SAAB's new turboprop
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.
To compound the ATR figure further the ATR 42-500 and 600 have more powerful engines which burn around 550-600kg/h leading it to being around 20%-30% more fuel hungry than the 340 which burns around 450-500kg/h. I would suggest that 50-100kg per hour even over a day is a lot of fuel, let alone over a fleet for an entire year.
Most CT-7 operators do not pay for overhauls as such, the engines are on engine management programs from GE and pay by the hour rates.
The S340 design is very flexible and easy to modify. The original design allowed for either a GE or PW powerplant however orders prefered the GE so the PW option was dropped. Avionics and systems are modular and easily refitted, there are already some pretty up to date refit options for the SAAB. The aircraft was designed basically to be plug and play and is therefore very easy to maintain and upgrade.
I have no idea about the SAABs pro and cons, but if 'you' own a few SAABs and try to sell em and canīt get rid of em, then you continue to fly em.
In the US the heavy investment in RJs in the 90s has left many operators with no other choice but to push the saab against the wall as this is the lowest cost to mothball. They are forced to use the RJs to try to get some cash back on the investment and have been pulling out of many smaller regional routes as a result.
Considering many of the small regionals were doing well with the saab/emb and smaller dash and have now been slowly all going bankrupt with the larger aircraft you have to wonder whether they were smart to upgrade.
Last edited by 43Inches; 29th May 2012 at 02:21.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney, NSW Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43,
Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful post on this topic.
Do you have any other similar insights to share concerning the Saab 2000 and or initiatives Saab might look to introduce if they decide to re-commence turboprop production?
It was my understanding that when production ceased in 1996 Saab disposed of their forming machines and metal presses, while retaining all intellectual property associated with both aircraft types.
Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful post on this topic.
Do you have any other similar insights to share concerning the Saab 2000 and or initiatives Saab might look to introduce if they decide to re-commence turboprop production?
It was my understanding that when production ceased in 1996 Saab disposed of their forming machines and metal presses, while retaining all intellectual property associated with both aircraft types.
By far the biggest problem facing regional airlines with regard to new aircraft is the initial purchase cost. SAAB would be far better off trying to market an upgraded 30-50 seater from their existing aircraft. This would keep any development cost to a minimum, the original airframes already used advanced composites and joining processes.
The SAAB 340 only needs a few modifications to be up front in the market, currently the airframes already have a number of modifications which inprove performance from the original.
- Wingtip extensions already improve field performance greatly with pretty much no adverse affect. Only the later B+ aircraft currently have this.
- New engines could possibly reduce fuel flow and or increase performance.
- New props, again performance or fuel flow reductions.
- Modern ANC with vibration supression would make the aircraft whisper quiet
- Modern avionics will reduce weight
- Modern materials in the furnishings will reduce weight significantly
- A new anti-ice system
The SAAB 2000 is hard to improve on as it came out with most of the above. Most improvements would be in reducing fuel consumption through a new powerplant. SAAB could have interest in the new larger 90 seater engine possibly as a derate for the 2000 the same as the AE 2100 is derated for the current 2000.
If SAAB decides to go to 70+ seats it would require an entirely new design which would cost huge amounts in R & D.
The SAAB 340 only needs a few modifications to be up front in the market, currently the airframes already have a number of modifications which inprove performance from the original.
- Wingtip extensions already improve field performance greatly with pretty much no adverse affect. Only the later B+ aircraft currently have this.
- New engines could possibly reduce fuel flow and or increase performance.
- New props, again performance or fuel flow reductions.
- Modern ANC with vibration supression would make the aircraft whisper quiet
- Modern avionics will reduce weight
- Modern materials in the furnishings will reduce weight significantly
- A new anti-ice system
The SAAB 2000 is hard to improve on as it came out with most of the above. Most improvements would be in reducing fuel consumption through a new powerplant. SAAB could have interest in the new larger 90 seater engine possibly as a derate for the 2000 the same as the AE 2100 is derated for the current 2000.
If SAAB decides to go to 70+ seats it would require an entirely new design which would cost huge amounts in R & D.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NE Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One company currently operated SF340, daily trip to close-by island (100nm per leg) around 80% avg payload and making profit. Tried to change 340 to AT42, just found out that 42 actual cost is 30% more for this flight. All profitability gone and operations for that route ceased.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43Inches
I have a first hand data proving ATRs are much less expensive to maintain and all folks who had first hand experience with both types shares the same opinion.
With your awareness of SF340 particulars, no doubt you aware that GE ECMP (that's the engine program me you referring to) hourly rates has skyrocketed too? The only few who still feeling comfortable are those who signed long term commitments to GE many years ago, when it was relatively cheap.
And by the way, conversions into freighters has halted. After some 30 or so been converted in a span a 2-3 years, there are almost none afterwards. There is no market demand for more, that's life.
There is nothing to improve in Saab 2000 with it's USD 1200 per hour total maintenance cost, it is just easier to scrap them.
I have a first hand data proving ATRs are much less expensive to maintain and all folks who had first hand experience with both types shares the same opinion.
With your awareness of SF340 particulars, no doubt you aware that GE ECMP (that's the engine program me you referring to) hourly rates has skyrocketed too? The only few who still feeling comfortable are those who signed long term commitments to GE many years ago, when it was relatively cheap.
And by the way, conversions into freighters has halted. After some 30 or so been converted in a span a 2-3 years, there are almost none afterwards. There is no market demand for more, that's life.
There is nothing to improve in Saab 2000 with it's USD 1200 per hour total maintenance cost, it is just easier to scrap them.
Re-reading the article linked to in the original post:
"Meanwhile, both GE and P&WC are designing rival next-generation engines to power a projected market for 90-seat turboprops"
That pretty well puts the kybosh on any suggestion that Saab's discussions with GE are about powering a development of the 340/2000 family, fascinating though the debate about the strengths and weaknesses of those two aircraft has been.
"Meanwhile, both GE and P&WC are designing rival next-generation engines to power a projected market for 90-seat turboprops"
That pretty well puts the kybosh on any suggestion that Saab's discussions with GE are about powering a development of the 340/2000 family, fascinating though the debate about the strengths and weaknesses of those two aircraft has been.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43:
This is precisely my point. Certification already done. Minimal cost to do a supplemental certification. Production rigs etc. already there. If they can achieve a fuel reduction of say 15% it would truly kick some butts.
I also think that t-props will take over more and more of the jet traffic in europe.
Interesting enough China has flagged it will invest euro 1 billion in Sweden. Perhaps you have the low cost manufacturing right here.
We all know that China's domestic aviation is growing at an enormous rate.
This is precisely my point. Certification already done. Minimal cost to do a supplemental certification. Production rigs etc. already there. If they can achieve a fuel reduction of say 15% it would truly kick some butts.
I also think that t-props will take over more and more of the jet traffic in europe.
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?
We all know that China's domestic aviation is growing at an enormous rate.
Last edited by jackx123; 29th May 2012 at 16:23.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pass?
Age: 49
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty safe to say that Cargo One isn't a great fan of Saab products....
And has the figures to prove it.
Figures can be manipulated in many ways to read what you want them to...
As I have been dealing with this size of aircraft for most of my career, the Saab 340 is pretty hard to beat IMHO, and I have maintained and managed ATR's, Dornier 328, J41's, ATP's and Dash 8's.
Saab are historically an expensive company to deal with, but you get decent support and that these days is hard to come by.
And has the figures to prove it.
Figures can be manipulated in many ways to read what you want them to...
As I have been dealing with this size of aircraft for most of my career, the Saab 340 is pretty hard to beat IMHO, and I have maintained and managed ATR's, Dornier 328, J41's, ATP's and Dash 8's.
Saab are historically an expensive company to deal with, but you get decent support and that these days is hard to come by.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I always put airline management in with the passengers when it comes to making decisions- they all SAY they like good service but when it comes down to it they always go with the cheapest provider
As some here said, I'll take a Saab 2000 any time over an ATR or a Q400.
I used to fly on it during it's Crossair days as a passenger a lot and loved it. By contrast, I hate the Q400 and avoid it whenever I can, much louder and more vibration than the S2000. And I will not get onto an ATR, seeing as how many of them have come to grief in icing conditions. My personal take, but for me, that is it.
The Saab 2000 was many things, all of them right at the time. It was fast, used half the fuel a comparable Jet would use on the same route, had an increadible range for a turboprop regional airliner and a performance which was made for the airports it was designed for, namely places like Lugano, short runways in difficult areas. Even OEI it outperforms many similar sized jets. The flight deck was similar to the CRJ in many regards, but more advanced in terms of automatisation. It has a huge baggage area which was a delight to load, if you compare it to say a CRJ or RJ70/100, actually within Crossiar it happened several times that we asked them to give us a S2000 on a RJ sector if we had bulky cargo items. It could be a bit tricky in Weight and Balance if they insisted on making a huge C - Class up front and stuff all the pax in the rear... but that is hardly the airplanes fault.
Personally, I did find it a lot more comfortable to sit in than even the ERJ135 which was supposed to replace it. I did fly longer trips in it, up to 3 hours and more, personally again, I found the seating very comfortable. When travelling alone, I did find the 1 + 2 seating very nice.
What its main problem was at the time was passenger acceptance. It had to compare to aircraft like the CRJ, which obviously has a more spacy cabin and is a jet. At that time, passengers often made the remarks that they did not like to be transported on "old propeller planes". They were comfortable on a 30 year old 737 but uncomfortable on a 2 year old propliner... well, who sais the world makes sense.
I got the chance to fly it in Crossair's sim several times and was very impressed by it's performance and great flying characteristics. I also spent many flights in the jumpseat and knew how much the crews liked to fly it.
I felt a lot of frustration at the time when Saab gave up on the 2000 and the Q400 won over the market. Personally, for me, the S2000 is a much superior aircraft over the Q400, not to speak of the ATR.
It is still in use with many airlines very successfully, Darwin being one of them. They have been looking into acquiring more airframes and have brought back quite a few ex Crossair planes so far. Not sure if it's true but I also hear that they do consider getting rid of the Q400's they took over when they acquired Baboo and replace them with S2000's once the lease gets finished, I'd be happy if they did.
So if Saab goes and corrects that mistake, they do get my thumbs up. A SB2000 upgraded to maybe newer engines and avionic for a competitive price should do very well indeed. Today, punters have gotten used to seeing turboprops again and they will appreciate the difference.
I used to fly on it during it's Crossair days as a passenger a lot and loved it. By contrast, I hate the Q400 and avoid it whenever I can, much louder and more vibration than the S2000. And I will not get onto an ATR, seeing as how many of them have come to grief in icing conditions. My personal take, but for me, that is it.
The Saab 2000 was many things, all of them right at the time. It was fast, used half the fuel a comparable Jet would use on the same route, had an increadible range for a turboprop regional airliner and a performance which was made for the airports it was designed for, namely places like Lugano, short runways in difficult areas. Even OEI it outperforms many similar sized jets. The flight deck was similar to the CRJ in many regards, but more advanced in terms of automatisation. It has a huge baggage area which was a delight to load, if you compare it to say a CRJ or RJ70/100, actually within Crossiar it happened several times that we asked them to give us a S2000 on a RJ sector if we had bulky cargo items. It could be a bit tricky in Weight and Balance if they insisted on making a huge C - Class up front and stuff all the pax in the rear... but that is hardly the airplanes fault.
Personally, I did find it a lot more comfortable to sit in than even the ERJ135 which was supposed to replace it. I did fly longer trips in it, up to 3 hours and more, personally again, I found the seating very comfortable. When travelling alone, I did find the 1 + 2 seating very nice.
What its main problem was at the time was passenger acceptance. It had to compare to aircraft like the CRJ, which obviously has a more spacy cabin and is a jet. At that time, passengers often made the remarks that they did not like to be transported on "old propeller planes". They were comfortable on a 30 year old 737 but uncomfortable on a 2 year old propliner... well, who sais the world makes sense.
I got the chance to fly it in Crossair's sim several times and was very impressed by it's performance and great flying characteristics. I also spent many flights in the jumpseat and knew how much the crews liked to fly it.
I felt a lot of frustration at the time when Saab gave up on the 2000 and the Q400 won over the market. Personally, for me, the S2000 is a much superior aircraft over the Q400, not to speak of the ATR.
It is still in use with many airlines very successfully, Darwin being one of them. They have been looking into acquiring more airframes and have brought back quite a few ex Crossair planes so far. Not sure if it's true but I also hear that they do consider getting rid of the Q400's they took over when they acquired Baboo and replace them with S2000's once the lease gets finished, I'd be happy if they did.
So if Saab goes and corrects that mistake, they do get my thumbs up. A SB2000 upgraded to maybe newer engines and avionic for a competitive price should do very well indeed. Today, punters have gotten used to seeing turboprops again and they will appreciate the difference.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" for a competitive price" - and therein lies the rub.......
they will have to pay the cost of upgrading/renewing the certification plus the costs of restarting the line and that will have to be spread over a relatively limited number of airframes
Can't see any bank/govt/local authority shelling out any aid in the current climate
Maybe sell it all to the Chinese?
they will have to pay the cost of upgrading/renewing the certification plus the costs of restarting the line and that will have to be spread over a relatively limited number of airframes
Can't see any bank/govt/local authority shelling out any aid in the current climate
Maybe sell it all to the Chinese?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC process - not a big deal for SAAB
1-1. GENERAL.
a. The two objectives of Aircraft certification is to encourage and foster the development of civil aviation, and to ensure aviation safety. One method used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fulfill these objectives is the aircraft certification system through which aircraft design and modification must be approved. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) define the minimum required safety standards for FAA certification. By demonstrating compliance with these regulations, an aircraft modifier may obtain the necessary FAA approval for a modification.
b. Types of aircraft certification design approvals are determined by the magnitude and complexity of the change. Aircraft modifications can be subdivided into minor and major changes (14 CFR part 21, section 21.93). Minor changes are those which do not appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, airworthiness characteristics, power and noise characteristics, or emissions. Minor changes may be approved under a method acceptable to the Administrator before submitting to the Administrator any substantiating or descriptive data (14 CFR part 21, section 21.95). Major changes are those which are not minor. The type of FAA approval is applicable to a given modification. Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) are required for most major changes to existing Type Certificate (TC) products affected by a modification or installation when the change is not so intensive as to require a new TC (14 CFR part 21, section 21.19). STC's are not issued for minor changes or for approval of replacement and modification parts meeting the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, section 21.303. More than one STC may be necessary for a given modification. One STC may be required to approve the change to an engine or propeller, while a second STC may be necessary to approve the aircraft installation of the modified engine or propeller. An STC will probably be required if a significant amount of analysis or flight tests are required, or if extensive flight manual changes are necessary. An STC is issued through the FAA ACO or Engine Certification Office (ECO) which serves the geographic area of residence of the STC owner. Significant STC applications will require coordination with the Directorate, and may involve more time to process the application. See Order 8100-5.
NOTE: If there are any questions whether the modification is major or minor, the applicant should contact the ACO.
1-2. SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATES.
a. Privileges are associated with the issuance of an STC.
(1) Standard Airworthiness Certificates may be granted to specified aircraft that are modified in accordance with the STC.
(2) Multiple installations may be achieved on any certificated aircraft designated in accordance with the STC.
(3) Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) may be obtained by the STC holder to manufacture and sell parts/kits when it is demonstrated to the FAA Manufacturing Aviation Safety Inspector that the applicant has established a Fabrication Inspection System which meets the requirements of 21.303(h) to ensure that production is consistent to adequately duplicate the parts.
NOTE: The STC must be a "Multiple" Installation STC.
b. Responsibilities of the STC holder are the accomplishments of the modification or installation in accordance with the STC, and reporting to the FAA any failures, malfunctions, or defects per 14 CFR part 21, section 21.3. The holder of an STC, is also required to maintain an updated data file related to the STC.
c. Types of STC's are classified as either "one-only" STC (aircraft/engine/propeller) or "multiple" STC (aircraft/engine/propeller).
(1) "One-only" STC's apply to only one aircraft/engine/propeller serial number.
(2) "Multiple" STC's are necessary if two or more aircraft/engines/propellers are to be modified, and it must be demonstrated that the modification can be duplicated.
d. AC 21-5M, Announcement of Availability: Summary of STC's, is an FAA publication listing all existing MULTIPLE STC's for each aircraft model. A copy of this publication is available for review at the local FAA ACO, FSDO, and MIDO and a disk (updated once a year) may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). This publication may be reviewed to determine if another STC has been issued that would satisfy the intended requirement, and thereby prevent a duplication of effort.
NOTE: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44704; If the holder of an STC agrees to permit another person to use the certificate to modify an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, the holder will provide the other person with written evidence, in a form acceptable to the administrator, of that agreement. A person may change an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance based on an existing STC only if the person requesting the change is the holder of the STC or has permission from the holder to make the change. See chapter 9.
e. No STC activity is covered under our bilateral airworthiness agreements in any country except Canada. Additional guidance should be sought from AIR head quarters before proceeding on any STC project involving a foreign entity to any degree.
f. 14 CFR part 21, sections 21.137 and 21.601 require the FAA to make a determination that there will be no undue burden on the United States in administering the applicable requirements of Title 49, U.S. Code (Transportation), and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations when production approvals are requested at manufacturing facilities located outside the United States. Once the foregoing criteria have been satisfied by the certificate management Directorate and the PC holder, the FAA office responsible for certificate management of the PC holder should prepare a decision paper.
NOTE: The decision paper should be signed by the Aircraft Certification Directorate Manager who has certificate management responsibility for the PC holder prior to forwarding the decision paper to AIR-200 for concurrence and to AIR-1 for approval. See AC 21-24..
1-3. KEY ASPECTS OF THE STC APPLICATION PROCESS.
a. The applicant's responsibility for substantiating the modification is accomplished by showing the FAA that the modified aircraft/ engine/propeller complies with the applicable regulations.
b. FAA Form 8110-12, Application For Type Certificate, Production Certificate, or Supplemental Type Certificate, should be submitted to the geographically responsible ACO. See appendix 8. The most current version of AC 20-126, Aircraft Certification Service Field Office Listing, contains an address, telephone number, and geographic area listing of all ACOs.
c. Certification requirements are located in title 14 CFR's, or the predecessor to them, Civil Air Regulations. These regulations are extensive but only certain portions apply to a particular STC. See chapter 3.
d. Design feasibility should be discussed with a local FAA engineer to determine if the proposed modification design is feasible for approval BEFORE MODIFYING THE AIRCRAFT. An unapproved modified aircraft may be subject to grounding and Airworthiness Certificate removal.
e. Data submittals are to contain sufficient descriptive and substantiating/compliance data to completely describe the design of the modification or installation, and demonstrate that the design meets the applicable regulations. See chapter 5.
f. Inspections are for conformity and compliance. The conformity inspection verifies that the modification conforms to the descriptive data, while the compliance inspection verifies that the modification meets the applicable regulations. See chapter 6.
g. Tests may include verifying the component, ground requirements, and flight requirements. Component or certification testing demonstrates that detail parts, components, or subassemblies function as required to meet the applicable regulations. Ground testing and flight testing are performed to demonstrate the completed modification or installation complies with the regulations. See chapter 8.
h. Timing/scheduling necessary for obtaining FAA approval varies with the complexity of each modification. Inspections, meetings, tests, etc., should be planned, scheduled, and provided well in advance to the FAA to assure appropriate personnel are available. Scheduling flight tests has the added complication of weather. All proposed changes to the schedule should be kept to a minimum and provided to the FAA immediately for concurrence.
i. Use of designees authorized by the FAA to approve data, conduct inspections, witness tests, etc., may expedite the approval of a modification. See chapter 4.
j. Issuance of an STC is the final product and goal of the application process. See chapter 2 and chapter 9.
k. Subsequent change procedures to the original substantiating data should be submitted for approval and inclusion in the FAA data files. Major changes must be FAA approved prior to inclusion in the design data. Minor changes may be accom-plished in any manner found acceptable to the FAA. See 14 CFR part 21, sections 21.95 and 21.97.
a. The two objectives of Aircraft certification is to encourage and foster the development of civil aviation, and to ensure aviation safety. One method used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fulfill these objectives is the aircraft certification system through which aircraft design and modification must be approved. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) define the minimum required safety standards for FAA certification. By demonstrating compliance with these regulations, an aircraft modifier may obtain the necessary FAA approval for a modification.
b. Types of aircraft certification design approvals are determined by the magnitude and complexity of the change. Aircraft modifications can be subdivided into minor and major changes (14 CFR part 21, section 21.93). Minor changes are those which do not appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, airworthiness characteristics, power and noise characteristics, or emissions. Minor changes may be approved under a method acceptable to the Administrator before submitting to the Administrator any substantiating or descriptive data (14 CFR part 21, section 21.95). Major changes are those which are not minor. The type of FAA approval is applicable to a given modification. Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) are required for most major changes to existing Type Certificate (TC) products affected by a modification or installation when the change is not so intensive as to require a new TC (14 CFR part 21, section 21.19). STC's are not issued for minor changes or for approval of replacement and modification parts meeting the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, section 21.303. More than one STC may be necessary for a given modification. One STC may be required to approve the change to an engine or propeller, while a second STC may be necessary to approve the aircraft installation of the modified engine or propeller. An STC will probably be required if a significant amount of analysis or flight tests are required, or if extensive flight manual changes are necessary. An STC is issued through the FAA ACO or Engine Certification Office (ECO) which serves the geographic area of residence of the STC owner. Significant STC applications will require coordination with the Directorate, and may involve more time to process the application. See Order 8100-5.
NOTE: If there are any questions whether the modification is major or minor, the applicant should contact the ACO.
1-2. SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATES.
a. Privileges are associated with the issuance of an STC.
(1) Standard Airworthiness Certificates may be granted to specified aircraft that are modified in accordance with the STC.
(2) Multiple installations may be achieved on any certificated aircraft designated in accordance with the STC.
(3) Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) may be obtained by the STC holder to manufacture and sell parts/kits when it is demonstrated to the FAA Manufacturing Aviation Safety Inspector that the applicant has established a Fabrication Inspection System which meets the requirements of 21.303(h) to ensure that production is consistent to adequately duplicate the parts.
NOTE: The STC must be a "Multiple" Installation STC.
b. Responsibilities of the STC holder are the accomplishments of the modification or installation in accordance with the STC, and reporting to the FAA any failures, malfunctions, or defects per 14 CFR part 21, section 21.3. The holder of an STC, is also required to maintain an updated data file related to the STC.
c. Types of STC's are classified as either "one-only" STC (aircraft/engine/propeller) or "multiple" STC (aircraft/engine/propeller).
(1) "One-only" STC's apply to only one aircraft/engine/propeller serial number.
(2) "Multiple" STC's are necessary if two or more aircraft/engines/propellers are to be modified, and it must be demonstrated that the modification can be duplicated.
d. AC 21-5M, Announcement of Availability: Summary of STC's, is an FAA publication listing all existing MULTIPLE STC's for each aircraft model. A copy of this publication is available for review at the local FAA ACO, FSDO, and MIDO and a disk (updated once a year) may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). This publication may be reviewed to determine if another STC has been issued that would satisfy the intended requirement, and thereby prevent a duplication of effort.
NOTE: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44704; If the holder of an STC agrees to permit another person to use the certificate to modify an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, the holder will provide the other person with written evidence, in a form acceptable to the administrator, of that agreement. A person may change an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance based on an existing STC only if the person requesting the change is the holder of the STC or has permission from the holder to make the change. See chapter 9.
e. No STC activity is covered under our bilateral airworthiness agreements in any country except Canada. Additional guidance should be sought from AIR head quarters before proceeding on any STC project involving a foreign entity to any degree.
f. 14 CFR part 21, sections 21.137 and 21.601 require the FAA to make a determination that there will be no undue burden on the United States in administering the applicable requirements of Title 49, U.S. Code (Transportation), and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations when production approvals are requested at manufacturing facilities located outside the United States. Once the foregoing criteria have been satisfied by the certificate management Directorate and the PC holder, the FAA office responsible for certificate management of the PC holder should prepare a decision paper.
NOTE: The decision paper should be signed by the Aircraft Certification Directorate Manager who has certificate management responsibility for the PC holder prior to forwarding the decision paper to AIR-200 for concurrence and to AIR-1 for approval. See AC 21-24..
1-3. KEY ASPECTS OF THE STC APPLICATION PROCESS.
a. The applicant's responsibility for substantiating the modification is accomplished by showing the FAA that the modified aircraft/ engine/propeller complies with the applicable regulations.
b. FAA Form 8110-12, Application For Type Certificate, Production Certificate, or Supplemental Type Certificate, should be submitted to the geographically responsible ACO. See appendix 8. The most current version of AC 20-126, Aircraft Certification Service Field Office Listing, contains an address, telephone number, and geographic area listing of all ACOs.
c. Certification requirements are located in title 14 CFR's, or the predecessor to them, Civil Air Regulations. These regulations are extensive but only certain portions apply to a particular STC. See chapter 3.
d. Design feasibility should be discussed with a local FAA engineer to determine if the proposed modification design is feasible for approval BEFORE MODIFYING THE AIRCRAFT. An unapproved modified aircraft may be subject to grounding and Airworthiness Certificate removal.
e. Data submittals are to contain sufficient descriptive and substantiating/compliance data to completely describe the design of the modification or installation, and demonstrate that the design meets the applicable regulations. See chapter 5.
f. Inspections are for conformity and compliance. The conformity inspection verifies that the modification conforms to the descriptive data, while the compliance inspection verifies that the modification meets the applicable regulations. See chapter 6.
g. Tests may include verifying the component, ground requirements, and flight requirements. Component or certification testing demonstrates that detail parts, components, or subassemblies function as required to meet the applicable regulations. Ground testing and flight testing are performed to demonstrate the completed modification or installation complies with the regulations. See chapter 8.
h. Timing/scheduling necessary for obtaining FAA approval varies with the complexity of each modification. Inspections, meetings, tests, etc., should be planned, scheduled, and provided well in advance to the FAA to assure appropriate personnel are available. Scheduling flight tests has the added complication of weather. All proposed changes to the schedule should be kept to a minimum and provided to the FAA immediately for concurrence.
i. Use of designees authorized by the FAA to approve data, conduct inspections, witness tests, etc., may expedite the approval of a modification. See chapter 4.
j. Issuance of an STC is the final product and goal of the application process. See chapter 2 and chapter 9.
k. Subsequent change procedures to the original substantiating data should be submitted for approval and inclusion in the FAA data files. Major changes must be FAA approved prior to inclusion in the design data. Minor changes may be accom-plished in any manner found acceptable to the FAA. See 14 CFR part 21, sections 21.95 and 21.97.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as far as i can read into this a new development of ERJ 140 was US$45 million so since this will be potentially upgraded avionics, wings and engines which affect w/b requiring multiple STC (speaking FAA) i'd guess $6-7 million.
Hopefully we can get a prune with experience to comment more precisely.
However, if they aim at a replacement for 300+ aircraft the cost is minimal not withstanding expanding sales with say another 200++. Considering fuel prices and pax expectations of more non-stop routes it seems IMHO that t-prop is the way to go.
So. despite some deragatory comments SAAB might be on to something very good.
Hopefully we can get a prune with experience to comment more precisely.
However, if they aim at a replacement for 300+ aircraft the cost is minimal not withstanding expanding sales with say another 200++. Considering fuel prices and pax expectations of more non-stop routes it seems IMHO that t-prop is the way to go.
So. despite some deragatory comments SAAB might be on to something very good.
as far as i can read into this a new development of ERJ 140 was US$45 million so since this will be potentially upgraded avionics, wings and engines which affect w/b requiring multiple STC (speaking FAA) i'd guess $6-7 million.
If Saab could have upgraded the avionics, airframe and engines on the 2000 for not much more than the selling price of a single aircraft, don't you think they would have done it years ago ?
Anyway, we're clearly not talking about a warmed-over 58-seater here, but a brand-new aircraft programme in the 90+ seat size bracket. In round numbers, I'd say a couple of US$billion in development costs.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem isn't the purchase cost of the new electronics and the new screens - it's the time and cost involved in re-certification
The US magazine "Flying" reckoned last month that it was a basic USD 100 mm to certify even the smallest plane in the US these days never mind a full-on passenger aircraft
As Davereiduk says you're really talking about a new-build 90 seater with all that implies and not just a bolt-on upgrade to the airframes currently flying
If Embraer aren't interested in building a new turboprop it suggests the market is limited
The US magazine "Flying" reckoned last month that it was a basic USD 100 mm to certify even the smallest plane in the US these days never mind a full-on passenger aircraft
As Davereiduk says you're really talking about a new-build 90 seater with all that implies and not just a bolt-on upgrade to the airframes currently flying
If Embraer aren't interested in building a new turboprop it suggests the market is limited
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, not sure why you pull "billions" out of the hat.
there was once a boeing developed called 737-100 that grew and grew without costing the billions. it was considered a failure at the beginning but, the rest is history as they say.
there was once a boeing developed called 737-100 that grew and grew without costing the billions. it was considered a failure at the beginning but, the rest is history as they say.
Dave, not sure why you pull "billions" out of the hat.
Most of the airlines to whom we presented the project expressed scepticism that it could be done so cheaply.
Here, we're talking about an aircraft twice the size, albeit a turboprop rather than a jet.
How much do you think it will cost to develop, then ?