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

Although I wouldn't say the ATR is an unsafe aircraft, I'm afraid your statement is a tad overoptimistic.

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.

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 :ok:

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).

You might be. I'm talking about an all-new aircraft.

The notion that a 90-seater could be developed from the Saab 2000 is ludicrous.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Could you explain a bit more about the link between the two, please ?

IMHO Saab are unlikely to compete in that market.

In Hawaii there are four major players that operate inter-island. Hawaiian Airlines, island Air, Go! and Aloha Air Cargo. Hawaiian and Go! operate jets, Island Air operates turboprops and Aloha operates a mixed fleet of jets and turboprops.

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.

OK, understood now. I'd assumed that when you referred to turboprops outperforming jets, you were talking about their flight characteristics rather than economics.

I guess the REAL question is what is the size of the 50 seat (and under) market?

The fact is that the current players don't think it's worthwhile

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!

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.

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!

think Torquelinks last couple of posts really close this issue out - very well argued

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.

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!

This is very bold statement. What leads you to this idea? Are you a part of Saab operators community?

Incorrect. I don't have 2000 data at hands but last year there was less than 300 SF340 in operation. To be exact last Saab bulletin quotes 239 in airline service, 62 in other operation, 111 stored and 44 decommissioned. Also note some units listed as in service could be in fact stored by airline.

there are still DC-3's in service and you could make a good case for a replacement but.............................

Sorry, but the window of economic viability on any sort of scale to support a 50 seater has passed, particularly one with 6,000 ESHP (thermodynamic) engines, has passed.

70 to 90 seats is the current point of entry for a turbo prop, 100-130 seats for a jet..

Well now, with that said, dust off the LET-610/Ayers 7000 and produce it with current available improvements. Also, take a look at the Xian MA700. Both had (have) potential in this slot, especially since they have all flown. The LET-610 and MA700 airliners are not drawing board divas. I presently reside in a small city where a 60-seat airliner is ideal.

I'm sure there is a small market for 50 -60 seaters but its not attractive enough to have a mid size manufacturer develop or redevelop an aircraft for it

perhaps some low rate production by Russian/Chinese/Australian companies might fill the slot but its never going to be a very large market

Some correction: there are less that 40 SF340 in operation since after the initial batch of 40 SAAB renamed the aircraft to SAAB 340A/B/Plus

It is fair to say "With no new 30-seaters in production, these aircraft are attracting steady interest around the globe from current Saab 340 operators, startups and regional airlines looking to expand their services".

And Cargo: From SAL's own December 2011 report there were 399 operational SAAB 340 and 58 SAAB 2000. Obviously conflicting numbers.

http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/u...1229182814.pdf

Some interesting facts in this article:

Jet vs. Turboprop – a debate that dates from the early 1950s | AirInsight

jackx123

SF340 is official type designator for Saab 340, applicable to all produced Saabs 340. There is no conflict of information as it can only happen when conflicting data is coming from the similar weight sources. Your data coming from SAL which is nothing more than sales & marketing BS. My numbers are coming from Saab 340 Reliability Report published by Saab AB as TC holder for operators and it contains the actual data about every single S/N produced. I don't think this document is published in open sources.

FWIW, Ascend database shows 280 Saab 340s (all models) in service and a further 119 in storage. That's a total of 399 which is probably SAL's "marketing" number.

Bear in mind that the potential replacement market for a (hypothetical) new-build turboprop in this size category is not just existing SF340 operators but also many existing operators of Dash 8-100/200s (325 in service), E120s (197 in service), Do328s (121 in service), J41s (70 in service),...

Here we go again. :rolleyes: The assembled "wisdom" says that anyone developing a new aircraft model should target the existing market and go head-to-head with the current vendors, yet all the well-founded examples indicate that there is a gaping hole in the 18-24-36 seat range.

The only reason there is no apparent demand for this size of aircraft is because operators have no choice other than a bunch of machines designed and built a couple of decades before the end of the last century when the technological and socio-economic landscape was very different.

Now that public funding for major road and rail projects is drying up, inter-regional air travel has every chance of recapturing the attention of today's travellers. I, for one, can't wait for a manufacturer to deliver something small, fast and efficient because there's a market I want to exploit.

Another reason for the apparent lack of demand for this size of aircraft could be that there isn't any.

Food for thought
 

Heres some ideas.....What about a real leap and set it up for single pilot ops. The rules on Single pilot ops are very outdated particularly with modern systems. The only difference between a 10 seater hitting the ground and a 34 seater is the size of the hole! Also I believe Boeing have patented a autoland/anti-terrorist lockout system with control input from a ground based operation. Also the Global Hawk is 737 sized and flys from a desk...

All you need is the trained dog to do the biting.:}

Cyrano,

Thank you for putting forward some additional perspective with the possible numbers of other aircraft types (additional to saab) currently flying in the 29 to 50 seat market segment.

Gents, this is a lively and interesting conversation.

After the succcess of Saabs SF34, in all its variants, Saab had intended to introduce a "C" model, which would have retained the original airframe, with some minor modifications and incorporated 2,000 to 2,200 ESHP engines offering a cruise speed of 350KTAS+ at F350.

Before proceeeding, Saab with its usual prudence, surveyed the market and the feeback they received from 100 existing and potential operators (at that time) resulted in the SB 2000.

Saab, undoubtedly will complete a thorough analysis of the entire world market and not just the populous European and North American markets segments. Any decisions they make will be in the full knowledge that a lack of North American sales ultimately led to production stopping in 1996.

Saab was a casualty of a "perfect storm scenario" in 1996, with cheap jet fuel combined with a lengthy FAA certification delay (MECs converted to PECs) with the SB 2000, Bank of Brazil and Bank of Canada offering never to be repeated financing deals in support of their national 50 seat jet products (EMB and CRJ) and finally the Roselawn Indiana ATR crash which precipiated an inquiry that questioned turboprop safety in icing conditions.

These factors drove a market rationalisation, which ultimately stalled production with the remaining manufacturers (ATR and Bombardier) and their prodiction figures remained in the doldrums until financial imperatives post September 11 forced a return to service of mothballed, yet cost effective TP's.

Whatever decisions Saab make will be with the full knowledge of these prior events and circumstances and it will be interesting to learn their full views on what might succeed in the current environment.

There are about 1000 aircraft in the 29-37 seat category currently in operation.

Of course the operators of many of these depend on low capital costs (so may not be able or willing to buy a new aircraft), and some others may perhaps be able to upgauge to an ATR or other 50-seater, but with respect, I find it hard to accept the assertion that there is no demand for this aircraft size when so many remain in operation.

and a TP has almost half DOC from a jet box. with fuel prices increasing TP's will be even more competitive.

I think that this is the key to the debate - and where Saab's analysts will be focusing their attention. All things being equal, there will be a demand for the replacement of 340s, 120s, 360s etc but price/funding will be critical. Most, although not all, markets for these aircraft are at the impoverished end of the spectrum so potential users will not be able to buy because they won't get the credit and therefore will need to lease. However, given that their operations are marginally profitable anyway while operating well written down older aircraft, they won't be able to pay much in the way of rental and still make the operation profitable - even allowing for the likely reduction in fuel burn and maintenance costs of a new aircraft. The level of rental which these carriers can afford to pay dictates the maximum value the manufacturer can realise for each unit - and it won't be much. When you add the fact that there is a minimum non-recurring cost threshhold associated with developing a brand-new twin-engined public transport passenger aircraft almost regardless of size, you can see that optimising it at less than 40 or even 50 seats is just loading the dice against you. Even if it were possible to restart 340 production today without incorporating any new bells or whistles, Saab would be unlikely generate lease rates and therefore values high enough to cover costs. And, of course, as this is pretty much a lease-only market which conventional lessors will be unlikely to touch, the manufacturer will, in effect, act as lessor just as Saab, Shorts, DHC did in the past - and that's no way to build a genuinely successful programme.

As mentioned in other posts, the only way the 340, 120, 360 replacement market is likely to be satisfied is for a competent design to emerge from a competent manufacturer in an emerging very low cost country where a competent aircraft could be built at a price which works for the manufacturer and at a rental which works for the market.

Tork:

Please provide the P&L for your reasoning, if available. This is highly interesting stuff indeed.

Thanks.

Torque,

I think you have made the essential "link" in this discusssion thus far and nailed it!!

Prior to the press release confirming the "advanced design team study", Saab Aircraft Leasing were planning to retire from the leasing business and had advised the market accordingly.

Does this study initiative indicate S.A.L. may change their mind if production does re-commences in order to continue providing this essential element between the factory and many aircraft operators?

Saab had been doing some work with Hindustani Aviation and a few years back Saab also announced they had invested in some production capability in a former eastern bloc state (possibly Lithuania?). Either location would afford access to cheap labour for any future production initiative, with Saab controlling both the process and product quality to guarantee the result.

Perhaps a combination of the above elements and updated systems and powerplants might translate into a low risk business plan for an aircraft that will find favour within a limited market and be an acceptable commercal risk to the Saab Board!

As Saab AB seems to currently have a very healthy balance sheet with a surplus of funds to invest, an arrangement such as described, would provide the means to both conservatively manage a new production venture and mitigate some of the high end risks associated with such a capital intensive and speculative project.

To do otherwise would be folly and almost inevitably result in a situation such as Bombardier's aircraft production at the moment with several "open" and 'partially open' production lines and one developmental line ("C" Series), all of which are bleeding cash, while the business searches for new orders in what seems a crowded market. The very situation Saab was in for an extended period prior to closing production in 1996.

I thought the SF340 was a good aeroplane.


But whoever designed those Pilot seats should be made to sit in them for a 6 leg day.


They were painful beyond belief.

Oracle,

Now that is indeed an interesting perspective - I had always supposed that having to act as lessor for the aircraft that one had produced oneself was a problem and not an opportunity - it certainly was for the Shed at Shorts but that could be because the credits in general were so rubbish that the aircraft were constantly being repossessed. But if, as you suggest, you build a portfolio of good credits paying commercial rentals then the leasing vehicle becomes a profitable venture in its own right and maybe SAL has been/is that. After all, it is generally supposed that aircraft lessors are among the most profitable elements of the aviation industry. Thus for SAL to replenish their fleet by producing updated aircraft in a low-cost country and retain the customer support business etc could be an interesting opportunity.

You are so right that Saab do not want to follow the current rather sorry example of Bombardier. They seem to have taken their foot off the gas on all current programmes leading to rapidly diminishing backlogs and devoted all efforts to the C Series which is itself stuck between Embraer and the NEO/MAX - not a happy position to be in.

Jackxx

P&Ls are way above my pay grade. All I can say is having been intimately involved in a variety of regional and mainstream aircraft programmes the basic thrust of my argument is correct and borne out by experience. The regional / utility end of the market clearly needs new aircraft but supplying them on a genuinely commercial basis is likely to be a nightmare.

I agree with most of what Torquelink said.

33 seats (yeah you can fit as much as 36 into SF340 but this is much hardcore than 189 in 738) market is balancing on the edge of break-even. Basically to make a sort of low profit on SF340 you have to charge pax EUR 100 per hour flown at somewhat reasonably good load factor. And we talking about aircraft with market lease rate ranging from 20 to 30k USD. If you have a new machine at USD 12m cost, lease rate would be in 100-150k area and there is no way you can justify it with 33 seater at the current market except a very few niche routes.