is still being refined as its the basis for the Blackhawk/Seahawk helicopter. So it would not take a lot of imagination to get GE to refine the CT-7. Overall you could probably refit and zero time a SAAB 340 to a modern standard for under $10m. That is a full gut and refit with digital, avionics, led lighting, extended low weight composites, passive and active noise control, new engine and props etc etc.... Problem is right now how long will fossil fuel and its technologies power the aircraft. Even $10 mil needs to be spread over at least the next 20 years to be viable.
There are electric motors being tested for the Saab but chances are it won't be complete in this decade.
The NASA project is talking about 30%+ fuel use reduction, rather than pure electric. So the aircraft would still retain it's current range and performance, just cost less in Jet fuel. There are also maintenance savings that are a part of it. Although the gearbox is completely replaced with an electric motor and the CT-7 retained as a generator. It's quite conceivable that it could be made full electric with ease as the jet fuel portion is just an electric power plant, not drive train.
BTW there are DASH-8 hybrids and fuel cell aircraft in development as well, so not just SAAB. I assume ATR is also mulling over what to do in the field, although nothing substantial is in the works yet (they have the Evo in progress, but it's even being called a "mild hybrid" meaning very little change, just larger batteries with some sort of electric booster engine).
Last edited by 43Inches; 10th Jul 2022 at 23:26.
I think the 2000 hp powerplant you want is still years away, from the ultimate PT6 or GE 93 for a straight upgrade. The NASA project, while interesting, wouldn’t be ready for commercial use, if ever, by 2026.
But whatever. If you were in the business of providing aircraft financing, would you fund a life extension of an old airframe or a new build?
But whatever. If you were in the business of providing aircraft financing, would you fund a life extension of an old airframe or a new build?
But whatever. If you were in the business of providing aircraft financing, would you fund a life extension of an old airframe or a new build?
I think the 2000 hp powerplant you want is still years away, from the ultimate PT6 or GE 93 for a straight upgrade.
You are talking corporate financing here, whether you get the funding is based on your business case, security and ability to repay. The interest will be based on the risk, that is all. You can get financing for just about any crazy idea, upgrading old machinery for continued viable operation is a fairly safe bet in industry and is done all the time.
There is already a better version of the CT-7 available, just not worth the swap over fees. As with everything it's a matter of what is available, at what cost in what numbers, we are talking a large business here not retrofitting a Cessna. Anyone familiar with whats going on with Rex and Link SAABs know you can rip out whats inside and replace it, the outside is just an aluminium and composite tube with some wings attached. The original SAAB was actually designed to take either GE or PW engines, however no operators accepted the PW option as it was deemed too new and non reliability proven.
There is already a better version of the CT-7 available, just not worth the swap over fees. As with everything it's a matter of what is available, at what cost in what numbers, we are talking a large business here not retrofitting a Cessna. Anyone familiar with whats going on with Rex and Link SAABs know you can rip out whats inside and replace it, the outside is just an aluminium and composite tube with some wings attached. The original SAAB was actually designed to take either GE or PW engines, however no operators accepted the PW option as it was deemed too new and non reliability proven.
I still think that you are underestimating the cost of an upgrade spread over a small fleet. Technically everything you write is doable, maybe without too many challenges, but even the simplest thing these days seems to cost 3x what you think it should cost in even your most fevered imagination.
GE produced the CT-7-9C3 and the 9D2 both with over 15% more take-off power and 5% more cruise power with optimised metallurgy, air flow and electronics which also reduced fuel consumption. Obviously both were not considered enough of an upgrade for the SAAB 340, whether cost or operational savings.
Cost is factored per unit, you go to SAAB (Boeing, ATR, Airbus or whoever) and they basically tell you how much it would cost per unit over your fleet. SAAB already has the zero time program in place for the SAAB MPA, which could easily be converted to airliner specs just swap out the Naval Patrol interior for a passenger cabin, new cockpit, new wiring and electronics etc. The issue right now is not how much it costs or whether it can be done, but for how long this technology will be valid. No point spending $5mil per aircraft to have a smick fleet of dinosaur burners when electric is just around the corner. That is if the crystal ball said fossil fuels the only way for the next 20 years, you'd see more upgrades, right now everyone knows there's a technology change in the wind, which could render all the old tech obsolete and uncompetetive. Regionals have to budget on 20+ years for major fleet changes, as opposed to larger airlines that bank on 10 years for a Boeing.
I still think that you are underestimating the cost of an upgrade spread over a small fleet. Technically everything you write is doable, maybe without too many challenges, but even the simplest thing these days seems to cost 3x what you think it should cost in even your most fevered imagination.
Saab approached Rex 10 years ago with the option to start a manufacturing a Saab 340C but the supreme leader laughed in their faces with the notion that a second hand model B can be snatched up from the US for 1 million. The reality is now that sure, the current 340s could go on for another decade, but is maintenance starting to eat into their bottom line?
Nothing to do with Rex, SAAB shelved it due to lack of demand. Needed 100+ units to make production restart viable, only got around 60 firms otherwise per unit cost was prohibitive. Rex was included in possible firm orders from what I've heard. The major reason for the retry was a possible deal with a startup US regional, they pulled out and went with Q400s and RJs, there was 100+ orders possible with that deal and without it SAAB walked away.
I think the main reason they got little interest was no firm idea of what was going to be produced, some half planned SAAB 2000 rehash with new technology, which would probably have been awesome, but no substance to sell the market. The Q400 was there and ready to go so won the day.
I think the main reason they got little interest was no firm idea of what was going to be produced, some half planned SAAB 2000 rehash with new technology, which would probably have been awesome, but no substance to sell the market. The Q400 was there and ready to go so won the day.
Its a bit disingenuous to compare the longevity of an aircraft with no modern equivalent doing a mission considered to be essential supported by a bottomless well of money. None of those things are true of civilian turboprops.
The basic airframe might still be good, but which new engine is in that thrust class? Who would pay the eye-watering money for a modern avionics integration and certification? A development program like that would simply be unaffordable even if you could get someone to do the engineering.
The basic airframe might still be good, but which new engine is in that thrust class? Who would pay the eye-watering money for a modern avionics integration and certification? A development program like that would simply be unaffordable even if you could get someone to do the engineering.
New engine? New builds of the current CT7, then in time model upgrades to the CT7, or new engines when the numbers make sense - I hadn’t heard of the hybrid electric idea so thanks 43Inches! And the avionics arent necessarily requiring upgrading for now, I’m just thinking that as the regulatory requirements change over the years incremental updates can be made, eg dual FMSs or whatever. And as systems stop being supported either find secondary suppliers or work out the point at which a full upgrade becomes worthwhile. As was done when the CRT avionics displays were no longer produced and the drop-in LCD units were sourced to keep things going.
Hmmm. Maybe I am too much of a naysayer. If the plane suits the routes so perfectly and there isn’t anything comparable new then perhaps…
One of the obsolete POS DC3s I flew in 1975 was still doing the same job five years ago.
One of the obsolete POS DC3s I flew in 1975 was still doing the same job five years ago.