SAAB's new turboprop
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: KBOS USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why all the regional,deice booted turbo props are now "snow birds"(relegated to warmer climates) in the USA,With exception of the low wing loaded 100,200 and 300 series dash 8's.
litigation.
Turboprop Aircraft Unsafe In Ice :: The Wolk Law Firm :: Philadelphia, PA
litigation.
Turboprop Aircraft Unsafe In Ice :: The Wolk Law Firm :: Philadelphia, PA
Last edited by Golden Rivit; 2nd Jun 2012 at 16:34.
Since these modifications at least 2 more ATR- 72 (excluding UTAir) have dropped from cruise altitude due to icing.
Admittedly the crew did not adhere to the procedures.
But still there is no other modern passenger transport aircraft with a similar rate of icing accidents even with the modifications applied.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Douglas DC-3 1936 4.3 Million
Douglas DC-6 1946 144 Million
Boeing 707 1958 1.3 Billion
Boeing 747 1970 3.7 Billion
Boeing 777 1995 7.0 Billion
Airbus A380 2007 14.4 Billion
all figures in US$ 2004 constant values
however, we are talking about STC and not new development
Douglas DC-6 1946 144 Million
Boeing 707 1958 1.3 Billion
Boeing 747 1970 3.7 Billion
Boeing 777 1995 7.0 Billion
Airbus A380 2007 14.4 Billion
all figures in US$ 2004 constant values
however, we are talking about STC and not new development
Last edited by jackx123; 2nd Jun 2012 at 17:45.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: europe
Age: 46
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colgan Q400 accident:
Any q400 drivers here? The initial stick shaker activation was the result of the lately applied power after landing gear extension.
The nose was kept up until the the plane really stalled and the nose went down .
There's a switch called "increase ref speed"-this shall be switched on as you encounter icing and switch on the boots. In this case the red bar will come up with 20 knots on the speed tape. That means the stick shaker will be on at a speed 20 knots faster than usual, in order to simulate the degraded performance of the wings due to ice/boot operation.
They were tired-speed dropped-switch was on-speed approached the top of the red bar much quicker than usual-stick shaker on-confusion.
Flap retraction during the stalled condition-they thought about? tailplane icing?-speculation-but if you look at the NASA video on tailplane icing that's exactly what it says. (and it starts with:tailplane icing is an issue with light planes and turboprops-and not planes with hyd actuated elevators).
Any q400 drivers here? The initial stick shaker activation was the result of the lately applied power after landing gear extension.
The nose was kept up until the the plane really stalled and the nose went down .
There's a switch called "increase ref speed"-this shall be switched on as you encounter icing and switch on the boots. In this case the red bar will come up with 20 knots on the speed tape. That means the stick shaker will be on at a speed 20 knots faster than usual, in order to simulate the degraded performance of the wings due to ice/boot operation.
They were tired-speed dropped-switch was on-speed approached the top of the red bar much quicker than usual-stick shaker on-confusion.
Flap retraction during the stalled condition-they thought about? tailplane icing?-speculation-but if you look at the NASA video on tailplane icing that's exactly what it says. (and it starts with:tailplane icing is an issue with light planes and turboprops-and not planes with hyd actuated elevators).
however, we are talking about STC and not new development
The notion that a 90-seater could be developed from the Saab 2000 is ludicrous.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, and I wasn't aware it was being proposed in this (very interesting) thread. There has been one strand talking about a hypothetical 90-seat new design, and another (maybe two) talking about the possibility of putting an updated S2000, or even S340, with modern systems, back in production. These are fundamentally different markets and fundamentally different development program price tags and there isn't really any overlap between the 30-50 seat question and the 90 seat one. One could perhaps manage to stretch the S2000 slightly, but only slightly, and 50 seats is a fairly "standard" size unless you can get close to 70, which may well already be impractical.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buffalo Q400?
FlyerGuy,
With all due respect......sad as it is, the Colgan accident had nothing to with icing. Unfortunately it was 2 underqualified/inexperienced pilots making a major mistake. The icing they experienced was fairly insignificant compared with the conditions encountered daily by hundreds of other turboprop pilots all over the World. They stalled a fully serviceable aircraft then applied utterly flawed control techniques, leading to.......well, we know the rest.
The ridiculous aspect of the whole affair is the NTSB fixation on fatigue. Flight crew fatigue and overwork is most certainly a global issue, however, I am almost certain that the outcome in the Buffalo incident would have been the same even if the crew had been alert and rested. It was a fundamental stick and rudder failure.
My final comment is.........I have many years experience with the SF340 and have the highest respect for the people who designed it, some of whom I have met. If anyone is designing a "new" turboprop, then I have non doubt the SAAB folks will do a superb job as usual. I wish them all the best.
With all due respect......sad as it is, the Colgan accident had nothing to with icing. Unfortunately it was 2 underqualified/inexperienced pilots making a major mistake. The icing they experienced was fairly insignificant compared with the conditions encountered daily by hundreds of other turboprop pilots all over the World. They stalled a fully serviceable aircraft then applied utterly flawed control techniques, leading to.......well, we know the rest.
The ridiculous aspect of the whole affair is the NTSB fixation on fatigue. Flight crew fatigue and overwork is most certainly a global issue, however, I am almost certain that the outcome in the Buffalo incident would have been the same even if the crew had been alert and rested. It was a fundamental stick and rudder failure.
My final comment is.........I have many years experience with the SF340 and have the highest respect for the people who designed it, some of whom I have met. If anyone is designing a "new" turboprop, then I have non doubt the SAAB folks will do a superb job as usual. I wish them all the best.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From a driver's perspective, both SF34 and SB20 (to use the correct type identifiers) are/were very well engineered AC. The SB20's I flew were full glass with FMS, so unlike someone else suggested, an avionics upgrade is certainly not required! They're fast, economical and apart from being slightly overpowered (so much so that the YD was a MEL item), very safe to operate. SB20 as of this writing has 2 all time hull losses, neither with fatalities. One where mechanics taxied into a closed hangar door, the other when former colleagues of mine made some poor decisions and stripped it of its landing gear after touchdown. The SF34, given the much larger number of units delivered, has an even more impressive record. Only 0.8% of all airframes were involved in fatal incidents, a number similar to Dash-8's (0.5%), and compares very favourably to ATR's 42/72, both variants lost 2.5% of their fleet in fatals, that's a safety record 3 times worse than Saab/Dash!
Regional air transport (which is the market for this sort of aircraft) has its inherent dangers with generally less experienced pilots, and sometimes lesser capable and more overworked crew. It's therefore no surprise that regional turboprops suffer higher accident rates than long range... or do they!? Let's have a look at the hull loss numbers involving fatalities as a percentage of the manufactured fleet, extracted from ASN, terrorism not counted, in ascending order:
SB20: 0%
B777: 0%
A340: 0%
A318-321: 0.2%
A330: 0.3%
B767: 0.4%
DH8x: 0.5%
B757: 0.5%
SF34: 0.8%
B737: 1.4%
B747: 1.4%
AT4x/AT7x: 2.5%
A310: 3%
JS31/41: 3%
B190: 3.7%
SW4: 5%
Well who'd have thought it? Hull loss rates lower than 1% are pretty good even for bigger aircraft and probably indicate an air frame and systems that are forgiving. I'd say there is some evidence in those numbers stating that Saab made two fantastic aircraft, and I would welcome them back on the scene!
I haven't been inside a SB20 in about 20 years, however, fairly regularly use Rex's services here in Oz serviced by SF34s, and it's a clear cut case: Even though the average Rex crew tends to frighten me, I'm fairly confident the hardware is OK. That can't be said for some other locals here I refuse to board, such as Aeropelican's Jetstreams (3% hull loss) or anyone flying Metros for that matter (5% fleet hull loss).
Just the Doctor's opinion, but with some interesting numbers!
Regional air transport (which is the market for this sort of aircraft) has its inherent dangers with generally less experienced pilots, and sometimes lesser capable and more overworked crew. It's therefore no surprise that regional turboprops suffer higher accident rates than long range... or do they!? Let's have a look at the hull loss numbers involving fatalities as a percentage of the manufactured fleet, extracted from ASN, terrorism not counted, in ascending order:
SB20: 0%
B777: 0%
A340: 0%
A318-321: 0.2%
A330: 0.3%
B767: 0.4%
DH8x: 0.5%
B757: 0.5%
SF34: 0.8%
B737: 1.4%
B747: 1.4%
AT4x/AT7x: 2.5%
A310: 3%
JS31/41: 3%
B190: 3.7%
SW4: 5%
Well who'd have thought it? Hull loss rates lower than 1% are pretty good even for bigger aircraft and probably indicate an air frame and systems that are forgiving. I'd say there is some evidence in those numbers stating that Saab made two fantastic aircraft, and I would welcome them back on the scene!
I haven't been inside a SB20 in about 20 years, however, fairly regularly use Rex's services here in Oz serviced by SF34s, and it's a clear cut case: Even though the average Rex crew tends to frighten me, I'm fairly confident the hardware is OK. That can't be said for some other locals here I refuse to board, such as Aeropelican's Jetstreams (3% hull loss) or anyone flying Metros for that matter (5% fleet hull loss).
Just the Doctor's opinion, but with some interesting numbers!
Last edited by ZeeDoktor; 3rd Jun 2012 at 02:50.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying the DHC-8 and ATR I can tell you both have good and bad aspects. Nothing beats the DHC-8 into short runways and the Q400 has great speed that can compete easily with jets on short haul flights (a flight from PHNL-PHOG is 2 minutes longer on a Q400 vs a B717). However the ATR has a lot of nice piloting features and engine protections, plus the ATR-72 is more fuel efficient than the Q400 but climbs slower.
I can't speak much to icing and while I found the ATR to be extremely tricky in icing I don't think it's unsafe. Pilots just must observe the precautions listed in the oeprating practices of the aircraft.
That said, I hope Saab does enter the TP market. In Hawaii turboprops can easily outperform jets due to the constant engine cycles that eat through the B717, B737 and CRJ engines. The 30-52 seat TP market has really only been serviced by ATR since Bombardier abandoned it and some more competition would be welcome.
I can't speak much to icing and while I found the ATR to be extremely tricky in icing I don't think it's unsafe. Pilots just must observe the precautions listed in the oeprating practices of the aircraft.
That said, I hope Saab does enter the TP market. In Hawaii turboprops can easily outperform jets due to the constant engine cycles that eat through the B717, B737 and CRJ engines. The 30-52 seat TP market has really only been serviced by ATR since Bombardier abandoned it and some more competition would be welcome.
Last edited by Island-Flyer; 6th Jun 2012 at 06:21.
In Hawaii turboprops can easily outperform jets due to the constant engine cycles that eat through the B717, B737 and CRJ engines.
The 30-52 seat TP market has really only been serviced by ATR since Bombardier abandoned it and some more competition would be welcome.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you explain a bit more about the link between the two, please ?
Average inter-island stage length is about 38 minutes, which puts a tremendous amount of cycles on the engines over the course of a flight day. I believe most inter-island aircraft operate 16-20 cycles per day depending on their routing. In this environment it has been noted that while the TP aircraft have required an average of two engine replacements over the last five year period, the jet operators have nearly double that average.
An inquiry was placed with Rolls Royce on the cause of this problem (since the B717 fleet is equipped with the BR715). I was curious because one of my previous employers operated Gulfstream V aircraft very heavily and I the BR710 was extremely reliable. basically what i was told is the engine's life is dictated by an average 1 hour stage length for cooling at altitude during its run. Since aircraft in Hawaii rarely exceed 1 hour during flight legs and the engines are usually operated below FL200 that there is insufficient cooling. Combine this with a higher number of high stress periods of flight (start and takeoff) and there will be heavy wear on what is otherwise a very reliable engine, which requires increased unscheduled engine replacements. The CRJ has similar problems with the CF34.
On the other side, the Pratt & Whitney 100 series is designed around the short commuter needs. The engine has been built with a 45 minute stage length as "ideal minimum" (according to figures provided by Bombardier) and as such can handle more frequent starts and takeoffs.
While I can't speak for the technical details of this, I can tell you the figures make a compelling business case for the effectiveness of turboprop aircraft in the >45 minute stage length versus jet aircraft. This case goes beyond the fuel efficiency to engine life span.
So would you like to see the S340 done to modernise it.
Garmin G5000 cockpit
New engines.
Some more speed...say 320 kts ?
There are many routes that just cant service a 50 seater and theres not much to choose from for new airframes.
Garmin G5000 cockpit
New engines.
Some more speed...say 320 kts ?
There are many routes that just cant service a 50 seater and theres not much to choose from for new airframes.
While I can't speak for the technical details of this, I can tell you the figures make a compelling business case for the effectiveness of turboprop aircraft in the >45 minute stage length versus jet aircraft. This case goes beyond the fuel efficiency to engine life span.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question really boils down to seat-km cost. Other than in a few special cases, the days when yields on regional routes were high enough to cover the costs of a 34 - 50 seater - whether jet or turboprop - are gone. In the US cost-plus contract flying for the majors has either gone or become hugely unprofitable, and in Europe and other places the advent of pile 'em high sell 'em cheap LCCs has severely limited the opportunities for traditional regional aircraft flying. It seems that 70 seats is around the minimum that can deliver competitive seat-km costs and, although the ATR42 remains in production, it is being comprehensively outsold by the ATR72.
Therefore, it is is difficult to see where a warmed-over SB20 would gain traction - the nature of the beast means it needs to use its speed to gain additional rotations per day to compensate for its higher costs - just like the Q400 vs the ATR72 - and also operate in an environment where it can attract premium yields. There just don't seem to be that many such combinations around. All of which would seem to indicate that, if they are to re-enter the market, Saab would look at an all-new larger aircraft. But, if they did, ATR and Bombardier would be there first with much lower cost derivatives no doubt using the same engine technology.
Interesting times!
Therefore, it is is difficult to see where a warmed-over SB20 would gain traction - the nature of the beast means it needs to use its speed to gain additional rotations per day to compensate for its higher costs - just like the Q400 vs the ATR72 - and also operate in an environment where it can attract premium yields. There just don't seem to be that many such combinations around. All of which would seem to indicate that, if they are to re-enter the market, Saab would look at an all-new larger aircraft. But, if they did, ATR and Bombardier would be there first with much lower cost derivatives no doubt using the same engine technology.
Interesting times!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tork:
agree BUT, remember you also need to consider why people pay for first class tickets in the first place.
if SAAB can come up with metal that sniffs jet but still maintain prop cost of say 2-3h legs which means europe then i see a real business case.
agree BUT, remember you also need to consider why people pay for first class tickets in the first place.
if SAAB can come up with metal that sniffs jet but still maintain prop cost of say 2-3h legs which means europe then i see a real business case.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack,
I agree but I think in Europe at least, no-one can get the premiums they used to - even LH is pushing more seats into every short hall airframe and diluting the product to reflect the actual yields they're getting in the face of the LCCs. With the possible exception of BA's LCY - JFK op, the current yield environment just doesn't seem to support operations focused exclusively on high yield operations. But if you start with equipment that has to generate high yields to be successful (i.e. a 50 pax high speed turboprop or RJ) options to reconfigure the aircraft to enhance overall revenues are limited. I guess there might have been a small window post-9/11 and pre 2008 when there were enough unlimited expense-account bankers flying around to make a high yield network feasible but I think that window is now well and truly closed!
I agree but I think in Europe at least, no-one can get the premiums they used to - even LH is pushing more seats into every short hall airframe and diluting the product to reflect the actual yields they're getting in the face of the LCCs. With the possible exception of BA's LCY - JFK op, the current yield environment just doesn't seem to support operations focused exclusively on high yield operations. But if you start with equipment that has to generate high yields to be successful (i.e. a 50 pax high speed turboprop or RJ) options to reconfigure the aircraft to enhance overall revenues are limited. I guess there might have been a small window post-9/11 and pre 2008 when there were enough unlimited expense-account bankers flying around to make a high yield network feasible but I think that window is now well and truly closed!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heathrow:
the post is related to what new/revamped aircraft SAAB might have in mind and so far the discussions have evolved around competition and conclusively stated that it's not worthwhile for SAAB to engage contrary to SAAB's own opinion.
it seems most operators are very happy with SAAB 340/2000 and therefore there is an argument on the table.
the post is related to what new/revamped aircraft SAAB might have in mind and so far the discussions have evolved around competition and conclusively stated that it's not worthwhile for SAAB to engage contrary to SAAB's own opinion.
it seems most operators are very happy with SAAB 340/2000 and therefore there is an argument on the table.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney, NSW Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, is the glass half full or is it half empty?
Saab have said they are looking to understand both the current market and the possibilities for exploiting a niche'.
Saab's history is one of innovation and definitely thinking outside of the square and some of the unique operational characteristics of their Gripen demonstrate their abilities in this regard.
Bombardier dumped their smaller TP airframes because they wanted to optimise their offering for the populous markets in North America and Europe. By streamlining and offshoring production of Q400 sub assemblies (firstly to Japan and ultimately to Mexico) they oped to minimise costs. ATR have a similar view to Bombardier concerning their major target markets and the features incorporated into the 600 series confirm it as a comfortable short hauler for transport between populous city pairs.
Saab has always been an innovator (they were the first to offer EFIS in a regional TP and convinced a sceptical market that such innovations would prove to be much more cost effective than "stream driven" instruments) and they were right!!
There are 400+ SF34s and 58 of the 63 SB 2000's flying every day world wide. The world wide fleet of 29 to 38 seat TPs numbers somewhere between a thousand and fifteen hundred units and currently there is no replacement.
Despite the prospect for life extension programmes to current airframes (including Saab) there may well be potential for an innovative manufacturer to offer a cost effective current technology aircraft to the existing market segment not serviced by ATR or Bombardier.
Such a project has definite potential and would be less speculative and far safer, from a cost containment viewpoint, than developing a new 90+ seat high technology, high speed and "green" TP for an untested market segment.
History does have a way of repeating itself and Saab deliberately sized the 340 to fit between the Dash 8-100 (which was in production) and the EMB-120 (which was in development).
If they get both their offering and their costs right, they may well profit from their industry and that seems very much up Saab's street!
Saab have said they are looking to understand both the current market and the possibilities for exploiting a niche'.
Saab's history is one of innovation and definitely thinking outside of the square and some of the unique operational characteristics of their Gripen demonstrate their abilities in this regard.
Bombardier dumped their smaller TP airframes because they wanted to optimise their offering for the populous markets in North America and Europe. By streamlining and offshoring production of Q400 sub assemblies (firstly to Japan and ultimately to Mexico) they oped to minimise costs. ATR have a similar view to Bombardier concerning their major target markets and the features incorporated into the 600 series confirm it as a comfortable short hauler for transport between populous city pairs.
Saab has always been an innovator (they were the first to offer EFIS in a regional TP and convinced a sceptical market that such innovations would prove to be much more cost effective than "stream driven" instruments) and they were right!!
There are 400+ SF34s and 58 of the 63 SB 2000's flying every day world wide. The world wide fleet of 29 to 38 seat TPs numbers somewhere between a thousand and fifteen hundred units and currently there is no replacement.
Despite the prospect for life extension programmes to current airframes (including Saab) there may well be potential for an innovative manufacturer to offer a cost effective current technology aircraft to the existing market segment not serviced by ATR or Bombardier.
Such a project has definite potential and would be less speculative and far safer, from a cost containment viewpoint, than developing a new 90+ seat high technology, high speed and "green" TP for an untested market segment.
History does have a way of repeating itself and Saab deliberately sized the 340 to fit between the Dash 8-100 (which was in production) and the EMB-120 (which was in development).
If they get both their offering and their costs right, they may well profit from their industry and that seems very much up Saab's street!