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

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.

I very much hope they do. :ok:

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.

I think ATR's best sales weapon is Bombardier's after-sales department!

I thought they went bust!

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.

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! :ugh:

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.

I don't think anybody really assumes "above the weather" means "above towering Cu's."

It takes a U2 or SR-71 for that :=)

Thanks Stepwilk, the car adverts over here claimed to be the same too.

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.

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.

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.

Quite a common term.

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

By how many years will it be delayed by?

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!

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.

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?