I was wondering if a passenger aircraft would be possible using A400M parts (mainly engine and props).
I am not thinking of a A400 for passengers but an aircraft below the A320 series for around 100 passengers using the engine of the A400. Given high fuel prices and the huge success of the Q400 turbo prop engines seem to have a comeback.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 17267 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14046 times:
Why should they when they have ATR in the fold? The ATR family pretty much makes the need for Airbus to develop a turboprop based off of the A-400M not necessary. ATR has new versions of the ATR-42 and ATR-72 scheduled to enter service in the next few years. Instead of devoting time and money to develop an Airbus turboprop, just use what you already have access to in the ATR family. ATR did have plans for an additional stretch of the ATR design called the ATR-82, but that was shelved back in the mid-90s. ATR could always stretch the ATR design to get it in the 80-90 seat range, and it would more than likely be cheaper than to design and build a clean sheet turboprop.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6988 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14025 times:
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 1): Why should they when they have ATR in the fold?
I don't know if the A400 engine and prop would fit under the wing of an ATR.
My idea was that the A400 engine was really hard to develop and has cost a fortune and if they could make some more money on the civilian market it would be very much appreciated.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Unless they developed a smaller version of it, you probably won't see it in civilian use The Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100 engine family that is the common engine used on a number of turboprop families has a max hp of 5000 hp, which is less than half of the horsepower of the EuroProp TP-400-D6. Perhaps they could do like P&W Canada did and find some non-aviation applications for the engine (The engine is also used in Bombardier's JetTrain high-speed train concept.). Hopefully the A-400M will have enough success that the EuroProp group recoups their investment.
But you don't need that much power for a turboprop that seats under 100 (Which is what the OP is asking about). That would be like putting a race car engine on a compact car. So unless a smaller variant were to be developed, the EuroProp TP-400 engine will more than likely be a military-only engine unless a civilian cargo version of the A400M is offered.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9592 posts, RR: 97 Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13928 times:
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 5): But you don't need that much power for a turboprop that seats under 100 (Which is what the OP is asking about). That would be like putting a race car engine on a compact car. So unless a smaller variant were to be developed, the EuroProp TP-400 engine will more than likely be a military-only engine unless a civilian cargo version of the A400M is offered.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25 Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13827 times:
I think the question is justified in that those engines could be used in a 150 seater Turboprop .
The EADS site about the A400M specifically states :
"...The A400M is designed to civil certification standards complemented where appropriate by specific military requirements. The aircraft design incorporates leading state-of-the-art technology including:
Fly-by-wire Flight Control System with sidestick controllers
Flight envelope protection system, already proven in Airbus commercial aircraft
Advanced structural design incorporating extensive use of composite materials
High performance turboprop engines, allowing operation in civil air traffic control environment
High flotation landing gear, allowing operation from short, unpaved airfields...."
While the A400M is primarily geared to find MIL applications and users,it would be not too far fetched to consider a civil variant ,considering oil at 150$...
75 % of all European/Asian flights are less than 2000 nm- so not a market that could not be adressed by a 350 Mph 150 seater offering 30% lower seatmile costs than a A320 .
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13655 times:
Quoting Scipio (Reply 9): I presume that time-related costs (staff, capital, ...) would eat substantially into the fuel savings.
Assuming this aircraft would be able to reach speeds comparable to the Q400, that would not be such a big problem for many routes. But agreed, it would be much less suitable for US transcon, and as such, Western Europe to US East coast ops.
KennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13545 times:
It's getting to the stage now where an 8-bladed turboprop is getting to look like an unducted fan!! Now where is the difference other than their ancestry? And wouldn't an A320 or better still an A340 look cool with a brace or two of those props under their wings!!!
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13502 times:
Maybe. I determined 2 x 11.000 hp could power ~170 seats single class within a range of about 1500nm.
click to enlarge
Result of a long discussions with prop pilots on pprune. I took the TP400 as starting point & determined the MTOW for a twin TP400 aircraft. BAE146 fuselage (minimum 6 abreast) concept, ERJ190 style wing, DLC, it even had APU powered electric drives for taxiing and push backs.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4210 posts, RR: 36 Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13296 times:
With the props seeing a come back, it's indeed weird since the 1960s no turboprops have been built with a wider then 4 abreast fuselage. Probably the last were the Il-18, Electra and Vanguard. Basically being 4 abreast limits the design of the current propliners to around 90 passengers at the max. I think an 5- or 6-abreast turboprop airliner with 130 seats will have a good chance currently, if it can fly around 700 km/hr.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
DavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1562 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13190 times:
Surely there's a potentially huge market for a 150-seat turboprop for short sectors (less than 500 miles/800 km) if signficiant fuel savings can be demonstrated over the 737 and A320 series. Over these kinds of stage lengths, the slower speed of the turboprop will mean little time difference, especially if the speeds of the Q400 can be achieved economically. I'm genuinely surprised that there isn't a large civilian turboprop already on the drawing board.
Remember the Tu-114 . . . ? Now that was a large, fast and long-range TP . . . though probably quite uneconomic by western standards. But let's not allow our view of TPs to be confined to 70-90 sets, when 50 years ago a 220-seat TP was in service. And then there was the Vanguard as well - that was surely in the 130-seat bracket, no?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
Jdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 351 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12704 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 2): My idea was that the A400 engine was really hard to develop and has cost a fortune and if they could make some more money on the civilian market it would be very much appreciated.
My understanding is that the A400 development is fully paid by the " seven European launch nations" plus a pre-agreed % as profit. Airbus will "make money" with the follow up orders of an already paid project.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1401 posts, RR: 10 Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12420 times:
It seems very hard to relate turbo prop power to Jet power but from waht one reads here on this thread these engines (11,000 shp)- in a modern frame would be very capable of driving a 150 seater aircraft and possibly more. As such in this form the plane would sit firmly in the 737/320 replacemnt market. At present there appears to be 3 engine camps. 1, The Cfm camp whose programme envisages creating fuel savings through a series of major updates to a conventional design. 2. P&W who suggest that the only way forward is the geared fan which also releases the core to spin at optimum speeds (12-15% efficiency gain ). 3. Rolls who say "Open Rotor" is the only long term route as it offers about 25% greater efficiencies (something P&W does not disagree with but points out the huge unresolved issue of shockwave blade noise ).
I guess (since we are discussing it) the question is are we /should they -be looking at a fourth route? That of the "supermodern ,triple shafted , blisk using, high pressure/temperature, scimitar (carbon) bladed,geared, turboprop? It must be the utlimate "fuel miser",if for no better reason than the fact that it will (force majeur) fly a little slower.
This is surely the (only) point. If consumers can accept that journey times for the 1-2.5 hour flights are increased by (what?) 15% then surely there is no technology existing or planned that would/could beat such a combination.
That then leaves us with one (big) question.And one I am not going to go into! It is -Has "Peak Oil" arrived or not? If it has "you aint seen nothing yet". $200 will not be far away. You only have to read todays papers about BA restructuring to see how hard the fuel prices are hurting, and climate change has not and will not dissapear -as much as some would love it to.
If this IS the senario then the thread starter has a very valid point indeed. This engine could and should be considered as a very real candidate for the A320/737 replacement and NOW!
Consumers (whose wallets are empty at present) will ,I believe, trade a little time for lower prices (less expensive prices I should say).
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3304 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12389 times:
I don't know about the US but in the UK there is an issue with the public believing that props are "old-fashioned" and even dangerous - this may be an issue that has to be overcome but if U2 ordered 100 of this Turbo Liner this may change pretty quickly.
It seems GE also is working on something. First metal is cut on General Electric's 7,500shp GE38-1B, selected 18 months ago to power the new CH-53K transport helicopter. Honeywell is also working on a > 5000hp engine.
"GE made an investment in this programme as well. It's not just government money," Birtwell says. "We did it for a reason. We are highly aware of the various other applications in this power class."
Ty134A From Austria, joined Apr 2008, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12290 times:
Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 15): Remember the Tu-114 . . . ? Now that was a large, fast and long-range TP . . . though probably quite uneconomic by western standards. But let's not allow our view of TPs to be confined to 70-90 sets, when 50 years ago a 220-seat TP was in service. And then there was the Vanguard as well - that was surely in the 130-seat bracket, no?
Now I can not come up with exact numbers, but I more or less often read that the fuel burn of the TU-114 was very good, and I think of remembering this "very good" in comparison to todays products available. The counter rotating props bring great benefits, again not being able to provide a source I would ask for any further information, maybe on the fuel burn of the engine (which is also mounted on the Tu-95, Tu-116, An-22, as well as on the A-90 Ekranoplan). I believe though that they were (are) pretty noisy, even for former SU standards.
Any backup data welcome...
As to a pax A400,... would it not be a bit to heavy, only looking at the gear, and what about a pressurazation, is it totally pressurized?
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1401 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12254 times:
Don't wish to over state it but of today.... or raise another of todays threads covering TAP (alitalia etc etc) just off the BBC website
"The price of crude oil has surged to a record, breaking through $142 a barrel, amid concerns about the ability of producer nations to meet demand."
"In London, Brent crude jumped to $142.13 a barrel, while New York light crude climbed as high as $142.26. "
Taking into account Keesje's post.It suggests that there are now 3 brand new technology prop engines spanning 5,000 -7,5000 -10,000 shp. This (from this thread) suggests modern twin aircraft of 75,100/115 and 150 plus pax
Yes scouseflyer.Props WERE considered old fasioned -but that was in the 60's!
Today we are in the post Concorde, environmentally friendly,carbon concerned era.You may have noticed Gordon Browns committment to putting up some 4,000 -7,000 wind turbines yesterday. PROPS my friend are about as "In" as you can get right now!
25 Parapente: BTW. Keesje,whist I do not wish to play engine games....How about this "little" baby? The Progress D-27 is a propfan engine that the Ivchenko Progress
26 Keesje: I think the russian engineers have a track record in the area of big turbo shafts and the gearboxes that come with it. They made a very lean one that
27 Pliersinsight: You'd think they would have put the props up about another 6 to 8 inches higher for safety sake as they are just at the height for nasty fatal injury
28 R2rho: Well, I definitely agree that there is a market for a 100-150 seat turboprop. But that this plane could be based on the A400M.... not so sure. Definit
29 Aircellist: In fact, from the few informations available on Wikipedia (so, subject to comments...), the Tu-114 and A400M have engines of equivalent ratings, shoul
30 Tdscanuck: I believe the A400M is on a fixed-price contract once the development costs are absorbed...so they need to get the per unit cost below the agreed pri
31 PITIngres: They certainly manage to disregard conventional wisdom and get away with it. Contemplate an oxidizer-rich turbopump (RD-170), and tremble... I dunno
32 Keesje: Was RR watching? Rolls-Royce promotes turboprop solution for new civil airliners Rolls-Royce is talking up the possibility of a new generation of turb
33 Viscount724: That should read 6-abreast. I believe the maximum certificated seating on the Vanguard was 139 but that was only possible with 6-abreast seating. BEA
34 EA772LR: I think you could be on to something my friend.... A twin engined Europrop powered airplane could theoretically seat 200 pax with a range of up to 80
35 Aircellist: Oh, you are absolutely right. The seating plan at the end of the book is AC's one... Sorry, and thanks!
36 Keesje: Astuteman, EA772LR I think half weight would not be possible. An A400M having an engine failure at V1 will have 75% thrust left to pull that MTOW air
37 EA772LR: This is true. How about around 125,000lb takeoff weight and a slightly scaled back twin 10,000shp Europrop 200 seat regional aircraft???
38 TylerDurden: I doubt any airline would buy it. Airlines do not want an aircraft of that size to be so range limited. Limits flexibility, limits resale...so limits
39 Prebennorholm: I am afraid that we are generally asking too much from the TP400 power system when talking about real 320 / 737 replacements. The reason is that the T
40 TylerDurden: At what price will we/can we relax noise regulations in the name of economics? Will this ever happen. Seems somewhat silly that we expect mass transp
41 Prebennorholm: It's not a question about price or costs, it's about politics. It's a no starter to propose a new airliner which does not comply with ICAO Stage 3 no
42 BlackProjects: Ooooh a GIANT ATR what ever next! The Russians didnt try it and they have the most powerfull turbo props on the planet 15,000 shp which is why the AN-
43 TylerDurden: I hear ya. I was a rhetorical question primarily since noise standards seem to be almost random--at best (the threshold at which they are set). I jus
44 Keesje: http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout02.jpg Airbus militairy says the A400M meets future noise and emissions regulations. The props are des
45 Prebennorholm: Thanks Keesje, that is very interesting, I didn't know that. I was pretty sure that for a pure military plane like the A400M not one single dime or p