Modern "business" turboprop
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern "business" turboprop
I am wondering why no manufacturer comes with a "modern" business turboprop?
The piaggio could be considered as the most modern one but it has not the turboprop runway performance as it requires quite a long stripe.
The King Air family has been around for over four decades, it is a great plane but it starts - despite all upgrades - to be old fashioned.
The starship was the only modern turboprop, may be too revolutionary...
Why there is not a turboprop with a true stand up cabin (ie cessna xls size), modern engines and prop (fadec, automatic prop adjustment, etc), a good runway performance (like the King) and a cruise speed that matches the piaggio's one.
That would be a perfect compromise, especially for operators needing to operate from smaller stripes...
The VLJ's are great but when it comes to operate from shorter stripes with the need to haul several people and baggage their performances are very limited, King airs are great but lack top speed and the cabin is outdated...
Petrol prices increasing plus the carbon taxes should make this kind of aircraft viable?
The piaggio could be considered as the most modern one but it has not the turboprop runway performance as it requires quite a long stripe.
The King Air family has been around for over four decades, it is a great plane but it starts - despite all upgrades - to be old fashioned.
The starship was the only modern turboprop, may be too revolutionary...
Why there is not a turboprop with a true stand up cabin (ie cessna xls size), modern engines and prop (fadec, automatic prop adjustment, etc), a good runway performance (like the King) and a cruise speed that matches the piaggio's one.
That would be a perfect compromise, especially for operators needing to operate from smaller stripes...
The VLJ's are great but when it comes to operate from shorter stripes with the need to haul several people and baggage their performances are very limited, King airs are great but lack top speed and the cabin is outdated...
Petrol prices increasing plus the carbon taxes should make this kind of aircraft viable?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you just can`t have everything.
Good rwy perf and high speed arent to easy to combine especially in a TP.
If you look at a REAL comparison, youīll find that the KingAir isnīt that good at T/O - if you compare BFL or at least ACC-GO. The all-engine TOD by 1,15 is not a really meaningful number...and propably that number wouldnīt differ much from a KA if youīd compared it with a CJ2 or so...even a raisbecked B200 isnīt really good, though its way better than the standard B200.
I fly the short takeoff roll wonder of the Citation fleet, the Sovereign, and pure roll on takeoff isnīt longer than a KingAir B200 (based on my feel and where in respect to the halfway marker of our 3500ft RWY we lift off - used to operate KingAirs there before) That airplane has 2,4 times the weight of a KA B200...
The KingAir is apparently still sold at sufficient numbers to keep HBC happy. Mind you, that I would not wonder if they just didnīt have the money to develop something really new - and they most likely donīt see the market to warrant a new development.
Regarding the petrol price...our CJ2 did use roughly the same fuel on anything longer than 1:15-1:30 on the KA B200 and is free of ETS crap as well.
I`d love to fly the 250, must be a nice perfomer with an up to date avionic...
Good rwy perf and high speed arent to easy to combine especially in a TP.
If you look at a REAL comparison, youīll find that the KingAir isnīt that good at T/O - if you compare BFL or at least ACC-GO. The all-engine TOD by 1,15 is not a really meaningful number...and propably that number wouldnīt differ much from a KA if youīd compared it with a CJ2 or so...even a raisbecked B200 isnīt really good, though its way better than the standard B200.
I fly the short takeoff roll wonder of the Citation fleet, the Sovereign, and pure roll on takeoff isnīt longer than a KingAir B200 (based on my feel and where in respect to the halfway marker of our 3500ft RWY we lift off - used to operate KingAirs there before) That airplane has 2,4 times the weight of a KA B200...
The KingAir is apparently still sold at sufficient numbers to keep HBC happy. Mind you, that I would not wonder if they just didnīt have the money to develop something really new - and they most likely donīt see the market to warrant a new development.
Regarding the petrol price...our CJ2 did use roughly the same fuel on anything longer than 1:15-1:30 on the KA B200 and is free of ETS crap as well.
I`d love to fly the 250, must be a nice perfomer with an up to date avionic...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a Dornier 328? The airline I used to work for had them before I started. Everyone that flew them it. Pretty fast (VMO is 270).
Corporate cabin looks fairly modern. Pic on airliners.net
This thread has some more info on field length, but I'm assuming that's for an airline configuration. I'd imagine the aircraft would do much shorter fields without 35 pax.
Corporate cabin looks fairly modern. Pic on airliners.net
This thread has some more info on field length, but I'm assuming that's for an airline configuration. I'd imagine the aircraft would do much shorter fields without 35 pax.
Last edited by paulsalem; 27th Aug 2011 at 13:31.
The Starship was an interesting experiment based on Rutan design concepts. Pretty looking and the first extensive use of composite construction in an airplane of it's class. By the time they were finally able to get it certified, it had gained so much weight and additional drag that much of the performance advantage anticipated by use of the composites had vanished. Raytheon's decision to buy back the entire delivered fleet (save one whose owner refused) speaks volumes about Raytheon's concern for future liability.
Still, the lessons learned about composite design and construction technique were not completely lost upon the company's leadership. The Premier Jet and Horizon/Hawker 4000 were built using design and construction processes based largely on what was learned in the Starship project. Both of these airplane types have certainly had their technical and certification issues, but those don't seem to be related to their partially composite construction.
If anyone were to build a clean sheet composite turboprop, I think it likely that HBC would be among the most likely to do so. However I don't think it likely that such a decision will be taken in the foreseeable future.
The corporate market for turboprops is relatively small. The demand just doesn't appear to be there to justify such an expensive developmental undertaking. Jets are more profitable to produce, so a company like HBC will concentrate it's efforts on marketing it's existing lines. Pro line 21 on the KA makes it's cockpit modern enough to suit most turboprop customers. FADEC doesn't really save anything important in an existing product so don't expect it to become popular as a retrofit. Ask P&W why they want no part of electronic propeller control. They designed FADEC into the PW-30x fanjet series, but that's another matter. FADEC works okay, but DEECs do the same thing while providing manual backup.
So other than being able to build a lighter airframe with compound curves, "modern" construction technique offers little opportunity for increased profitability for the builder even if it might provide a modicum of increased utility or reduced fuel usage for the end user. If the demand were there, they might build it.
Single power lever operation doesn't do anything for performance or engine life in a turboprop so why spend the money? It might be a fine marketing gimmick in the Cirrus, but probably not so much in a corporate TP.
So there you have it. A "modern" clean sheet turboprop is not going to provide a good return on investment for an existing manufacturer. (remember the Starship) And in the present economic climate I wouldn't expect any new entrants capable of designing, building and certifying such an aircraft to enter into the corporate turboprop market anytime soon.
That's my take on why there's no "modern" TPs in the works. I've been wrong before, but not usually when I apply a healthy measure of cynicism to aviation business matters!
westhawk
Still, the lessons learned about composite design and construction technique were not completely lost upon the company's leadership. The Premier Jet and Horizon/Hawker 4000 were built using design and construction processes based largely on what was learned in the Starship project. Both of these airplane types have certainly had their technical and certification issues, but those don't seem to be related to their partially composite construction.
If anyone were to build a clean sheet composite turboprop, I think it likely that HBC would be among the most likely to do so. However I don't think it likely that such a decision will be taken in the foreseeable future.
The corporate market for turboprops is relatively small. The demand just doesn't appear to be there to justify such an expensive developmental undertaking. Jets are more profitable to produce, so a company like HBC will concentrate it's efforts on marketing it's existing lines. Pro line 21 on the KA makes it's cockpit modern enough to suit most turboprop customers. FADEC doesn't really save anything important in an existing product so don't expect it to become popular as a retrofit. Ask P&W why they want no part of electronic propeller control. They designed FADEC into the PW-30x fanjet series, but that's another matter. FADEC works okay, but DEECs do the same thing while providing manual backup.
So other than being able to build a lighter airframe with compound curves, "modern" construction technique offers little opportunity for increased profitability for the builder even if it might provide a modicum of increased utility or reduced fuel usage for the end user. If the demand were there, they might build it.
Single power lever operation doesn't do anything for performance or engine life in a turboprop so why spend the money? It might be a fine marketing gimmick in the Cirrus, but probably not so much in a corporate TP.
So there you have it. A "modern" clean sheet turboprop is not going to provide a good return on investment for an existing manufacturer. (remember the Starship) And in the present economic climate I wouldn't expect any new entrants capable of designing, building and certifying such an aircraft to enter into the corporate turboprop market anytime soon.
That's my take on why there's no "modern" TPs in the works. I've been wrong before, but not usually when I apply a healthy measure of cynicism to aviation business matters!
westhawk
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at a REAL comparison, youīll find that the KingAir isnīt that good at T/O
I doubt anyone has the cash or inclination to start a clean sheet TP and why would they? Beech have the sector sewn up in terms of quality of product, availability of pilots, service centres, engineers etc etc. Cash spent on a TP design is cash not spent on a new jet design. And many buyers go with the tried and tested product.
lack top speed and the cabin is outdated...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared with what? An empty Sovereign perhaps but not one with a decent load. 200GT's operate in and out of 800m strips all day, particularlu raisbeck'd ones. Not to mention unimproved strips.
If one would compare BFL required by a KA and a Sov what do you think he would find?
OTOH Cessna does not publish the all engine TODR. IF they`d do, I venture a guess and say the Sovereign wouldnīt be worse than the KA.
My main job is flying the Sov, I have roughly a 1100hrs on the Sov and more than 4000 on the B200. (Iīm still rated in the KA and fly it as a freelancer regularly)
My homebase has 3675ft rwy available at 300ft elevation and we can depart with the Sovereign to roughly 20°C at MTOW - just to give you an idea.
I agree that in private ops - using all eng TODR vs. FAR/JAR25 T/O performance the KA is 'better' but thats not a real/fair comparison IMO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am looking at the EASA AOC rules.....
The dornier 328 TP was mentionned, but I am not certain about the future evolution of the costs to operate this aircraft.
It looks like a great plane, with good runway and flight performances but the fact that it is out of production for nearly 6 years is not in his favor.
The single engines TP are great, especially the PC12 has a great cabin, that I found better than the KA but it has unfortunatelly only one engine.... so not suitable.
Something with a PC12 like cabin and 2 engines would be great.
I will have a deeper look in the performances
The dornier 328 TP was mentionned, but I am not certain about the future evolution of the costs to operate this aircraft.
It looks like a great plane, with good runway and flight performances but the fact that it is out of production for nearly 6 years is not in his favor.
The single engines TP are great, especially the PC12 has a great cabin, that I found better than the KA but it has unfortunatelly only one engine.... so not suitable.
Something with a PC12 like cabin and 2 engines would be great.
I will have a deeper look in the performances
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere
Age: 42
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally a one engine plane for 'business' is a non starter...after that it's coming down to capital and operating costs...then somewhere in here we shoe horn a plane into the boss's 'mission' which will morph once they start flying around.
Short field performance is really more about pilot limitation then aircraft limitation...with few guys actually having the skills to safety get in an out of tight fields.
As far as 'modern' goes, the Piaggio with a Canard, rear engines..is as modern as it gets.
Short field performance is really more about pilot limitation then aircraft limitation...with few guys actually having the skills to safety get in an out of tight fields.
As far as 'modern' goes, the Piaggio with a Canard, rear engines..is as modern as it gets.
