Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"rj" Conversion To "rp"? Possible?  
User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6244 times:

With the continued advancement of turboprop technology, and the premature retirement of the 50 and lower seat RJ's due to fuel costs, what would the feasibility of converting those planes into turboprops? Consider the re-engining of the Convair 580/640, the DC-8, the Dornier 328... why couldn't there be a similar "reverse" engining of the jet engine to a pusher-style turboprop? One only has to look at Embraers design of the EMB 123 to see that, in concept, the idea works...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm Clarke




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Rees




your thoughts?


AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6200 times:

It would depend entirely on just how cost-effective such a conversion would be.

I don't think the pusher style prop has seen enough use to truly know how advantageous it would be over a turbofan engine.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6166 times:

a number of Italian designs come to mind, also the old Convair lilitary aircraft...

Piaggio Aircraft:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Shephard - LightSketch Photography




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © YU Ming




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Shephard - LightSketch Photography



Convair military aircraft:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matt Bearup




AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

lilitary= MILITARY (the site wouldn't allow me to edit the "speeling" mistake)


AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineOswegobag From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5979 times:

In my opinion, I think the 50 seat RJ's will eventually make a comeback and there will be no need for any conversions. There is a public perception out there about turboprops and "regular customers" just don't like to fly them. Most don't like to fly at all, and they definately don't FEEL safe flying turboprops.

In the next five years there will probably be a little less competition in the marketplace and prices and profitability for the airlines will increase. The cycle will make another turn and we will see increased utilization of the smaller RJ's...... just my opinion.


User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5839 times:



Quoting Oswegobag (Reply 4):
In my opinion, I think the 50 seat RJ's will eventually make a comeback and there will be no need for any conversions. There is a public perception out there about turboprops and "regular customers" just don't like to fly them. Most don't like to fly at all, and they definately don't FEEL safe flying turboprops.

I honestly don't think the negative perceptions about turboprops is as prevalent as it once was, and improved technology on airframes such as the Q400 help project a modern image onto the turboprop concept.

I still believe airlines are going to be taking economics over image/comfort for quite some time ... and the turboprop issue really won't be an issue because the traveling public could very well have less of a choice on the matter.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineSflaflight From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5819 times:



Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 3):
lilitary= MILITARY (the site wouldn't allow me to edit the "speeling" mistake)

Yeah, I can't edit anymore either after I post a comment. Is something wrong with this site?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 days ago) and read 4784 times:



Quoting JBo (Reply 5):
I honestly don't think the negative perceptions about turboprops is as prevalent as it once was, and improved technology on airframes such as the Q400 help project a modern image onto the turboprop concept.

I don't know. If it were competitively expedient for someone to dig up all those old stereotypes (I'm specifically thinking of AA or UA at ORD), I suspect it could be brought back with a vengeance.

Does anyone know if the 328 jet can be re-engined as a 328 prop?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4733 times:



Quoting Sflaflight (Reply 6):
Yeah, I can't edit anymore either after I post a comment. Is something wrong with this site?

Yeah, it changed management a year or so ago.  Wink

Seriously, though, I wonder what's up with the edit feature.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
Does anyone know if the 328 jet can be re-engined as a 328 prop?

I would say it's possible, but it would require having the entire wing replaced. Part of the updates to convert the prop to the jet involved a redesigned wing to carry the jet engines. In other words, "retrofitting" the wing could turn a 328 Jet back into a 328 prop ... but I believe the operating efficiency between the two is so similar, the cost-savings of such a conversion would be negligible.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4534 times:

I can't stand the 400.

Its the biggest piece of cheap trash there is in the skys. You can tell the airplane was made for efficiencey. The overheads and sidewall paneling remind me of peices of cardboard that have been painted, everything is flimsy and cheap feeling. The RJs are ridgid.

The 400 has climate controls that don't work, its always hot inside. Sometimes the APU works, usually it gets fixed which means you can use it for ten mintues.

But remember its so fast! Yeah not really.

If you encounter any light air movement, even at cruise it feels like you are landing in a 40 kias x-wind in the back cause its so long. The RJs don't encounter this for some reason.

Heard of all kinds of things from uncommanded rudder deflections to all the known landing gear issues. Who knows how accurate all those really are however.

Lets not forget the 8 degrees max pitch landings which means everytime the thing touches down you think you just got shot down. Hey as long as the landing gear works on that plane you've made my day.


User currently offlineWN700Driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4440 times:

Nice there,

Biased much? I can't imagine how you would think that way about a Q400. I'd take one of those over any RJ out there (maybe I'd ride a CR9 instead if the schedule fit mine better, or there was free food service, etc...)

I don't even know where to start with all that. First off, the air conditioning is provided by something called an ACM, not the APU. Even on older 300 & 100 models (Don't EVER get on one of those if you have a problem with a Q400, btw --though I think they're great too-- ), the ACM has a much better dispatch reliability than many mainline AC.

As for the Interiors... If that's really what you think, don't EVER fly a DC-9, Super 80, 732, 733, 734, 735, 762, 763, CR2, A300, A310, Anything from the Eastern Block (Which btw have been some of my favorite rides ever...), etc... I'd hate to think what you'd think about riding a 707. They didn't even have overhead bins! But I'll bet you'd pass up a chance to ride one because of their "Cheap old interiors."

Rudder Deflections? Your source work for National Enquirer or something? I work on Dashes every night and have yet to hear anything about that. No FCDs, no AD's no bulletins, nothing.

Landing gear? That issue's been solved. Guess what? The 400's such a great, efficient machine that SAS, the airline that had to suffer that misfortune still kept most of theirs, despite the negative press. And believe me, that was too bad. We were all hoping to snag some quickly available aircraft that way! Oh well. The fact is, EVERY aircraft has issues like that. The 737 is a great machine too, over 6000 have been sold. But a lot of hard lessons were learnt on that plane.
Do yourself a favor. Compare the number of Dash 8 related fatalities/injuries, then compare that to say, a CR2. Or a 757. Or the MD-11. OR any other aircraft known for its safety. You might surprise yourself.

Lastly, if you need to pitch 8 degrees everytime you land, go back to flight school. Think of some of the steepest takeoffs you've ever been on. I can just about guarantee that it wasn't more than 20 degrees. But you probably felt like you were going straight up, about to stall. Those degree marks cover a lot more arc than you obviously think. Hint, it doesn't round to zero.


User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4273 times:



Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 10):
I can't imagine how you would think that way about a Q400. I'd take one of those over any RJ out there

It's just as cramped as any RJ...so not sure why you would prefer it. Other than a few more windows and maybe half an inch in headroom, the Q400 cabin is the same size as other BBD offerings.

I'm also in the 'skip the Q400' camp.
It's loud and it vibrates--hence, it's in my corporate travel profile to avoid if possible.
Most the guys here have the 'no props' box clicked as well.
While it my may be incredibly efficient---from a passenger perspective, it's not a great ride.
Particularly those from a northwest carrier that didn't bother to put water in the washroom, window shades, or reclining seats in their aircraft.

I have the opportunity to try Porter later this month, so I may give it another try, schedule permitting.


User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4131 times:



Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 10):
As for the Interiors... If that's really what you think, don't EVER fly a DC-9, Super 80, 732, 733, 734, 735, 762, 763, CR2, A300, A310, Anything from the Eastern Block (Which btw have been some of my favorite rides ever...), etc... I'd hate to think what you'd think about riding a 707. They didn't even have overhead bins! But I'll bet you'd pass up a chance to ride one because of their "Cheap old interiors."

The F28 was my favourite, and is ten times the airplane, from an employee and passenger prospective, a 400 will ever be. As far as a dash 8 100, I did those birds too and if I could have it back I would take her over a 400 any day of the week hands down.

Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 10):
Rudder Deflections? Your source work for National Enquirer or something? I work on Dashes every night and have yet to hear anything about that. No FCDs, no AD's no bulletins, nothing.

No the source told me to get my ass off the aircraft so they can ferry the POS home.

Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 10):
Landing gear? That issue's been solved

lol. Thats SNL material. I really wish I could open up and provide you with some very intricate details surrounding these situations, however I'm not sure if that would be a fantastic idea.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25629 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4088 times:



Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 11):
Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 10):
I can't imagine how you would think that way about a Q400. I'd take one of those over any RJ out there

It's just as cramped as any RJ...so not sure why you would prefer it. Other than a few more windows and maybe half an inch in headroom, the Q400 cabin is the same size as other BBD offerings.

Of the Q400s I've flown in Europe, I prefer it to the CRJ-100/200. It seems roomier and the seats, even if they don't recline, are more comfortable with more legroon, although those factors depend more on the airline than the aircraft.. It's also easier to see out the windows than the CRJ-100/200. They solved the window height problem on the CRJ-700/900 but the Dash 8 has more closely-spaced windows which also helps.


User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3983 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
Of the Q400s I've flown in Europe, I prefer it to the CRJ-100/200

I was speaking of aircraft comparable to the Q400 (70 seats plus).
I'd prefer a bus to the CRJ200.


User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 12):
lol. Thats SNL material. I really wish I could open up and provide you with some very intricate details surrounding these situations, however I'm not sure if that would be a fantastic idea.



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 9):

Heard of all kinds of things from uncommanded rudder deflections to all the known landing gear issues. Who knows how accurate all those really are however.

So basically...you yourself are debating the accuracy and validity of those situations/issues...



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineEmSeeEye From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 508 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3868 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 9):
You can tell the airplane was made for efficiencey.

How long did it take for you to get to that conclusion?

Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 11):
While it my may be incredibly efficient---from a passenger perspective, it's not a great ride.

And do you think the airlines that operate the 400 really care?

Efficient and safe... heck thats all that matters.


User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3792 times:



Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 16):
And do you think the airlines that operate the 400 really care?

Well, Horizon doesn't.
And likely no one else!

But, you can vote with your wallet and take an alternative.


User currently offlineBravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 398 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3664 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 12):
lol. Thats SNL material. I really wish I could open up and provide you with some very intricate details surrounding these situations, however I'm not sure if that would be a fantastic idea.

Really? Omigosh!!!!! Do you think BBD knows? Do you think Transport Canada knows?!?!?!?!

I think you should immediately notify Transport Canada of these intricate details. Even go right to the top!!!!

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Tower C - 330 Sparks St.
The Honourable Lawrence CannonOttawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613-991-0700


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

guys...guys....


I have flown a wide range of Canadian built aircraft: DHC-6 (Twin Otter), DHC-7 (Dash-7), Dash 8-100, Dash 8-200, Dash 8-300, Dash 8-400...

All were great flights, with wide ranging interiors (good and bad) and various levels of noise... Q and non Q series...

I have also flown most 737's from the -200 to the -800. Most of the DC/MD series... Airbii narrow bodied and wide bodied... Guess what? same issues as mentioned above, both bad and good.



BUT SERIOUSLY NOW...what happened to the original topic?!

When you think of the unducted fan work done in the 80's, with flying examples on the 727 and MD80, wouldn't the slower revolutions and longer blades (props) on the turboprop eliminate most of the vibration concerns that happened with unducted engine technology??


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Blanchard - AirTeamImages




AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3352 times:



Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 19):
When you think of the unducted fan work done in the 80's, with flying examples on the 727 and MD80, wouldn't the slower revolutions and longer blades (props) on the turboprop eliminate most of the vibration concerns that happened with unducted engine technology??

Totally different engine design goals... the UDF's external "fan" blades are highly swept to allow for higher speed flight... the UDF had to reduce current fuel burn while providing generally similar performance levels of current aircraft/engine combo.. Turboprops like the 340's, Dash 8's, EMB-120, and even the EMB-123 have conventional prop blades that will drastically lose their efficiency at higher speed flight... that being said this category of aircraft is mainly for short segment, high frequency, with little ground support, at generally "lower" standard airfields that don't have the larger airport facilities... hence why the Dash 8's are good STOL aircraft... etc...

To retrofit an EMB-145 series or CRJ (any series) would require a UDF style blade to get similar speed and performance advantages...

Also.. a quick side note... Longer blades do not turn slower.. you have smaller blades and more of them to achieve efficiency... a blades speed varies of the different chord positions along the blade... the further from the tip the faster it is moving... closer to the speed of sound.. closer to the "wall" of efficiency" of the prop... so you want smaller, swept, and more blades to achieve the best speed and efficiency for higher speed flight. That is also why you saw the evolution of WWII fighters from 2 bladed props per war design to 3 and 4 bladed designs during the war etc... also look at the DC-3/4/6 vs the DC-7... as speed increases the blades get shorter, and more of them...



"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"
User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3241 times:



Quoting Bravo1six (Reply 18):
Really? Omigosh!!!!! Do you think BBD knows? Do you think Transport Canada knows?!?!?!?!

I'm quite sure BBD is front line on aircraft issues, and has certainly been apprised to any issue that I may have been aware of.

I think its incorrect for any individual to assume that any local aviation or public safety bureau may be aware of a unique situation related to aircraft performance or maintenance, and if what you are insinuating is that new issues do not arise for air carriers and become problematic then you are unfortunately incorrect. Thats why there is procedural protocol for all instances and why BBD has reps to the airlines. Additionally if you think that BBD shares publicly all airworthiness directives over CNN then you are also entirely wrong.

Look at the issues with WN not long ago which occured for sometime. It would be wrong for me to bias my own judgement and fail to report something because I believe that transport Canada and whatever other organization you referred to (just for example) were aware of the circumstances of events, and even a larger issue to assume that these powers are protecting you as a paying airline customer.

Theres a lot of things that go unsaid believe me; and I appologize if you lack the conceptual understanding as to why I would not place that information within a public forum.

Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 15):
So basically...you yourself are debating the accuracy and validity of those situations/issues...

Of that specific situation yes. However other situations that I have been involved in no. I would have no reason to debate my self or discredit others should I encounter a situation first hand. I am very skeptical on all of these issues and have been from the start. In fact for some time I feel a culture was evolving within that was affecting aircraft morale ("I don't like it because they said they don't like- and we all like to hate it"). Now I feel its a very sensitive issue with serious implications.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3150 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 21):
Look at the issues with WN not long ago which occured for sometime. It would be wrong for me to bias my own judgement and fail to report something because I believe that transport Canada and whatever other organization you referred to (just for example) were aware of the circumstances of events, and even a larger issue to assume that these powers are protecting you as a paying airline customer.

What does the FAA's alleged incompetence have to do with Transport Canada?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 day ago) and read 3121 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Oswegobag (Reply 4):
There is a public perception out there about turboprops and "regular customers" just don't like to fly them

I disagree. Recent history has indicated that the flying public cares about one thing and one thing only....the lowest possible price, period.

They may complain about "puddlejumpers" with propellers, but when it comes time to click "submit payment" on Travelocity, the lowest price will win. Every time.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 21 hours ago) and read 3003 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 23):
but when it comes time to click "submit payment" on Travelocity, the lowest price will win. Every time.

Not true. I actually know of very few folks that select the lowest fare. Schedule/stops/connections, etc play a large role.
I'll pay more for a nonstop any time (within reason, of course).


25 YYZatcboy : Thanks for the best laugh I've had today! Cheers!
26 TSS : As I see it, aside from the vibration issues that pretty much made the un-ducted fan engine a "dead end" in aircraft evolution and the propellor clear
27 Rikkus67 : ThePinacleKid and TSS... Welcome to my respected users list (well, in theory, anyways...) The most interesting and insightful views so far on this top
28 ThePinnacleKid : You brought up one that I was overlooking until reading your post... By having new "propfans" out there.. the thrust distance from the axis of the ai
29 ThePinnacleKid : Not sure why it had double posted.... nothin to see here.. move along... lol. Sorry guys. I thank ya! (in theory)... lol[Edited 2008-10-22 07:17:17]
30 YYZatcboy : How about potential ground strike issues on rotation? Would moving the props further back mean that there would have to be a restriction on takeoff an
31 TSS : Thank you Sir. Very good point. I'd imagine it would indeed.
32 Rikkus67 : I STILL cannot get the respected users function to work.... hmmm
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...
"Incident / Possible Hijacking" In Cape Town posted Fri Oct 6 2006 13:23:52 by SA707
Possible Restoration Of 707-400 "D-ABOC" At TXL? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 08:12:09 by Lindy Field
Longest Possible Same "country" Flight posted Tue Jan 27 2004 21:44:25 by KBUF737
Possible "new" Planes For AirTran. posted Wed Feb 27 2002 02:12:33 by JmhLUV2fly
Ua #93 (Possible) "Good" News posted Thu Sep 13 2001 06:51:31 by Jean Leloup
The Return Of "No Way BA/AA" posted Sun Oct 12 2008 12:58:55 by Ayubogg
Primaris "below Conventional Economy Prices"? posted Thu Oct 9 2008 11:05:41 by Dxborbust
AN-225 "new" Livery posted Wed Oct 1 2008 07:24:18 by NA
Air Canada "Jetz" Plane posted Tue Sep 30 2008 20:25:46 by TWA757
What Is Going On With "condor"? posted Wed Sep 24 2008 14:16:17 by Plairbus
Ua #93 (Possible) "Good" News posted Thu Sep 13 2001 06:51:31 by Jean Leloup
Congress To Airlines:Re-regulation Possible. posted Thu Apr 10 2008 08:27:44 by FXramper
Northwest Mesaba RJ-85 Enroute To DTW From AVQ posted Tue Nov 27 2007 20:15:50 by KDTWflyer
IND Service To Europe- Is It Possible? posted Thu Nov 8 2007 13:19:01 by BAKJet
Hong Kong To South Korea: Other Possible Routes? posted Fri Jan 26 2007 13:37:00 by Pe@rson
Any truth to the rumours about a possible QR DOH-GLA flight? posted Sun Jan 14 2007 01:49:50 by Bill1036