You may be thinking of the much larger Vickers Vanguard which could handle 3-3 Y seating although one of the only 2 original Vanguard customers (Air Canada) used a much more spacious 2-3 layout in Y. BEA's were 3-3 in Y.
Hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3195 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9308 times:
Quoting RIX (Reply 4): Today, jet engines are way too efficient for turboprops comeback.
For large aircraft and long haul flights, I agree. On the other hand, for the short flights, the turboprop beats any jet in efficiency. I don't expect to see many orders for new 50 seat jets, while Bombardier and Embraer focus on the larger jets and turboprops seem poised to make a comeback.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9060 times:
Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 5): for the short flights, the turboprop beats any jet in efficiency.
- yep, entirely agree, but by "comeback" I meant restoring their old glory, like being on par with medium haul jets like Viscount or Electra or Il18 were, or flying intercontinental, like Tu114 or Britannia did. That's a pity, I still consider my only flight on a "big" turboprop (Il18) one of the most memorable flying experience...
Macilree From New Zealand, joined Dec 2006, 243 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8754 times:
Airbus are in the process of building a large 116 seat "cost-effective, high-speed turboprop aircraft" - the A400M! It is claimed that it will have "a cruise speed almost as fast as turbofan powered transports."
Half seriously, if and when its development is sorted out, I wonder if the TP400-D6 turboprop engine has a future on a commercial airliner.
What might motivate this? Possibly a massive increase in oil prices and/or severe restrictions on aviation emissions because of climate change? Airbus is claiming that "a turboprop engine consumes 20% less fuel per mission relative to a turbofan."
He probably meant; the big turboprops ATR-72 and DHC-8 Q400 are 2+2 (4 abreast) and very popular now, some airlines might like a bigger version, in which case 4 abreast would make it inefficiently long and thin, so he probably would like a new designed DHC or ATR with 5 abreast, 2 engines and 70-120 seats.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7373 times:
In my opinion, there's a good chance. I think we will eventually see "wider bodied" turboprops (320/737 size), but not "wide-body" turboprops. Long range routes will continue to be jets, the time savings are too important. But for the short-haul, expect a "comeback". Oil at 100$ will be back soon, and eventually stay there. Between two equivalent aircraft and missions, a turboprop always consumes less fuel (about 15%), which is becoming too important to neglect. 40-50 seat regional jets will be the first to fall. On a typical 1hr RJ flight, the difference in flight time with respect to a turboprop is very little, but the fuel savings are considerable.
Remember that current turboprops are based on designs from the 70's and 80's. There is much technological potential to be extracted from there using current technologies, as Airbus is discovering with the A400M (Mach 0.70 cruise speed - not bad!). The future aircraft may not be traditional props though. Expect to see developments in counter-rotating props and open rotor designs...