SAAB's new turboprop
Most of this comparison to the older aircraft is a waste of time as SAAB will no doubt introduce an updated package that includes all modern avionics, engine, noise suppression and seating.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney, NSW Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, here are a few current facts concerning one large and successful Saab operator.
Regional Express in Australia operate 51 Saab 340's (A, B, B+ and WT models and variants).
REX is among the most profitable airlines in the world based on its relative turnover. They operate Saabs over longer sectors than any other operator (550NM single sectors, several times per day and every day).
The despatch reliability and on time performance at REX is consistently above most other operators in Australia (Regional and Domestic).
The GE CT9B/5A-2 has a much lower fuel burn than its competitors, etc., etc.
The Oracle
Regional Express in Australia operate 51 Saab 340's (A, B, B+ and WT models and variants).
REX is among the most profitable airlines in the world based on its relative turnover. They operate Saabs over longer sectors than any other operator (550NM single sectors, several times per day and every day).
The despatch reliability and on time performance at REX is consistently above most other operators in Australia (Regional and Domestic).
The GE CT9B/5A-2 has a much lower fuel burn than its competitors, etc., etc.
The Oracle
@ CargoOne
Rex is the the incarnation of Hazelton Airlines and Kendell Airlines.
Both were dragged down by the collapse of Ansett for being subsidiaries.
Both were substantial original operators of Sf340.
halas
Rex is the the incarnation of Hazelton Airlines and Kendell Airlines.
Both were dragged down by the collapse of Ansett for being subsidiaries.
Both were substantial original operators of Sf340.
halas
The GE CT9B/5A-2 has a much lower fuel burn than its competitors, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, no matter how good that engine is, it's too small for any successor aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real question is, is there any "game changing technology progress" with respect to structures and aerodynamics that would really justify a new plane compared to the ATR72 or Q400..
I seriously doubt that.
The real progress is and has been on the engines in the recent years. Just look at the A320Neo, B737MAX, and also C130J.
Putting up to date engines on an "old" airframe obviously still results in a very competitive aicraft.
All the "all composite excitement" seems to have significantly "calmed down", and even an "all new" design as the CSeries doesn't seem to have a "game changing advantage" over the A319NEO even though Bombardier had the chance to integrate latest aerodynamic or structural technology.
So, once comparably advanced new engines are available for this class of turboprops, ATR or Bombardier could right as well retrofit it to their legacy designs.
What's left is to go for an unallocated market niche, i.e. 90 seats.
But the question is then, is there really a market for 90 seat turboprops? And if so, could this be covered by ATR or Bombardier by simply stretching their legacy design one more time and thus by far less cost than SAAB with a completely new design.
Regards,
ihg
I seriously doubt that.
The real progress is and has been on the engines in the recent years. Just look at the A320Neo, B737MAX, and also C130J.
Putting up to date engines on an "old" airframe obviously still results in a very competitive aicraft.
All the "all composite excitement" seems to have significantly "calmed down", and even an "all new" design as the CSeries doesn't seem to have a "game changing advantage" over the A319NEO even though Bombardier had the chance to integrate latest aerodynamic or structural technology.
So, once comparably advanced new engines are available for this class of turboprops, ATR or Bombardier could right as well retrofit it to their legacy designs.
What's left is to go for an unallocated market niche, i.e. 90 seats.
But the question is then, is there really a market for 90 seat turboprops? And if so, could this be covered by ATR or Bombardier by simply stretching their legacy design one more time and thus by far less cost than SAAB with a completely new design.
Regards,
ihg
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney, NSW Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Yes, I did leave out part of the designation for the little GE motor in the earlier post. Thanks for the correction.
Didn't the R.R. T 56/ Allison 501/ AE-2100 /AE-3007 (without the propeller gearbox) receive a "gong" the other week for its longevity and reliability?
For a powerplant first produced in 1954, with a production run of 18,000 units and over 200 million flight hours recorded, surely there is scope for further refinement using FADEC, etc?
Not to mention the new GE 38 powerplant derivative under development from its original application in the CH 53K (Super Stallion military helicopter).
Yes, I did leave out part of the designation for the little GE motor in the earlier post. Thanks for the correction.
Didn't the R.R. T 56/ Allison 501/ AE-2100 /AE-3007 (without the propeller gearbox) receive a "gong" the other week for its longevity and reliability?
For a powerplant first produced in 1954, with a production run of 18,000 units and over 200 million flight hours recorded, surely there is scope for further refinement using FADEC, etc?
Not to mention the new GE 38 powerplant derivative under development from its original application in the CH 53K (Super Stallion military helicopter).
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
from what i gather the 2 EFIS (eadi and the ehsi) screens on the 340 won't have any support beyond 2015?
I heard last time i was in sweden that there is studies into 3 possible optional retrofit glass flight decks a la BAE ATP? do you guys know anything more on this?
if saab do venture back into the turboprop market then if the 340 and 2000 have more in common and warrant a common type rating it could be more successful in the future???
the operator i fly for utilise the 35kt x-wind on the 340 very frequently and for that reason alone there is nothing in its class to compete with the saab. Dornier 328 is 21kts i believe and the ATR-42 is 25kts? both of which are more expensive to operate.
from what i gather the 2 EFIS (eadi and the ehsi) screens on the 340 won't have any support beyond 2015?
I heard last time i was in sweden that there is studies into 3 possible optional retrofit glass flight decks a la BAE ATP? do you guys know anything more on this?
if saab do venture back into the turboprop market then if the 340 and 2000 have more in common and warrant a common type rating it could be more successful in the future???
the operator i fly for utilise the 35kt x-wind on the 340 very frequently and for that reason alone there is nothing in its class to compete with the saab. Dornier 328 is 21kts i believe and the ATR-42 is 25kts? both of which are more expensive to operate.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a definite gap in the market between the 19 seat and 70 seat classes. This is not a large market sector but the existing contenders are getting old so there should be a replacement market for several hundred over the next decade.
A credible contender should be capable of short field operation while offering low operating costs and good comfort for between 30 and 50 passengers.
Nobody wants to operate 40 seat jets nowadays, their high fuel costs make them too expensive to operate.
This is a niche market but it could be a nice profitable niche for the company that can get it right.
A credible contender should be capable of short field operation while offering low operating costs and good comfort for between 30 and 50 passengers.
Nobody wants to operate 40 seat jets nowadays, their high fuel costs make them too expensive to operate.
This is a niche market but it could be a nice profitable niche for the company that can get it right.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref Rex - they are good operator but I will attribute their success to Kim Hai leadership and his team rather than any particular aircraft type. Those guys will make it work using any equipment, no doubt.
It is true that there is no direct replacement for SF340 on the market, other two - EMB120 and Do328 are even worse to operate, however as I said there been a number of operator switching to 50 seaters. ATR42 will burn marginally more fuel but it is considerably less expensive to maintain. To quantify fuel, 10% fuel burn penalty is 50 dollars per hour while maintenance gap is measured in hundreds. CT7 overhaul price has skyrocketed over last few years, it grew 50% on my eyes over just a relatively short period of time.
Saab Aerotech is quite good in supporting operators, no complains on this front, but the costs are way too high.
It is true that there is no direct replacement for SF340 on the market, other two - EMB120 and Do328 are even worse to operate, however as I said there been a number of operator switching to 50 seaters. ATR42 will burn marginally more fuel but it is considerably less expensive to maintain. To quantify fuel, 10% fuel burn penalty is 50 dollars per hour while maintenance gap is measured in hundreds. CT7 overhaul price has skyrocketed over last few years, it grew 50% on my eyes over just a relatively short period of time.
Saab Aerotech is quite good in supporting operators, no complains on this front, but the costs are way too high.
Saab are reportedly talking to both GE and P&W about a new engine, that's only to be expected.
But I don't see any signs that either OEM is targeting markets under 70 seats, thought I could be wrong.
But I don't see any signs that either OEM is targeting markets under 70 seats, thought I could be wrong.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on this is that SAAB has a history in:
Successfully launching a commercial prop which has proven to be competitive even today.
Successfully integrated components with its own wing design to produce a low cost high performance fighter that outperforms much more expensive ones.
So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.
With fuel cost being an incremental problem we can expect, no surprise, a new more efficient engine, a new wing design, latest avionics, improved aerodynamics and obviously aiming a lowest DOC in its class. With this comes speed, climb, altitude and presumably greater pax comfort.
Having already certified the 340/2000, which is an expensive adventure as we all know, they will most likely stick to the current one meaning time to market will be relatively short.
Presumably they are aiming at lowest crew cost meaning 1 cc and improved SOP, having flight deck performing ground duties (see southwest).
The question however, how many sections (as in length) will they offer?
Any comments/ideas?
Successfully launching a commercial prop which has proven to be competitive even today.
Successfully integrated components with its own wing design to produce a low cost high performance fighter that outperforms much more expensive ones.
So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.
With fuel cost being an incremental problem we can expect, no surprise, a new more efficient engine, a new wing design, latest avionics, improved aerodynamics and obviously aiming a lowest DOC in its class. With this comes speed, climb, altitude and presumably greater pax comfort.
Having already certified the 340/2000, which is an expensive adventure as we all know, they will most likely stick to the current one meaning time to market will be relatively short.
Presumably they are aiming at lowest crew cost meaning 1 cc and improved SOP, having flight deck performing ground duties (see southwest).
The question however, how many sections (as in length) will they offer?
Any comments/ideas?
Last edited by jackx123; 28th May 2012 at 14:14.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jackx123
You may find out that little to none of present Saab operators would be really willing to go into new Saab purchasing. People may publicly say otherwise (I did too when was interviewed) but internal opinions are quite definite.
So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cargo:
I think you need to show some substance in what you claim since not many posts here agree with you and the thread is about what SAAB intends to do, not what they have done.
I still fail to understand how so many operators around the world still use the SAAB if it's such a failure as you make it out to be. Especially with the fierce competition prevailing in the industry.
Facts clearly oppose your bigoted opinion.
I think you need to show some substance in what you claim since not many posts here agree with you and the thread is about what SAAB intends to do, not what they have done.
I still fail to understand how so many operators around the world still use the SAAB if it's such a failure as you make it out to be. Especially with the fierce competition prevailing in the industry.
Facts clearly oppose your bigoted opinion.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on this is that SAAB has a history in:
Successfully launching a commercial prop which has proven to be competitive even today.
Successfully integrated components with its own wing design to produce a low cost high performance fighter that outperforms much more expensive ones.
So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.
With fuel cost being an incremental problem we can expect, no surprise, a new more efficient engine, a new wing design, latest avionics, improved aerodynamics and obviously aiming a lowest DOC in its class. With this comes speed, climb, altitude and presumably greater pax comfort.
Having already certified the 340/2000, which is an expensive adventure as we all know, they will most likely stick to the current one meaning time to market will be relatively short.
Presumably they are aiming at lowest crew cost meaning 1 cc and improved SOP, having flight deck performing ground duties (see southwest).
The question however, how many sections (as in length) will they offer?
Any comments/ideas?
Successfully launching a commercial prop which has proven to be competitive even today.
Successfully integrated components with its own wing design to produce a low cost high performance fighter that outperforms much more expensive ones.
So with its current customer base operating ~300 SAABs (i.e. no launch customer needed) they have already captured a niche. I'm sure they have enquired among their present operators what they would like to see.
With fuel cost being an incremental problem we can expect, no surprise, a new more efficient engine, a new wing design, latest avionics, improved aerodynamics and obviously aiming a lowest DOC in its class. With this comes speed, climb, altitude and presumably greater pax comfort.
Having already certified the 340/2000, which is an expensive adventure as we all know, they will most likely stick to the current one meaning time to market will be relatively short.
Presumably they are aiming at lowest crew cost meaning 1 cc and improved SOP, having flight deck performing ground duties (see southwest).
The question however, how many sections (as in length) will they offer?
Any comments/ideas?
The big challenge for replacing the several hundred 30-seaters in service, though, is the economics. Operating regional routes is financially precarious enough that cheap aircraft are a big part of the equation. If Saab (or anyone) produces a nice 30-seater and then wants to charge $10m for it, it's not going to do too well. Hopefully if they go with a modernised existing design (and maybe outsource production to a lower-cost country?) they might reach a viable price point?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool.
Now, all I want and need to know is: does it allow you to retract gear in ground mode. (An age old question that was argued and settled by two [former] Saab test pilots.)
Now, all I want and need to know is: does it allow you to retract gear in ground mode. (An age old question that was argued and settled by two [former] Saab test pilots.)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still fail to understand how so many operators around the world still use the SAAB if it's such a failure as you make it out to be.
Likewise probably with low lease rates, and changing an gnd/mx organization when you have only 1 type is costing too.
So there are probable causes to keep an airplane one is not too fond of.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dudeness
Spot on!
jacx123 - I'm not going to prove anything here. Absolutely most of comments I've seen on this tread are coming from people who have no first hand experience operating those beasts and are rather guesses and observations. With all due respect what you see from outside is not necessarily how it is in reality. Wanna try them? I have a few available for immediate sale.
Spot on!
jacx123 - I'm not going to prove anything here. Absolutely most of comments I've seen on this tread are coming from people who have no first hand experience operating those beasts and are rather guesses and observations. With all due respect what you see from outside is not necessarily how it is in reality. Wanna try them? I have a few available for immediate sale.
Now, all I want and need to know is: does it allow you to retract gear in ground mode. (An age old question that was argued and settled by two [former] Saab test pilots.)
