New big prop, facing the A320 & 737: TurboLiner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the noise target of the Turboliner? In the 1990's Saab promised 76dB to Crossair but achieved only 78 dB, much to Crossair's annoyance.
I think good progress has been made in this area. The level, frequency & characteristics combined with new fluid dynamics technology has provided significant improvements.. e.g. the sharp wingtip transsonic noise seems almost eliminated.
YouTube - Airbus A400M TP400-D6 Engine Test
They should do some wotk on the starters though (or go for electric drive & start at a more remote place)..
YouTube - Fokker F27 Startup and Taxi
I think good progress has been made in this area. The level, frequency & characteristics combined with new fluid dynamics technology has provided significant improvements.. e.g. the sharp wingtip transsonic noise seems almost eliminated.
YouTube - Airbus A400M TP400-D6 Engine Test
They should do some wotk on the starters though (or go for electric drive & start at a more remote place)..
YouTube - Fokker F27 Startup and Taxi
If you really want efficency bring back props and a big piston engine to drive them 
Guest
Posts: n/a
keesje
You have a facility for design, and you think well. I liked your work the first time around, should you be on to other projects? The Big propellor Turbojet marriage has some pretty efficient expressions in millions of hours of Turbofans. So my suggestion is take your refreshing airframe approaches to the Turbofan solution. Propellors are heavy, complex, way expensive given their "advantages", etc. Nice work! Altitude constraints limit the Propellor to high drag environment, and Propellor speed limit by Noise at low level.
bear
You have a facility for design, and you think well. I liked your work the first time around, should you be on to other projects? The Big propellor Turbojet marriage has some pretty efficient expressions in millions of hours of Turbofans. So my suggestion is take your refreshing airframe approaches to the Turbofan solution. Propellors are heavy, complex, way expensive given their "advantages", etc. Nice work! Altitude constraints limit the Propellor to high drag environment, and Propellor speed limit by Noise at low level.
bear
Last edited by bearfoil; 31st Aug 2010 at 17:13.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South pole
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudder a bit small
Just happened upon this thread - very interesting, only suggestion I would make is enlarging the rudder relative to the vertical fin, area ratio looks wrong. Hydraulically powered FBW controls would seem to be the modern approach to the flight controls, mechanically linked hydraulics is cheaper to develop, more expensive to maintain later.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thnx Bearfoil. Nothing official came out of this concept. Btw since a few months I'm looking for a job after reorganization at my employer. With my "partner in crime" kaktusdigital (Henry) I'm working on an update of the Turboliner. He's a graphics professional, stay tuned 
Keesje,
If you're working on an update, may I suggest you start looking at a freighter? The basic dimensions of the floor would probably accomodate a standard 125 inch (318 cm) by 88 inch (213 cm) ULD. Try to make sure you can have around 220 cm of height clearance over a width of around 100 cm at the roof. That will allow loading of standard AAA type ULDs. Also, ensure there's room for a restraining system by placing the ULDs with around 1 inch of space between each position.
Cargo door should be behind the wing, wih dimensions of around 220 cm high by 340 cm wide.
If you can make all that happen, and add a couple hundred miles more range, you'll have a feeder par excellence for the integrators on your hands.
If you're working on an update, may I suggest you start looking at a freighter? The basic dimensions of the floor would probably accomodate a standard 125 inch (318 cm) by 88 inch (213 cm) ULD. Try to make sure you can have around 220 cm of height clearance over a width of around 100 cm at the roof. That will allow loading of standard AAA type ULDs. Also, ensure there's room for a restraining system by placing the ULDs with around 1 inch of space between each position.
Cargo door should be behind the wing, wih dimensions of around 220 cm high by 340 cm wide.
If you can make all that happen, and add a couple hundred miles more range, you'll have a feeder par excellence for the integrators on your hands.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Age: 43
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe because I fly it, and its a no longer produced low production run aircraft, through being a victim of circumstance I have noticed no one has mentioned the Saab 2000. Its not mentioned on any of the graphs shown of current aircraft comparisons.
I like the proposal but my primary concern is service ceiling Fl250 is far too low. Whats the point of a 1500nm range if you gonna be limited to Fl250.
Maybe chemical oxygen generators or a ring main oxygen sytem adds weight but the fuel savings would be astronomical. Take the performance of the A400m even if you wont plan to be doing long sectors to always require FL370, the performance would be there with regard to payload and shortfield operation and high ceiling when long sectors are flown. I would also opt for low wing wide landing gear for crosswind ability and minimum control speeds. The Saab 2000 has a Fl310 service ceiling and you can choose to take RVSM or non RVSM packages for avionics and maintenance solutions. Saab claim that paying the extra for the RVSM ADCs and package will pay for itself in 6-9 months on an aircraft doing 8 400nm sectors a day. Operating at 300 and 310 instead of 270 and 280.
When appropriate even though the airframes my company operate arent RVSM approved we often ask negative rvsm for higher, and in quiet airspace with a friendly controller are approved. The Saab gets to 310 with plenty of spare performance, its the differential pressure limitation on the fueselage that limits the SB20.
The Saab 2000 is worth a study as although it was not a success due to bad timing in the market and some interesting decisions from the manufacturer regarding the production jigs when production ceased is a much more advanced turbo prop than what is currently available even 15 years later in the civil market. Due to the Saab being late into production, for whatever reasons large orders were cancelled, and in a rush to bring into production some compromises were made, but when operating the aircraft you can see what awesome potential it has, and would have had if ideas had been taken to the full.
A wide bodied (capable of taking 3+3 seats or a ULD or AKE at least for a cargo version) stretched version of the Saab 2000 would be my choice with full fly by wire rather than just pitch and yaw, an improved pressurisation/environmental control system and autothrottle/full VNAV with proline 21 instead of proline 4, and 440kt TAS FL370 ceiling would be my perfect aircraft. Also take a look at the Piaggio Avanti for Turboprop performance.
I understand this is an old thread that has been resurrected but I will add my best wishes for your project. What is the status of the project now?
I like the proposal but my primary concern is service ceiling Fl250 is far too low. Whats the point of a 1500nm range if you gonna be limited to Fl250.
Maybe chemical oxygen generators or a ring main oxygen sytem adds weight but the fuel savings would be astronomical. Take the performance of the A400m even if you wont plan to be doing long sectors to always require FL370, the performance would be there with regard to payload and shortfield operation and high ceiling when long sectors are flown. I would also opt for low wing wide landing gear for crosswind ability and minimum control speeds. The Saab 2000 has a Fl310 service ceiling and you can choose to take RVSM or non RVSM packages for avionics and maintenance solutions. Saab claim that paying the extra for the RVSM ADCs and package will pay for itself in 6-9 months on an aircraft doing 8 400nm sectors a day. Operating at 300 and 310 instead of 270 and 280.
When appropriate even though the airframes my company operate arent RVSM approved we often ask negative rvsm for higher, and in quiet airspace with a friendly controller are approved. The Saab gets to 310 with plenty of spare performance, its the differential pressure limitation on the fueselage that limits the SB20.
The Saab 2000 is worth a study as although it was not a success due to bad timing in the market and some interesting decisions from the manufacturer regarding the production jigs when production ceased is a much more advanced turbo prop than what is currently available even 15 years later in the civil market. Due to the Saab being late into production, for whatever reasons large orders were cancelled, and in a rush to bring into production some compromises were made, but when operating the aircraft you can see what awesome potential it has, and would have had if ideas had been taken to the full.
A wide bodied (capable of taking 3+3 seats or a ULD or AKE at least for a cargo version) stretched version of the Saab 2000 would be my choice with full fly by wire rather than just pitch and yaw, an improved pressurisation/environmental control system and autothrottle/full VNAV with proline 21 instead of proline 4, and 440kt TAS FL370 ceiling would be my perfect aircraft. Also take a look at the Piaggio Avanti for Turboprop performance.
I understand this is an old thread that has been resurrected but I will add my best wishes for your project. What is the status of the project now?
Last edited by PaulW; 4th Sep 2010 at 01:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMT Member, thnx
the revised concept we are working on, has a wider flatter cross section, an innovative 2-3-2 standing cabin, around (9x20") 180 inch (4.5) wide at seat level. The cargo possibilities crossed my mind, thanks for the more detailed requirements. I think even 2 LD-3s might fit side by side.
220 cm of height clearance over a width of around 100 cm at the roof should not be a limitation. Even some bigger pallets might fit in if the door is wide enough to make the turn.
PaulW I got more comments on the performance. thnx for your input. The new concept will have state of the art counter rotating open rotors optimized for better performance and Henry smoothened out aerodynamics. I'll have to study the effect on the specification in terms of OEW etc. The aircraft will remain high wing but we widened the landing gear for said crosswind ability and minimum control speeds. The high wing and two passenger doors will enable quick (de) boarding on smaller airports and enhance airfield performance for a given span/surface.
The status is that we started looking at it again before the (euro) holidays and now spend some time on it again & think about how to best present it apart from pprune and airliners.net. The concept graphics Henry produced so far look very good. W'll add some more detail. All suggestions / ideas are welcome.
kind regards
the revised concept we are working on, has a wider flatter cross section, an innovative 2-3-2 standing cabin, around (9x20") 180 inch (4.5) wide at seat level. The cargo possibilities crossed my mind, thanks for the more detailed requirements. I think even 2 LD-3s might fit side by side.
220 cm of height clearance over a width of around 100 cm at the roof should not be a limitation. Even some bigger pallets might fit in if the door is wide enough to make the turn.
PaulW I got more comments on the performance. thnx for your input. The new concept will have state of the art counter rotating open rotors optimized for better performance and Henry smoothened out aerodynamics. I'll have to study the effect on the specification in terms of OEW etc. The aircraft will remain high wing but we widened the landing gear for said crosswind ability and minimum control speeds. The high wing and two passenger doors will enable quick (de) boarding on smaller airports and enhance airfield performance for a given span/surface.
The status is that we started looking at it again before the (euro) holidays and now spend some time on it again & think about how to best present it apart from pprune and airliners.net. The concept graphics Henry produced so far look very good. W'll add some more detail. All suggestions / ideas are welcome.
kind regards
Last edited by keesje; 6th Sep 2010 at 11:24.
