Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

SAAB's new turboprop

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

SAAB's new turboprop

Old 23rd May 2012, 14:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
SAAB's new turboprop

obviously with fuel prices hitting the roof and airlines going bust it may not seem to be a mad idea after all.

Saab considering return to civil aircraft manufacturing
jackx123 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 16:41
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 58
Posts: 688
Well the SAAB 2000 at 63 built can hardly be considered a success story. The 340 fared better mostly due to large US orders. Probably a longshot.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 16:46
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Good From Far, Far From Good
Posts: 348
I very much hope they do.

The Saab 2000 was ahead of its time. The ERJ/CRJ Were heavily discounted and fuel was cheaper...that only hampered Saab's sales.

If they make a comeback, Saab better look at how ATR is selling it's turboprops and how they are current number one with a modest product.
concordino is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 17:04
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 434
I think ATR's best sales weapon is Bombardier's after-sales department!
RVF750 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 17:06
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
I thought they went bust!
BALLSOUT is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 17:15
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
as far as i know it was/is the fastest turbo cruising above weather at close to jet speed with the only drawback being both props turning the same direction.

the bombQ400 has 6,000ft lower alt and slower.

maybe they want to bring it out of mothball with improved avionics, improved engines and revised flight envelope competing with jets on 2hour flights at much lower cost.

not a bad idea at all.

Last edited by jackx123; 23rd May 2012 at 17:16.
jackx123 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 17:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 58
Posts: 688
cruising above weather
I have sometimes thought about that dated cliché sitting in the s**t at FL370 or bypassing a CB at half its height.
This was used to describe the difference between flying in pressurized or non-pressurized radial engine tin-cans 50-60 years ago!

Last edited by oceancrosser; 23rd May 2012 at 17:53.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 18:26
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 877
I thought they went bust!
That was Saab Automotive, which became totally separate from the aircraft company decades ago (despite the fact that Saab advertising, at least in the U. S., would have had you believe the cars were "Born From Jets"). They were as separate as Rolls-Royce aero engines and RR cars.
stepwilk is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 18:28
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 877
that dated cliché...
I don't think anybody really assumes "above the weather" means "above towering Cu's."
stepwilk is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 21:19
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: sweden
Age: 38
Posts: 21
It takes a U2 or SR-71 for that )
Mazdata is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 22:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Thanks Stepwilk, the car adverts over here claimed to be the same too.
BALLSOUT is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 23:38
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: KBOS USA
Posts: 42
We need something with a hot wing,and conventional tail,Deice boots are dangerous,and high maintenance. The Convair 580 with the Allison T56 was a great aircraft.
Golden Rivit is offline  
Old 24th May 2012, 02:42
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
The airframer continues to build the Gripen, but has focused in recent years on expanding in other fields, such defence electronics and security systems.
Airframer? Airframer? Isn't that someone who frames air? Can the "flight press" please avoid falling into text speak and use terms like "aircraft manufacturer"?

Well done SAAB. The 340 was an inspired wee airframe, and wings' and lights, and engine, and....continued on page 94.
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 24th May 2012, 12:19
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
the question remains. will it be based on the 2000 or a completely new design.

as stated above the 2000 at its time was a product before its time and could easily compete in with the most advanced t-props even today.
jackx123 is offline  
Old 24th May 2012, 16:31
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 877
Airframer? Airframer? Isn't that someone who frames air?
Quite a common term.
stepwilk is offline  
Old 24th May 2012, 18:35
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Posts: 423
Not for long

He noted that Saab is also "cash-rich" at the moment, and is keen "to explore new business opportunities".

Developing a new plane should take care of the cash rich problem
20driver is offline  
Old 25th May 2012, 07:23
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 25
By how many years will it be delayed by?
mdieker is offline  
Old 25th May 2012, 14:24
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 481
Interesting that Embraer, who also know a thing or two about turboprops and had been considering re-entry into that market, recently announced that they had concluded the market was big enough for just two manufacturers at a pinch and wouldn't go there again.

Still, as 20Driver said, it's a fun way to burn through the cash pile!
Torquelink is offline  
Old 25th May 2012, 20:19
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: following the yellow brick road
Posts: 38
Why not?

There really is a gap in this sector with the BBD's and ATR's being the only game in town at the moment and BBD less so. Recent sales performance puts the 30-60 seaters as dead so it would have to be a 70-80 seater with equal or better performance and maintenance figures to the ATR, which believe it or not is an expensive piece of equipment to maintain.
Everybody went mad with RJ's in the last 15 years or so and didn't account for the rise in fuel prices which now has TP's as a viable venture when 6 years ago everybody thought they had run their course.

The S2000 is a very good aircraft it just came along at the wrong time, however now the sky's the limit.
scarebus03 is offline  
Old 26th May 2012, 07:49
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 993
Sf2000 is a narrow long unconfortable tube with overhead bins you cant fit your jacket in and same time world leader in cost of maintenance. Do you want a 50 seater prop which cost you MORE to maintain than A320 or 737?
CargoOne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.