New big prop, facing the A320 & 737: TurboLiner.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: at an airport
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mentiond the protection plates behind the props for ice. As James mentioned previously, you may also need the reinforce the skin of the fuselage to protect from ice impact.
As seen in this image: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Banco-de-Mexico/De-Havilland-Canada/1364184/M/
As seen in this image: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Banco-de-Mexico/De-Havilland-Canada/1364184/M/
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje
Your design idea has a fuselage diameter & length and wingspan almost identical to an A320 -- but its empty weight is 35% lower!
Where will your design save the 15 tonnes? Seems particularly difficult since the T-tail and high-wing/low-gear arrangements are heavier.
CFM56's weigh about 2400kg each, TP400's about 1900kg each, so there's a ton of savings per airframe. 14 to go!
Your design idea has a fuselage diameter & length and wingspan almost identical to an A320 -- but its empty weight is 35% lower!
Where will your design save the 15 tonnes? Seems particularly difficult since the T-tail and high-wing/low-gear arrangements are heavier.
CFM56's weigh about 2400kg each, TP400's about 1900kg each, so there's a ton of savings per airframe. 14 to go!
Last edited by Machaca; 27th Jun 2008 at 23:07. Reason: typo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Machada,
the Turboliner and A320 share the same seat capasity, but that's about all.
Thw A320 is a heavy aircraft for short haul passenger service.
The MTOW of the Turboliner is much lower because it is not a medium haul aircraft like the A320.
The Turboliner would have significantly less then half the range / fuel capasity. (1500nm vs 3200 nm)
No serious cargo capability is foresee, contrary to A320 which has containers/pallet capability and loading system.
Turboliner wings, tail section and floor should be CRFP like all modern designs but unlike the A320.
The fuselage cross section would be narrower then A320, 3.7 m vs 3.95 m. Turboliner fuselage & cabin are closer to the BA146.
The service ceiling of the Turboliner would be around 25.000ft vs 40.000ft and max speed are lower influencing the pressure cabin / structure weight.
Lighter galleys (no ovens) just small meals, less lavatories etc, no IFE, etc.
Basicly everything is lighter because its a dedicated passenger short range turboprop without the medium haul flexibility (& MTOW) the A320 and 737 offer.
the Turboliner and A320 share the same seat capasity, but that's about all.
Thw A320 is a heavy aircraft for short haul passenger service.
The MTOW of the Turboliner is much lower because it is not a medium haul aircraft like the A320.
The Turboliner would have significantly less then half the range / fuel capasity. (1500nm vs 3200 nm)
No serious cargo capability is foresee, contrary to A320 which has containers/pallet capability and loading system.
Turboliner wings, tail section and floor should be CRFP like all modern designs but unlike the A320.
The fuselage cross section would be narrower then A320, 3.7 m vs 3.95 m. Turboliner fuselage & cabin are closer to the BA146.
The service ceiling of the Turboliner would be around 25.000ft vs 40.000ft and max speed are lower influencing the pressure cabin / structure weight.
Lighter galleys (no ovens) just small meals, less lavatories etc, no IFE, etc.
Basicly everything is lighter because its a dedicated passenger short range turboprop without the medium haul flexibility (& MTOW) the A320 and 737 offer.
Last edited by keesje; 30th Jun 2008 at 14:48. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Godzone
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to think that ovens and IFE would be in the offering as the market takes a turn downwards, the airlines are looking toward better product offerings rather than just cheap seats. they are still offering cheap seats but are now looking at adding IFE etc to ensure that what market share is available they get the maximum out of it.
Air NZ is just re-fitting the A320 & B767 fleets with IFE in the seat backs. I was surprised that they ordered the A320 without it?!?
As this technology gets lighter and lighter it maybe able to be used with out a major weight penalty.
The Atr 72 MTOW is 22800kgs that we fly and the Q400 is closer to 29t, for a difference of about 6-10seats.
Will be interesting to finally see what ATR offers as a 90seat turbo-prop concept. Also hear that Embraer are talking/planning a 90seat turbo-prop as well. So I would guess that the current fuel price issues may be the start of a very strong push toward turbo-prop flying.
Soon our fleet will be getting upgraded/replaced and the contenders were the ATR600, Q400 and ERJ190. The 600 and 400 were most likely with a view to the 90seat products ATR and DASH are looking at building, one a stretch of a old technology the other off a clean sheet with all new technology available.
My money would be on keeping the ATR!!
But wouldn't mind if they bought your turbo-prop keesje
Air NZ is just re-fitting the A320 & B767 fleets with IFE in the seat backs. I was surprised that they ordered the A320 without it?!?
As this technology gets lighter and lighter it maybe able to be used with out a major weight penalty.
The Atr 72 MTOW is 22800kgs that we fly and the Q400 is closer to 29t, for a difference of about 6-10seats.
Will be interesting to finally see what ATR offers as a 90seat turbo-prop concept. Also hear that Embraer are talking/planning a 90seat turbo-prop as well. So I would guess that the current fuel price issues may be the start of a very strong push toward turbo-prop flying.
Soon our fleet will be getting upgraded/replaced and the contenders were the ATR600, Q400 and ERJ190. The 600 and 400 were most likely with a view to the 90seat products ATR and DASH are looking at building, one a stretch of a old technology the other off a clean sheet with all new technology available.
My money would be on keeping the ATR!!
But wouldn't mind if they bought your turbo-prop keesje
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kiwilad
Soon our fleet will be getting upgraded/replaced and the contenders were the ATR600, Q400 and ERJ190. The 600 and 400 were most likely with a view to the 90seat products ATR and DASH are looking at building, one a stretch of a old technology the other off a clean sheet with all new technology available.
A new wing & tail would be neccesary (althoung Embraer plans to use the E190's wing for the above mentioned high winged C-390)
Also good news from the engines front new heavy turbo shafts : GE38-1B (7500 hp), Honeywell a new T55 version : 55-L-71X (>5000 hp) and Rolls keeps improving the AE2100 (max 5000 hp).
GE plots GE38 engine's future in emerging heavylift market
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not too sure what you are getting at here, but there's no real design commonality between the dash 8 and CRJ fuselages. The dash started development long before Bombardier/Canadair had any involvement in Downview, and the CRJ fuselage of course is a direct development of the Challenger. So there's no common ancestor to the designs.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keesje - I'm unclear on your response to my question regarding weight:
They share the same physics and math too.
Yes, I agree the A320 is a bit heavy for max efficiency short-haul pax service. So how do you carry the same # of pax with 14 tonnes less airplane?
Certainly. However, I asked about OEW.
This is mostly determined by wing volume available for the fuel tanks and powerplant fuel burn.
I don't agree with your cargo market evaluation, but for the sake of it let's dispense with the pallet/container sytems. OK, that'll save 1.5 more tonnes. 12.5 to go!
So what are the calculated weight savings due to use of CFRP? The A320 is already 28% composites by weight, including the entire tail structure. The A380 saved almost 15 tonnes by the use of composites, including a CFRP wing center wing box and entire tail structure - that shaved its OEW by 5% to 277 tonnes!
Why? Your OEW kg per seat is lower than a Cessna 172!
How much weight does this shed and from where - fuselage skin thickness?
OK, galleys just like a Q400 & ATR-72 (can't cut the lavs or pax will spend entire flight in the queue!). So how does the Turboliner get to be so much lighter?
I really like the idea of a 150 seat twin TP-400 powered airliner, but more hard numbers are needed to assess its feasibility.
the Turboliner and A320 share the same seat capasity, but that's about all.
Thw A320 is a heavy aircraft for short haul passenger service.
The MTOW of the Turboliner is much lower because it is not a medium haul aircraft like the A320.
The Turboliner would have significantly less then half the range / fuel capasity. (1500nm vs 3200 nm)
No serious cargo capability is foresee, contrary to A320 which has containers/pallet capability and loading system.
Turboliner wings, tail section and floor should be CRFP like all modern designs but unlike the A320.
The fuselage cross section would be narrower then A320, 3.7 m vs 3.95 m. Turboliner fuselage & cabin are closer to the BA146.
Some rough numbers for comparison (single class, ~31" SP):
- A320-200 = 243 kg/seat
- B737-500 = 242 kg/seat
- Emb 195 = 230 kg/seat
- BAe-146 = 225 kg/seat
- DHC Q400 = 224 kg/seat
- ATR-72 = 191 kg/seat
- Cessna 172 = 162 kg/seat
- Turboliner = 161 kg/seat
The service ceiling of the Turboliner would be around 25.000ft vs 40.000ft and max speed are lower influencing the pressure cabin / structure weight.
Lighter galleys (no ovens) just small meals, less lavatories etc, no IFE, etc.
Basicly everything is lighter because its a dedicated passenger short range turboprop without the medium haul flexibility (& MTOW) the A320 and 737 offer.
I really like the idea of a 150 seat twin TP-400 powered airliner, but more hard numbers are needed to assess its feasibility.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machaca
Thanks for the good look you took at the number
I don't think we have to go to deep for that one.
I took some data from a nice MIT study of the various relevant efficiencies influencing overall efficiency for different aircraft & propulsion types.
Report by Raffi Babikian, Stephen P. Lukachko and Ian A. Waitz can be found at: http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/people/...s/Babikian.pdf, 2003?
As can be seen in the graph Turboprop engines tend to be 15-20% more fuel efficient then turbofans. main driver of this is the very high BPR of over 1:30. The engines used on 737 and A320 (CFM56 / V2500) are improved versions of 20-30 year old designs, the limited BPR is only 1:5. The TP400 with the latest technology build into a blank paper design is probably closer or even over 20%. SFC probably around around .4
As you mentioned Turboprops are also structurally more efficient then jet aircraft. This has to do with their limited flight envelope and dedicated short haul passenger design.
This structural efficiency results in lower weights and lift induced drag. Taxiing efficiency is also much better for high frequency operations. Other efficiencies are of a lower order. These considerations made me conclude a 25 % more fuel efficient operation should be possible with the Propliner compared to e.g. a similar sized 737 or A320.
Question arises why it hasn't been tried earlier. I think fuel was a smaller part of total operating costs. Increased speed (=frequencies) and medium range flexibility were more important. Nobody felt the need to develop a higher BPR engine like open rotor or real big turboprop.
I really like the idea of a 150 seat twin TP-400 powered airliner, but more hard numbers are needed to assess its feasibility.
I took some data from a nice MIT study of the various relevant efficiencies influencing overall efficiency for different aircraft & propulsion types.
Report by Raffi Babikian, Stephen P. Lukachko and Ian A. Waitz can be found at: http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/people/...s/Babikian.pdf, 2003?
As can be seen in the graph Turboprop engines tend to be 15-20% more fuel efficient then turbofans. main driver of this is the very high BPR of over 1:30. The engines used on 737 and A320 (CFM56 / V2500) are improved versions of 20-30 year old designs, the limited BPR is only 1:5. The TP400 with the latest technology build into a blank paper design is probably closer or even over 20%. SFC probably around around .4
As you mentioned Turboprops are also structurally more efficient then jet aircraft. This has to do with their limited flight envelope and dedicated short haul passenger design.
This structural efficiency results in lower weights and lift induced drag. Taxiing efficiency is also much better for high frequency operations. Other efficiencies are of a lower order. These considerations made me conclude a 25 % more fuel efficient operation should be possible with the Propliner compared to e.g. a similar sized 737 or A320.
Question arises why it hasn't been tried earlier. I think fuel was a smaller part of total operating costs. Increased speed (=frequencies) and medium range flexibility were more important. Nobody felt the need to develop a higher BPR engine like open rotor or real big turboprop.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keesje
How about wading into the shallow part and providing some basic answers? How will you shed the weight? This is the Tech forum, not the brochure-speak dream forum.
No you didn't. You extrapolated wildly from a graph to guesstimate a desired outcome.
The graph represents aircraft, not engines. I asked about airframe weight, not BPR.
How did you derive such a claim?
I mentioned no such thing. Short haul aircraft are structurally reinforced to handle their high cycle operating environment. This adds weight.
The MIT study you linked to contradicts your statement:
Time to reconsider what conclusions are possible!
Keesje, there are many highly experienced and knowledgeable aviation professionals willing to contribute meaningfully to your idea if you are willing to engage in a honest dialogue.
Quote:
I don't think we have to go to deep for that one.
I really like the idea of a 150 seat twin TP-400 powered airliner, but more hard numbers are needed to assess its feasibility.
I took some data from a nice MIT study of the various relevant efficiencies influencing overall efficiency for different aircraft & propulsion types.
...Turboprop engines tend to be 15-20% more fuel efficient then turbofans. main driver of this is the very high BPR of over 1:30. The engines used on 737 and A320 (CFM56 / V2500) are improved versions of 20-30 year old designs, the limited BPR is only 1:5.
The TP400 with the latest technology build into a blank paper design is probably closer or even over 20%. SFC probably around around .4
As you mentioned Turboprops are also structurally more efficient then jet aircraft. This has to do with their limited flight envelope and dedicated short haul passenger design.
The MIT study you linked to contradicts your statement:
"...RJ's are less structurally efficient than large aircraft, and that TP's in turn are less efficient than RJ's."
These considerations made me conclude a 25 % more fuel efficient operation should be possible with the Propliner compared to e.g. a similar sized 737 or A320.
Keesje, there are many highly experienced and knowledgeable aviation professionals willing to contribute meaningfully to your idea if you are willing to engage in a honest dialogue.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machaca
"How about wading into the shallow part and providing some basic answers? How will you shed the weight? This is the Tech forum, not the brochure-speak dream forum."
"No you didn't. You extrapolated wildly from a graph to guesstimate a desired outcome."
"The graph represents aircraft, not engines. I asked about airframe weight, not BPR."
"How did you derive such a claim?"
"I mentioned no such thing. Short haul aircraft are structurally reinforced to handle their high cycle operating environment. This adds weight."
"The MIT study you linked to contradicts your statement:
Time to reconsider what conclusions are possible! "
"Keesje, there are many highly experienced and knowledgeable aviation professionals willing to contribute meaningfully to your idea if you are willing to engage in a honest dialogue. "
"No you didn't. You extrapolated wildly from a graph to guesstimate a desired outcome."
"The graph represents aircraft, not engines. I asked about airframe weight, not BPR."
"How did you derive such a claim?"
"I mentioned no such thing. Short haul aircraft are structurally reinforced to handle their high cycle operating environment. This adds weight."
"The MIT study you linked to contradicts your statement:
Time to reconsider what conclusions are possible! "
"Keesje, there are many highly experienced and knowledgeable aviation professionals willing to contribute meaningfully to your idea if you are willing to engage in a honest dialogue. "
As I mentioned in earlier posts (#6) I did not take the B737 or A320 as a starting point. I took the BAE146 family (fuselage) and TP400 engine (MTOW) as starting points. As you can see in the first post the Turboliner shares the tail, landing gear and general wing configuration. If we look at the last biggest ever BAE146 variant, the RXJ100, it has an empty weight of about 25.450kg (56,108lb). The max 120 seat Fokker 100 is a tonne lighter.
This photo no doubt creates sad feeling for UK readers.. sorry, the only RJX100. Specs: http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=48
The RJX has a 1500 kg lower OEW then the Turboliner. The RJX basic airframe & wing were developed about 35 years ago.
Taking the RXJ1000 & TP400 as a starting point (as I did: http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1214997582 ).
- Replacing the 4 engined BAE 146 wing with a new CRFP wing with 2 engines will save weight. : 1500 kg?
- Replacing the the RXJ's Al tail with a CRFP one will save weight 1000 kg?
- Replacing floor and floor beams and torsionbox with CRFP : 1000 kg?
- The Turboliner has less range, max speed, lower ceiling : xxx kg?
Maybe I'm optimistic and the OEW is higher. An OEW close to the A320 as you suggest would be to high IMO. I don't think its like comparing a SUV to a compact car, but the designs have different missions for sure.
kind regards,
keesje
Last edited by keesje; 2nd Jul 2008 at 15:16. Reason: link, spelling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR talking up 150 seater with TP400 !
Rolls-Royce is talking up the possibility of a new generation of turboprop-powered aircraft replacing a substantial proportion of today's narrowbody jets.
The manufacturer believes high oil prices are likely to drive airframers to sacrifice cruise speed for economics.
"The TP400 engine [for the Airbus A400M military transport] is a very efficient propulsion system," R-R director engineering and technology, Colin Smith, says. "There is a very sound argument to be made for the majority of the 150-seat market, which flies mostly for less than 1.5h [being turboprop-powered]...if somebody does want a high-efficiency turboprop then have we got one for you."
The manufacturer believes high oil prices are likely to drive airframers to sacrifice cruise speed for economics.
"The TP400 engine [for the Airbus A400M military transport] is a very efficient propulsion system," R-R director engineering and technology, Colin Smith, says. "There is a very sound argument to be made for the majority of the 150-seat market, which flies mostly for less than 1.5h [being turboprop-powered]...if somebody does want a high-efficiency turboprop then have we got one for you."
"All we know is that a lot of people who currently fly around in 150-seat aircraft will need transporting in the future. Is that going to be in a single-aisle or twin-aisle? There are plenty of persuasive arguments about what that will be.
"What is the range of this thing? A thousand miles [1,600km] or 3,000 miles leads to fundamentally different machines."
"What is the range of this thing? A thousand miles [1,600km] or 3,000 miles leads to fundamentally different machines."
And I bet they've been looking at your thread, or are you connected with them?
But this is the engine manufacturer looking at the possibility of increasing the market for it's product. They do mention that they haven't spoke to the airframe producers yet. I suspect those companies have some drawings for aircraft similar to yours. But I suspect the reason they haven't come to light is that it's just not yet viable. With oil heading for $200, it may just yet.
The A320/B737 designs have evolved from a design concept which fits the current market requirements. Your high capacity TP design looks like it is trying to justify it's design by stealing the business from the current designs. But it's going to have to fill a niche, and I don't think the market is quite ready to change just yet. But who knows what the air travel market will be like in 10 years time.
Just one point about the reduced size cargo holds. A lot of routes need freight business to stay profitable. I fly A320s around China and we nearly always have at least 2 tonnes of freight in the holds.
But this is the engine manufacturer looking at the possibility of increasing the market for it's product. They do mention that they haven't spoke to the airframe producers yet. I suspect those companies have some drawings for aircraft similar to yours. But I suspect the reason they haven't come to light is that it's just not yet viable. With oil heading for $200, it may just yet.
The A320/B737 designs have evolved from a design concept which fits the current market requirements. Your high capacity TP design looks like it is trying to justify it's design by stealing the business from the current designs. But it's going to have to fill a niche, and I don't think the market is quite ready to change just yet. But who knows what the air travel market will be like in 10 years time.
Just one point about the reduced size cargo holds. A lot of routes need freight business to stay profitable. I fly A320s around China and we nearly always have at least 2 tonnes of freight in the holds.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan
are you connected with them?
Just one point about the reduced size cargo holds. A lot of routes need freight business to stay profitable. I fly A320s around China and we nearly always have at least 2 tonnes of freight in the holds.
I tried to dimension the cargohold to be just big enough to handle the luggage for a full load of holiday travellers. Lowering the floor created room for big luggage bins enabling more hand luggage for short haul / day business trips to e.g. LCY.
Your high capacity TP design looks like it is trying to justify it's design by stealing the business from the current designs.
Airbus and Boeing have enormous backlogs and are in no hurry, saying breakthroughs are neccessary that can not be done before 2020.
Quote: I tried to dimension the cargohold to be just big enough to handle the luggage for a full load of holiday travellers. Lowering the floor created room for big luggage bins enabling more hand luggage for short haul / day business trips to e.g. LCY.
Then the design is going to be restricted in it's use. You are consigning it to a limited market. I don't think it would fit in the Asian market, which is the biggest emerging market at the moment and can't be ignored by any manufacturer.
Then the design is going to be restricted in it's use. You are consigning it to a limited market. I don't think it would fit in the Asian market, which is the biggest emerging market at the moment and can't be ignored by any manufacturer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan
Then the design is going to be restricted in it's use. You are consigning it to a limited market.
The NB market is so big dedicated types for various markets will probably be a smarter solution. So no 1-1 replacement, but a split. In the narrowbody market we allready see the Superjet, CSeries, Embraer 190/195, ARJ pushing out the heavy 737-600-700 and A318/319 where the payload range capasity of those types is not needed.
1200 NM ranges from MIA, JFK, AMS, DXB and PVG.
Luckely people live together in populated areas. Even in China most traffic is concentrated around the East Coast. Ghuanzou is little more then 1000nm away from PEK. Inbetween most activity seems concentrated. A320/737s could take care of longer / cargo included flights.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 41
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that's basicly the trick.
Even with a perfect aircraft, short flights are bad for business. On the one hand, there are a lot of other means of transport, on the other hand, a lot of costs of a flight accumulate per flight/per cycle and not per flight hour (e.g. landing fees, maintenance costs). The limit of 1500NM is leaving only a small spectrum of ranges, where airlines earn money. Take a look at the BAe146 and the lack of range and the lack of success of this aircraft.
A smaller and very light airframe could be the first step to a more fuel efficient aircraft. But while the whole aviation world is talking about the fuel price, airlines are paying leasing rates (or interests), spendig a lot of money for maintenance, paying fees and give money to the crew.
Saving 500kg fuel from LHR to AMS woud be great, but if the other costs are to high, you can't sell even one Turboliner.
Again, here arrives the weight at the scene. You want to offer a short range aircraft, which is flying thousands of cycles (round about 100.000 cycles in 30 years ?!). And the weight is lower than anything known today. This could work, but the mechanicians would have to change a lot of structural parts during the life cycle. In this case, the maintenance costs would hit the roof.
Take the average structure weight of some comparable modern aircrafts (320/737) and subtract 10%. This would be more serious than scaling up from a very special kind of aircraft like the BAe146.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MadDogFlyer
Saving 500kg fuel from LHR to AMS woud be great, but if the other costs are to high, you can't sell even one Turboliner.
A ~120 seat Boeing 737-600 weighs empty : 80,031 lb (36,378 kg), A318 more.
A ~110 seat Fokker 100 weighs empty : 53,510 lb (24,272 kg)
Difference in OEW is 30% or 12.000 kg. That's the same as the payload weight of the 120 passengers + their luggage.
The limit of 1500NM is leaving only a small spectrum of ranges, where airlines earn money.
Take the average structure weight of some comparable modern aircrafts (320/737) and subtract 10%. This would be more serious than scaling up from a very special kind of aircraft like the BAe146.
I have the feeling Bombardier with its lighter dedicated more fuel efficient 110-130 seater will have a ball next week and in the coming years.. ATR is looking at stepping in too with a 100 seat prop. ATR refers to new turboprop study as '-900'. At this moment Embraer is king of the hill. Airlines simply had no alternative during the last 10 years.
Again, here arrives the weight at the scene. You want to offer a short range aircraft, which is flying thousands of cycles (round about 100.000 cycles in 30 years ?!). And the weight is lower than anything known today. This could work, but the mechanicians would have to change a lot of structural parts during the life cycle. In this case, the maintenance costs would hit the roof.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dublin
Age: 59
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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