Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Room For A Turboprop E-Jet Competitor  
User currently offlineFlyingCrown From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

If fuel stays high, should Bombardier put the C-series fuselage on a Q-800 wing and uprate the engines? They would save on shared development costs for a fuel-efficient 400-knot 100-seat aircraft. It would beat the fuel economy of the Mitsubishi GTF by 10% and E-Jets by 25% or more, and help keep a few short haul carriers alive and profitable.

Or even simpler, what about a swept-fan turboprop option for the Mitsubishi/ "C" series/E-Jets? Use off-the-shelf C-130J/ EADS A400, http://www.eads.com/1024/en/businet/miltrair/a400m/a400m.html technology.


Out of the blue of the western skies...
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2669 times:



Quoting FlyingCrown (Thread starter):
If fuel stays high, should Bombardier put the C-series fuselage on a Q-800 wing and uprate the engines?

It's unlikely that the aerodynamics and structure would work out very well without major tweaking to the center wing box and wing-body fairing. I'm not sure the savings in development cost would be worth the performance trade. At turboprop speeds you can also get away with a larger and more comfortable fuselage than the C-series will give you, which might put them at a competitive disadvantage down the road.

Quoting FlyingCrown (Thread starter):
Or even simpler, what about a swept-fan turboprop option for the Mitsubishi/ "C" series/E-Jets? Use off-the-shelf C-130J/ EADS A400, http://www.eads.com/1024/en/businet/miltrair/a400m/a400m.html technology.

A propeller of that diameter would require absolutely enormous pylons (for tail-mounted engines) or *reeeeeally* long landing gear (for wing mounts). I think this is a much bigger integration problem than the C-series fuselage on the Q-series wing.

Tom.


User currently offlineFlyingCrown From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Just thinking about a relatively cheap and quick route to enhanced efficiency, something doable today, vs. waiting for 737 successor technology, something off the shelf, if you grant that the new EADS A400M military airlifter is off-the-shelf. The A400M uses efficient 3-spool 11,000 shp propfans with 8 blades on a swept high wing. The E-170 cruises at .75 mach, while the A400M hits .72 Mach, or about 420 knots, so the time penalty on a 900 nm segment would be negligible. EADS claimed fuel efficiency is 20% lower than competing turbofans. The prop diameter doesn't seem to be an issue with 8 blades, judging by EADS' photos.

As far as cabin size, 4-across has emerged as the new paradigm for the 100 seat market, so the "C" fuse would do fine.

Perhaps a better question, one that has been asked here before: will passengers accept props? What about if it means cheaper tickets? What if props are perceived to be "greener"?

AvantiAir, a growing fractional corporate aircraft outfit here in the states, is doing well with 400 knot Piaggio P188 Avanti turboprops which they advertise as "greener" than business jets.

Bruce



Out of the blue of the western skies...
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3901 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

I doubt that a A400M derivative would be competitve. Aren't military aircraft, even if only cargo haulers, way over-designed for mainstream civilian operations?

I think a 90seat turboprop is a real possibility. ATR has been looking at the ATR92 in the mid 1990s and allegedly is looking again at the moment. The new Indian turboprop proposal is based on a 70seater that can be stretched into a 90seater. Both designs would have, however, lower speeds than the QX00 or E-Jets.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6726 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2418 times:



Quoting FlyingCrown (Reply 2):
As far as cabin size, 4-across has emerged as the new paradigm for the 100 seat market, so the "C" fuse would do fine

I do not think so, but it is all the OEM's have or are attempting to make, that is stretch their existing turbo-props to get more seats in. Is anyone looking at designing a turbo-prop from scratch, six across seating, the looong narrow tube is really not pleasing to the eye.


User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1030 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 2341 times:



Quoting FlyingCrown (Reply 2):

Perhaps a better question, one that has been asked here before: will passengers accept props? What about if it means cheaper tickets? What if props are perceived to be "greener"?

Well, I will. Given a choice between a CRJ or ERJ and a turboprop--any turboprop--I'll take the prop-job. Overall they're more efficient than turbofan aircraft for the missions they fly, and they sound cooler  Smile

Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):
Is anyone looking at designing a turbo-prop from scratch, six across seating, the looong narrow tube is really not pleasing to the eye.

Amen.

Quoting FlyingCrown (Thread starter):
a Q-800 wing

Sorry to be thick, but what's a Q-800?

Oh, and my big hope: let the next big (90+ seats) turboprop have 3000-nm range and four engines.... please  crossfingers 


User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Sounds like Lockheed should bring back the L-188.

User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Well, there is definitely a market for a turboprop this size - just look at Bombardier & ATR's orders: clearly shifted towards the larger planes. But a hybrid like you propose would not work due to the reasons already mentioned. What is needed is someone with the cojones to invest in a new turboprop development. They'd have to overcome some difficulties at first, but time (and 100$ oil) would prove them right.

User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1030 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

Why are the Japanese building an all-new aircraft to compete directly with the Embraer 170/175/190/195/whatever and Bombardier C-series when they could be stealing a march on everyone with a large turboprop? That seems to be the way of the future. If nothing else, they would have a market all to themselves.

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2031 times:



Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 8):
Why are the Japanese building an all-new aircraft to compete directly with the Embraer 170/175/190/195/whatever and Bombardier C-series when they could be stealing a march on everyone with a large turboprop?

Because it's a government-financed technology demonstration program to eventually get them back into the jetliner game. It's a lot more about learning than it is about making money.

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Room For Another Airline In Canada? posted Sun Feb 17 2008 20:10:23 by MattRB
Frontier Closer To OK For Turboprop Service posted Fri Nov 30 2007 12:16:14 by KarlB737
AP: Fuel Tank Hole Blamed For Japan Jet Fire posted Thu Aug 23 2007 17:58:52 by Positiverate
Any Room For The 747-8 At VS? posted Mon Jan 29 2007 06:02:54 by JAM747
Researchers To Release Design For Silent Jet posted Tue Nov 7 2006 01:10:55 by Phxplanes
Room For Anymore LCC's In Europe? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 19:07:42 by Curious
MOD: Any Room For Growth? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 13:09:31 by Dsa
Any Room For An LCC In Alaska? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 23:28:14 by EmSeeEye
Is There Room For AC To Fly Nonstop YYZ To KIX? posted Thu May 18 2006 04:05:46 by AirCanada014
No Room For WN At DFW posted Sat May 6 2006 06:44:36 by DALNeighbor