Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aircraft Designed For Both Jet And Turboprop?  
User currently offlineDash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 198 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14142 times:

My first post on A.net  Smile


AFAIK, BBD is currently the only manufacturer proposing both turboprop (Qs) and jet (CRJs),
BBD is going forward with the Cseries,
And BBD is evaluating an offering of a bigger turboprop than the Q400 (Q400x)


Would it make sense to develop a new airframe from scratch (i.e. Cseries) with a choice of jet or turboprop?
I know some airframe evolved from prop to jet (emb-120 -> erj145, Fokker 27 -> Fokker 50), keeping more or less commonality, but is there any aircraft that’s been developed to support both engines types at EIS, not as a late derivative?

What parts of the aircraft would have to be custom-made to fit with the engine beside the wing, assuming that BBD would stick with a high-wing for the turboprop variant.
I think most of the fuselage, cockpit and landing gear could be the same.

For the choice of turboprop engines, I have the TP400 engines in mind. I know they're "late" for the A400 but would be fine for the Cseries 2013 EIS.



Cseries Jet with GTF
Cseries Turboprop with TP400

sounds like a great duo to me!


Thanks.

Dash9

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3817 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14101 times:

The Dornier 328 / 328Jet is the only thing that comes to mind. It made for a fast prop and a slow, uneconomical jet. I'm thinking that would be the case for any similar attempt.

User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14056 times:



Quoting Dash9 (Thread starter):
but is there any aircraft that%u2019s been developed to support both engines types at EIS, not as a late derivative?

Well, first of all, the F50 is a turboprop as well, just like the F27:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andre Oferta
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim De Groot - AirTeamImages



And although the Embraer 145 shares components and tools with the Embrear 120, I would still call it a very different aircraft.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Kesternich
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Fietz



Shared tools and components can be found at any manufacturer that builds both turboprops and jets, simply because you won't need to reinvent the wheel.

Like mentioned, the Dornier 328 / 328JET is basically the same aircraft for both props and jets.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marvin Meinel
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabrizio Gandolfo



The problem is that the requirements for props and jets are quite different. Most notably, as jets need a higher cruise speed than props, making one wing for both makes it suboptimal for at least one of the variants. Also, props typically see high-wing constructions, whereas these are not popular for jets.

All in all, I don't see it happen again.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8842 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14040 times:

How about the Embraers? The Embraer RJs were simply stretched EMB-120s with jet engines mounted on the back and a new wing. Look at the nose and the tail - they are exactly the same.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © SkyLiner




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Gonzalez - Iberian Spotters




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13953 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
How about the Embraers? The Embraer RJs were simply stretched EMB-120s with jet engines mounted on the back and a new wing. Look at the nose and the tail - they are exactly the same.

Just because they have a similar nose and tail in appearance, the fact that the engines are mounted on the rear of the aircraft, as opposed on the wings, calls for a completely different wing structure. That is just naming one aspect, its far from the same plane.

Would you compare a DC-8 with a DC-9 because the nose looks identical?


ALLARD.

[Edited 2008-11-29 09:36:17]


ALLARD. First flight: KLM DC-10, LLW - AMS.
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8842 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13885 times:

Quoting AFKL (Reply 4):
Would you compare a DC-8 with a DC-9 because the nose looks identical?

No, because it was a completely different design, despite appearances. The original EMB-145 prototype had 75% parts commonality with the EMB-120, although they had to reduce that when they changed from a straight wing to a swept wing. But the nose, cockpit, fuselage sections and tail, with only slight modifications, are from the EMB-120.

BTW, that is not a criticism. The EMB-145 probably has one of the best safety records of any airliner - ever.

[Edited 2008-11-29 10:10:27]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25383 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13818 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
The original EMB-145 prototype had 75% parts commonality with the EMB-120, although they had to reduce that when they changed from a straight wing to a swept wing. But the nose, cockpit, fuselage sections and tail, with only slight modifications, are from the EMB-120.

The first Gulfstream II jet also had a lot in common with the Gulfstream I turboprop including the cockpit and fuselage sections.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Eyre
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trevor Warne



After 50 years I believe the same fuselage section is still being used on today's G550.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wim Callaert



User currently offlineSuisjes From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13640 times:

As far as the Dornier 328-100 & 328-300 the only thing I can think of the difference is a Dornier 328-100 only has one hydraulic system the jet has two other than that the airframe is exactly the same oh, and maybe ground spoilers which were an option on a -100 as well as a APU

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9652 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13602 times:

While not in the same jet transport category, Cessna wins with versatility of engine types. Piston props, turboprops and jets!


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3817 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13552 times:



Quoting Suisjes (Reply 7):
As far as the Dornier 328-100 & 328-300 the only thing I can think of the difference is a Dornier 328-100 only has one hydraulic system the jet has two other than that the airframe is exactly the same oh, and maybe ground spoilers which were an option on a -100 as well as a APU

The wings are slightly different too. The prop has boots and the jet doesnt.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3627 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13518 times:

I wish Boeing and Airbus would design a big ( 737, A320 size) turbo props. For highly used short routes like JFK-IAD, BOS-JFK and LAX-SAN of course.  Smile

User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12438 times:

I'd love to see the Q-400 stretched to 90ish passenger capacity, but I would imagine at some point they'd have to look at at a wider cross section rather than just adding more fuselage plugs. Also didn't the DO328 Jet actually have de-ice boots at one point the same as the turbo-prop?
Boots

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anto Blazevic


No Boots

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Konstantin von Wedelstaedt




Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineDash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12253 times:



Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 1):
The Dornier 328 / 328Jet is the only thing that comes to mind

True, that is an excellent example of an airframe built both for jet and prop.

Quoting Joost (Reply 2):
Most notably, as jets need a higher cruise speed than props, making one wing for both makes it suboptimal for at least one of the variants

So we agree that an airplane built for both jet en turboprop engines would need a different wing. I guest the tail would also be different.
Turboprop typically flies at a lower altitude than jets so the pressure is lower. Maybe this would also justify a different fuselage? In the end, I guest there wouldn't be much commonality between the jet and prop variant so it wouldn't make much sense to develop this jet/prop aircraft family.


User currently offlineA333TS From Canada, joined May 2008, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12253 times:

I think that most critical part of the aircraft will always be different between the turboprop and jet engine is the wing. I have read in one of the aircraft design books that aircraft manufacturers spend the big percentage of the budget on the wing design.

Most modern turboprops have a straight wing for STOL capabilities and thus having a slower cruse speed, while jet engine has swept wings, probably a lot lower drag for the higher cruse speeds.


A333TS


User currently offlineSuisjes From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11763 times:

I will also add when the 328-100 went from prop to jet it only hurt them, as the prop was a good one has a very up to date cockpit and is comparable to your erjs but, the jet was not such a winner as the engine had a lot of bugs and still has yet to prove itself really.

User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6878 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11736 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
The Embraer RJs were simply stretched EMB-120s with jet engines mounted on the back and a new wing. Look at the nose and the tail - they are exactly the same.

Well, I wouldn't say the Emb120 and the Embraer RJ, but... I would say the Embraer-FMA CBA123 Vector and Embraer RJ...

EMB120 -> CBA123 -> ERJ perhaps...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Rees



Wing, tailplane stabilizer mount, look similar, only the tailcone is different...
Now, seeing the Phenom... it's like a re-engined CBA123 although it's very different...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineSuisjes From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11696 times:

Oh and the jets do have boots but they are grey in color there is'nt any bleed are ducts that goes through the wing leading edges or the vertical leading edges they are boots!

User currently offlineSuisjes From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11572 times:

Boots
http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...536923772&filename=phpUvDR28..jpeg


User currently offlineJETA1863 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11343 times:

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 15):

EMB120 -> CBA123 -> ERJ perhaps...

WOW! I have never heard of, let alone seen a picture of, this Embraer. This is especially cool! A little off topic but the EMB-121 seems to be a cut off version of the EMB-120. I've always liked the way the EMB-121's have looked, but man I REALLY like that CBA-123!!!

Even further off topic, I have a good friend that is a retired CW4 for the ARNG that flew C-23 Sherpa's for a while.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Victor M. Gonzalez


If I recall correctly, he told me that the C-23B+ and C is a Shorts 360 airframe with a Shorts 330 twin forked tail that replaces the conventional vertical and horizontal stabilizers and a cargo ramp. I checked on Wikipedia (no fuego, por favor!  ) and this information was listed there as well, although I cannot find any picture showing a C-23A's vertical and horizontal stabilizers in a conventional configuration.

Also, if anyone has any information about the CBA-123, please feel free to drop me a line! I'd like to learn as much as I can about this unique aircraft!

Take care and blue skies!  

[Edited 2008-11-30 00:44:54]

[Edited 2008-11-30 00:45:13]


Regardless of the issue at hand, always analyze BOTH sides of a situation and ONLY THEN make an educated decision.
User currently offlineGreasemonkey From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11000 times:

The only differences from the DO328-100 and the DO328JET was bigger brakes and silver de-ice boots. The problem for the jet version was that the aircraft was limited to slower speeds due to construction of the vertical stab (all composite). Both aircraft had the same service ceiling so if you factor in same speeds and altitude, the jet just didn't make much sense. Both were great aircraft and a blast to taxi around. As someone else mentioned, the avionics system was very modern and many in our company felt that we took a step down when we began receiving CRJ-200s.


It's usually a good idea to know what all the buttons do...before you push them.
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10892 times:



Quoting JETA1863 (Reply 18):
although I cannot find any picture showing a C-23A's vertical and horizontal stabilizers in a conventional configuration

They were delivered straight off the factory with two tails, and 2nd hand examples were converted to two tails. The 'convential' configuation is seen on civil Shorts 360s, like
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan P. Nesbit - Mexico Air Spotters

incidentally also a military one for better comparising.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9847 times:

Also, one has the Piper Meridian


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Petr Popelar



Which has been mored into the PiperJet (granted, its still in the works)

http://www.williams-int.com/p/newphotos/piperjet.jpg

Although a piston, not a turboprop, there is the Adam A500 centerline-thrust twin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralph Duenas - Jetwash Images



Morphed into the A700 jet, which granted, was slightly lengthened,


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manas Barooah



I do not know its flight characteristics or economics however, and whether or not its worth it.


User currently offlineJETA1863 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9647 times:



Quoting Greasemonkey (Reply 19):
Both aircraft had the same service ceiling so if you factor in same speeds and altitude, the jet just didn't make much sense.

From what I hear from crews, the 328JET is an outstanding performer for "hot & high" airports. I'm sure the climb performance was drastically better in the 328JET than the 328. Speaking strictly from a second-hand point of view, the BAe 146 Avro had a similar problem: outstanding climb performance with dinky cruise performance. Here's a quick spec. breakdown of the Dornier 328 vs 328JET taken from Fairchild-Dornier.com:

...................................Dornier 328.....................Dornier 328JET
Powerplant..................2 Pratt & Whitney............2 Pratt & Whitney
...................................PW119B turboprop..........PW306B
...................................driving 6 Hartzell
...................................propellers each
Shaft HP/ Thrust.........2,180shp..........................26.9kN (6,050 lbs)
Length........................21,11m............................21,11m
Wing Span..................20,98m............................20,98m
Wing Area..................40m2................................40m2
Height ........................7,24m..............................7,24m
Cruise Speed.............620 km/h..........................756 km/h
Range........................1.352 km..........................1,480nm
Service Ceiling...........25.000 feet.......................35,000 feet
..................................Optional 31.000 feet
Max. Payload.............3.450 kg............................3,266kg
MTOW.......................13.990 kg..........................15.200kg (Mod. 10: 15,660kg)
Passengers...............30 to 33.............................30 to 33

Take care and blue skies!  Silly



Regardless of the issue at hand, always analyze BOTH sides of a situation and ONLY THEN make an educated decision.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25383 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9458 times:



Quoting A333TS (Reply 13):
Most modern turboprops have a straight wing for STOL capabilities and thus having a slower cruse speed

One of the rare swept-wing turboprops of the past was the huge Tupolev 114 of the 1950s, and the Tu-95 Bear bomber (still in service) on which it was based. I think it still ranks as the fastest turboprop aircraft. It also has the most powerful turboprop engines ever built, notable for the contra-rotating props which made it very loud.

Tu-114


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence



Tu-95


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fyodor Borisov - Russian AviaPhoto Team



User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9384 times:



Quoting AvroArrow (Reply 11):
Also didn't the DO328 Jet actually have de-ice boots at one point the same as the turbo-prop?

The 328JET always had de-ice boots ... they just offered a a silver-colored boot to make it look like it had a hot wing. On this photo you can see where sections of the silver boots have been replaced with regular black boots:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dan Brownlee




I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 9346 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
No, because it was a completely different design, despite appearances. The original EMB-145 prototype had 75% parts commonality with the EMB-120, although they had to reduce that when they changed from a straight wing to a swept wing. But the nose, cockpit, fuselage sections and tail, with only slight modifications, are from the EMB-120.

BTW, that is not a criticism. The EMB-145 probably has one of the best safety records of any airliner - ever.

This is the reason that the cockpit is so loud. It's not designed to go that fast. Also have to trim the horizontal stab below 160kts (if I recall, a current 145 driver can back me up on this) because the trim motors weren't strong enough to do so above that speed. To a lesser degree, this probably has a lot to do with the reason it seems to wobble around a lot up high and the 170 seems so much more stable.



DMI
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...
Do Pilots Fly Both Pax And Cargo Aircraft? posted Wed Apr 11 2007 16:41:35 by Steve332
A Website For Flight Numbers And Aircraft Matches? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 08:59:50 by WunalaYann
Jet And Sahara: Service Changes For Intl Flights? posted Tue Jan 25 2005 01:49:59 by UALAX
Website With Aircraft Movements For FRA And HKG posted Sat May 19 2001 22:51:37 by 22886
Both Copa And Taca To Join Star? posted Fri Nov 21 2008 10:20:55 by Kiwiandrew
Delta Will Buy From Both Airbus And Boeing posted Mon Nov 17 2008 19:49:51 by CokePopper
Avolar Applies For SJD-LAX And TIJ-OAK posted Tue Oct 28 2008 14:10:03 by LAXintl
Catering For Private Jet posted Sun Sep 21 2008 03:30:31 by UAEflyer
Allegiant Announces Lexington To Both SFB And PIE posted Tue Sep 16 2008 11:01:15 by FATFlyer
Thai Interesting Aircraft Mix For Lahore posted Tue Aug 5 2008 08:35:26 by 777way