In September 2007, Integrity Aircraft announced that they are developing a proto type, known as the Integrity, that will be a 20 seat tail mounted turbo prop with STOL capabilities. Additionally, the unique mounting location of the turbine facilities quick-turnarounds with the engine running. This effectively reduces accumulation of engine cycles, which is one of the parameters that can reduce engine overhaul costs. Since engine overhaul costs are a major cost consideration in running an airline, this will have a very significant effect on the profitability of many operators. A selling price of 1.9m (in 2007 USD) is quoted.
An Entry-into-Service date of early 2008 is anticipated
Doesn't it take longer than a few months to get an aircraft certified by the FAA?
They mention quick turns as one of the advantages to having a tail mounted prop but wouldn't the additional maintenance costs associated with servicing tail mounted engines negate any cost or efficiency gains?
Quoting LHMARK (Reply 2): Wow. What an original concept. Anyone tell Britten-Norman about this?
I take it they aren't worried as this concept likely won't ever get off the ground. These clowns are the same group of people who sponsored a NASCAR racing team, only to be sued later for nonpayment.
This article has more information about Three Sixty, Inc.
Here's a photo of the Britten-Norman plane LHMARK mentioned in his post:
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1273 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12794 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4): Unfortunately, due to the FAR's in the United States, it will never be able to enter scheduled passenger service with more than 9 passenger seats
That was my first thought upon seeing this thing. I'd imagine most other regulatory authorities have similar provisions, leaving you with the market of non-schedualed operators needing to move 20 people at a time and wanting to avoid jets and multi-engine turboprops.
D328 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11443 times:
This doesn't seem like it will really be STOL as they say? One 1100hp engine? Doesn't make sense because most planes with 2 engines in the 19-20 seat have two 1000hp engines, like the Metro III, B1900D has over 1200hp a side, Jetstream 31 940hp a side, even though they are heavier and complex. Just doesn't make sense to me. I'd say it seems under powered, but not that bad. I compared planes below.
Hopper max take off weight is 10000lb, has 1100hp, seats up to 20. usefull load 4800.b.
PC-12 max take off weight is more than the Hopper by 450lbs, and has 1200hp. seats up to 9. Usefull load 4583lb.
Caravan max take off weight is 8750lb, and has 675hp, seats 14. usefull load 4180lb.
Trislander max take off weight is 6600lb, has a total of 780hp, seats up to 18, usefull load of 3012.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6702 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11372 times:
Quoting D328 (Reply 13): This doesn't seem like it will really be STOL as they say? One 1100hp engine? Doesn't make sense because most planes with 2 engines in the 19-20 seat have two 1000hp engines, like the Metro III, B1900D has over 1200hp a side, Jetstream 31 940hp a side, even though they are heavier and complex. Just doesn't make sense to me. I'd say it seems under powered, but not that bad. I compared planes below.
However, the most powerful flat Lycomings (of which the Trislander had three) have 400 HP per engine, so discounting the induced drag from the now absent wing engines, ~1100 HP just might do the trick
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
It appears that they have some patent or design rights to the Britten-Norman
"IAHL holds the patent for placing a turboprop power plant high up in the tail fin of the aircraft thereby creating the following:.......dramatic increase in power -- the installed Honeywell TPE 331-12 engine increases overall power 22% from previous 3 Lycoming 540 series piston engines used on predecessor platform"
By using the term "predecessor platform" it appears that they have a controlling stake in the IP from BN.
".....The company expects massive savings will be realized in the certification of the basic airframe design, certifications and capabilities as we have already acquired certain Intellectual Properties of previously developed aircraft that will be utilized in the manufacturing of this aircraft."
I guess theoretically they could introduce this aircraft in short order due to the amount of work already done. They probably aquired the IP and designs real cheap. The concept does indeed seem intruiging to me, although don't expect me to buy 1 share of the penny stock
Jarvis78 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6880 times:
This actually isn't anything new in terms of the concept. Back around 1998 I was talking to a pilot with thousands of hours on BN2 Islanders, and he said that 'they' (meaning Britten-Norman), had, or were, considering the idea of putting a tail mounted turbo-prop engine on the Trislander.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 777 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6678 times:
Quoting National757 (Reply 3): They mention quick turns as one of the advantages to having a tail mounted prop but wouldn't the additional maintenance costs associated with servicing tail mounted engines negate any cost or efficiency gains
Is there a single country out there where its legal for passengers to board/disembark with an engine running ?
Turbo-props guzzle fuel, even when idling so there are no real savings to be had here.
How is a fuselage and tail desinged for a 350/400 hp Lycoming going to support an 1100 hp turboprop without massive and expensive structural mods.
Who wants a 20 seat STOL turbo-prop single that will not be able to achieve much more than 100 kts ?
Baron52ta From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5552 times:
Isn't the Trilander tail heavy?so this would therefore be more so being that it doesn't have the extra weight on the wings to help offset some of the tail. They extended the nose on the Trilander to add weight forward so unless they are going to stretch this thing it won't work, Yes I know they must have done some research but I don't think they thought it through very well.