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?

torque has it right - two manufacturers just about making a living out of projects certified some time back - why bring in a third???

Nobody is going to "bring in a third". If Saab, or anyone else, decides to enter the market, it will be of their own volition.

Yes, of course it will end in tears for someone, with too many manufacturers chasing too few orders, but that's how markets (not just aerospace ones) work.

cargo:

you bring a smile to my face. I don't think anyone disputes that old is worse than new, except Bugatti.

however, SAAB has the experience in avionics, simulation, manufacturing and integration so if their research comes up with a feasible model that can satisfy their sales network with offset financing or other incentives, I think they have a winner.

I remember everyone said the 340 was a total failure but they still managed to sell 450+. Not bad for a failure.

Therefore, SAAB may had some enquiries from a potential a launch customer.

And they could not have been that much of a failure, because most are still flying. SAAB 2000s are quite rare and hard to find, yet operators still acquire and choose them over a used ATR 72 or Q400. It would seem since the ATR and Bombardier products are still in production, that supporting them must be cheaper than a SAAB 2000.

So obviously, the aircraft got something right, otherwise they would all be in the desert or turned into beer cans.

I would love to see an improved SAAB 2K with all the latest technology, I think it would make a fine aircraft. I think it was ahead of its time when released, but with oil only getting more expensive in the long run, turboprops (or whatever is the most efficient) will surely be the way to go on certain trip lengths. Especially when you start bumping into jet speeds like the S2K and the Q400 do.

Sqwak7700

Saab 2000 is absolutely the worst aircraft in its class in terms of pax comfort. Especially you can't get advantage of its speed on the short sectors and have to find routes which are 1) long enough 2) pax don't care.
Engines are most unreliable of whatever you can find on todays turboprops except CT7 which powers Saab 340. Maintenance costs are sky high both airframe and engines.
Operators "preferring" Saab 2000 to ATR72 and q400 simply have no money to get anything better (and btw this is wrong comparison, you should think along fokker 50, atr42 and dash8-300 line which are all 50 seaters). Saabs 2000s are very cheap to lease or buy these days, recently there was a portfolio transaction involving a bunch of them and I can tell you a single q400 would cost you more to buy.

and jackx123, anyone who ever been signing the checks to pay saab 340 or saab 2000 maintenance would never smile about this junk. So did I. what's about you?

I'm not following this but I believe this year there will be no original 1st tier operators remaining for either type. This tells a lot about SF340 if you think that there is no replacement in 33-36 seat category.

The 340's haven't been replaced by Rex Australia.In fact,they've been acquiring more.
According to their website,they operate more than 51 of them.I've travelled on them as pax,they are fine,no complaints at all.

Im surprised that nobody has mention that sweet Brasilia e-120 skipper of the skys

I'm not sure about this 'uncomfortable for pax' statement. I currently operate the ATR 72 and have flown in them plenty of times down the back as a pax and also flown the Q400 as a pax several times. I have only experienced the Saab 2000 once as a passenger (Edingburgh to Norwich with Eastern in 2005) and remember it as being impressively quiet, comfortable (and fast) in the cabin in comparison with the other types. I liked being in the single seat on the left. I admit that at that time, I wasn't regularly flying on TP's (was flying an Islander for a parachute centre at the time and was positioning back from delivering the aircraft for maintance) and may have been influenced by the complimentry bubbly and salmon sandwichs. (My boss, an ex Parachute Regiment Sergent, when I told how much I'd liked the in-flight sevices said "You bastard, do know how much that flight cost me!):E

Cargo

I'll give you that the 2K is more comparable to the smaller ATR42 and Q300 with regards to seats. But if SAAB enter the TP market again I would guess they would stretch their 2000 in order to seat closer to 70 like the other bigger models.

I don't think I agree with your other sentiments though. You are entitled to your own opinion, but there are still many big airlines operating SAABs.

Having flown in a Saab 2000, an ATR 42 and a Dash8 Q400, I'd take the Saab anyday. A far more pleasant experience compared to the others.

Also, having once worked for the largest Q400 rotable component supplier in Europe, I can tell you that Q400 reliability is beyond poor. The support from BBD and the vendors isn't much better either.

it's not that long since both ATR & Bombadier were thinking of getting out of the business

Building new SAAB's will just cut everyone's throats - 3 manufacturers chasing a marginal market

Saabs are the smallest cross-section comparing to all competitors. Many people cannot stand up in cabin without tilting their head. Extremely nice when it is a de-boarding time. Also because of smallest cross-section overhead bins are pretty nonexistent. You can fit a very slim case like laptop bag, nothing more. In the winter capacity of overhead bins are not sufficient to accommodate overcoats etc. Toilet is a joke. Galley is tiny.

The only relatively big airline operating SF340 is Australian Rex and they never been an original user. All american feeders has quit or at last stages of doing that. There are no big 2000 operators anyway. There are people who switched from SF340 to ATR42 or Fokker 50 even they had no prospects of more passengers. Simply the difference in total operating cost is pretty marginal and you getting much more seats as a bonus. I have first hand experience (or should I say misfortune?) operating these birds and therefore my opinion is a bit more based on a facts as opposed to observations from outside.

ps I especially like comment about 2000 seats vs A320 seats. There are several dozens of seats certified and used on A320s ranging from no-frills super slims to flat-bed suite-style installations, so without being specific it is quite pointless. Same time there are only 2 types of seats for Saab 2000, and I will keep my opinion about their comfort (and especially reliability) with me.

pps hopefully you know that Saab Leasing is set to be closed in 2 years and they actively disposing their portfolio? This is how much trust in this product people have...

People seem to forget the inservice disaster that was the S2000:

Saab improves 2000 dispatch reliability

The design goal for the Saab2000 was set at 99,2 % dispatch reliability,

With crossair and dba it fell as low as 98%

Proposed changes were not successful, and dispatch issues continued, where fleet wide, it was still below 98.5% in the northern winter 01/02. This resulted Deutsch BD cancelling their remaining order

Deutsche BA suspends deliveries of Saab 2000

"DEUTSCHE BA HAS suspended further Saab 2000 deliveries to its fleet, after both it and Swiss carrier Crossair were hit by poor dispatch reliability during the harsh European winter. "

Having no affinity to SAAB or any other t-prop it is still remarkable to see ignorant comments like this.

How can someone (Darwin) triple it's profit with a seemingly useless aircraft if, the maintenance and/or operating cost is higher than any similar aircraft? 6xS2000 and 2xQ400. Why not the other way around?

Including "news" that is 16 years old? It's like saying gas it record levels 16 years ago.

Disposing of an asset portfolio is - disposing. Nothing else. I would read into it that SAAB may want to use the proceeds to perhaps develop the new machine and set up a new leasing company.

Back to topic: It would be nice to get some insider what SAAB may consider. Two versions and what would be the DOC.

Larger than Embraer 120/135/145. But it doesn't make any difference on a short flight.

I could well imagine that there is a gap in the market between the currently available turboprops and the armada of regional jets (C-series, Embraers, the Superjet etc..) - wouldn't surprise me if they would present a large and economical turboprop (or even UDF?) for short to medium sectors. Interesting stuff. On the pax experience: I remember the Saab 2000 as very comfortable and a LOT quieter than any Dash or ATR I have been on - just the cabin felt a little cramped (on Crossair at least).

Go to the bottom of this page : Warbird Information Exchange • View topic - Grumman, the people that made the planes 12 SEPT 2010

and see pictures of the Fairchild / SAAB commuter project :ok:

OpsSix said the "Q400 reliability is beyond poor". Hmm...just read that Toronto-based Porter Airlines achieved a 99.4 percent dispatch reliability with their Q400s. Other quotes on the internet indicate other airlines are experiencing 99.5 and 99.59 percent reliability. I do recall the collapsing landing gear problems associated with the Q400 a while back, but that problem was rectified. Passengers seem to like them, and controllers appreciate their near-jet initial climb rate.

I'm 184cm tall and quite big, I've never found the Saab 340 small or cramped. I don't even recall the lack of headroom as being even the slightest issue when boarding and I've flown in them several times.
I'll take a faster flight time over overhead bin capacity any day (it's not exactly hard to get the baggage out of the hold at a regional airport, is it?) Besides, under the seat worked just fine for me last time I flew one.....

The SAAB is not camparable to the ATR or Q400 for cross-section as it is only 3 abreast seating. The SAAB seats generally are wider and have more seat pitch than the ATR and DASH 8 due to this. Agreed the overhead bin space is limiting but this is not a huge issue if the company has good policies for excessive items in the cabin. Any toilet on a turboprop is for emergency use only, especially if you know how well cleaned they are.

The S2000 engine is a version of the C-130J Herc engine the AE2100 so it cant be that unreliable. Any reliability issues in such a small fleet would be compounded due to the lack of operational spare aircraft to call on. The dispatch reliability articals quoted are from 1996 a year or two after the aircraft entered service, most if not all aircraft have issues early on and many far worse than 98%.

Noise level in the 340 is bareable and better if it has the ANC system. The S2000 has ANC similar to the Q400 so has good noise and vibration supression compared to other turboprops.

Most of this comparison to the older aircraft is a waste of time as SAAB will no doubt introduce an updated package that includes all modern avionics, engine, noise suppression and seating.

Sounds like rubbish the ATR and Fokker burn at least 10% more fuel than the 340. Engines and systems are probably of very similar costs however i would say the 340 is still less. They also have to carry an extra flight attendant under present rules. Many of the operators that have made this switch had to drop out of smaller routes and some went broke.