Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A New Big Turboprop Era?  
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25315 times:

As per Flightglobal, Bombardier is offering a 84/86 pax variant of Q400.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-offer-higher-density-q400-392399/

This has been discussed in the past more than once, but the question remains: are we heading to a new era of new/reborn big turboprops? Their cost, fuel consumption, noise levels, short take-off capabilities, new noise-cancelling techniques, etc. play in its favour. Is this move going to force ATR to disclose openly its plans for 90+ pax? Could a kind of new 'turboprop-LCC' model emerge somehow? Are the engine manufacturers ready to fill this, perhaps, not so small niche? Well, herewith the discussion is declared open. By the way, totally anecdotical, but... at BRU I see now a lot of Q400; this was only inimaginable some years ago.

Regards,


A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
90 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 25180 times:

It might come but this isn't it, just cramming more people into the same aircraft. We'll see if that help sales of the Q400 that are very few and far between at the moment.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24934 times:

I remember plans at ATR for a bigger turboprop.

However, I am not sure if we are speaking of a longer version of the existing ATR 72 or of a all-new model?
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_20_2013_p0-590236.xml
One sentence in this article leads me to believe that it would be the latter:
"That could open up a niche that can be filled with a newly designed turboprop."
5-abreast, anyone?


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24928 times:

I don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights.

The perception against 'slow, noisy, old' prop planes is deeply ingrained in the flying public. On routes with a choice at near the same price - the jet will always win.

I know the perception is false, but it exists.

Turboprops have a niche market in today's flying world, but I don't see it ever growing much.


User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24927 times:

Oh the disappointment!

I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production or something  



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24780 times:

I think ATR was/is planning a ' 92 ' version a while back.


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24677 times:

"I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production or something "

Yes, I understand and share your disappointment. Tu-114, what a beast! 150-180 pax!

(And I like very much your signature: lovely things + boring stuff. Yes, indeed this is a "white goods" era).



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5401 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 24614 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
The perception against 'slow, noisy, old' prop planes is deeply ingrained in the flying public. On routes with a choice at near the same price - the jet will always win.

I know the perception is false, but it exists.

I mostly disagree. I think you are over-exaggerating that perception.

95% of the pax have absolutely no idea what aircraft they are on - certainly not when booking, and most not even when they are on the aircraft (if they do they don't care). IMO Few make decisions based on it, and those that do are the ones that know better anyway.

I have actually heard more complaints about jet RJs (from the 5% that do know), than Dash-8's or Q400s etc.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2529 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 24554 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 4):
I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production

Yes! And it regularly flew at "jet" speeds. The fastest propeller-turbine airliner ever! The largest and heaviest civil airplane in existence at the time of it's introduction. Many records still on the books.

  



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineRJNUT From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 24392 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights.

The perception against 'slow, noisy, old' prop planes is deeply ingrained in the flying public. On routes with a choice at near the same price - the jet will always win.

the ongoing airline consolidation in the US and contiunal loss of direct services will change that tune in a hurry!


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 24298 times:

And don't forget the shrinking middle class. The choice is obviously not between a cheap jet and an expensive turboprop flight, but the opposite : a jet flight you can't afford (or doesn't even exist anymore because not enough people could afford it) and a cheaper turboprop flight.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 24199 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 7):
I mostly disagree. I think you are over-exaggerating that perception.

95% of the pax have absolutely no idea what aircraft they are on - certainly not when booking, and most not even when they are on the aircraft (if they do they don't care). IMO Few make decisions based on it, and those that do are the ones that know better anyway.

I have actually heard more complaints about jet RJs (from the 5% that do know), than Dash-8's or Q400s etc.

Put me in that category. I go out of my way on UA to book a Q400 over a -145 when I can. I find it to be so much more comfortable.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
The choice is obviously not between a cheap jet and an expensive turboprop flight, but the opposite : a jet flight you can't afford (or doesn't even exist anymore because not enough people could afford it) and a cheaper turboprop flight.

Huh? Putting aside that, according to US DOT, from 2000 to 2012, inflation-adjusted fares DECLINED 16.7 % while there was an overall increase in consumer prices of 32%, what examples are there of a jet flight that is unaffordable and a cheaper turboprop flight? Fares are set based on market forces, not based on the type of aircraft.


User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 23923 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
I go out of my way on UA to book a Q400 over a -145 when I can.

Hm, but then again, if I am seated in the single seat on the -145, I would prefer it over the Q400...

Looks as if we do not really get into talking about the real topic of this thread, do we??


User currently offlinerampbro From Canada, joined Nov 2012, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22819 times:

Speaking from a Canadian perspective, I would expect to see increased use of large turbo-props in this country over the next 20 years, particularly as the northern part of this country opens up.

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
Fares are set based on market forces, not based on the type of aircraft.

The type of aircraft has an effect on those market forces. CASM is specifically determined by a/c type, and is a key input into fare decisions.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22586 times:

Quoting DUSint (Reply 12):
Looks as if we do not really get into talking about the real topic of this thread, do we??

As the OP is talking about a stretch Q400, and as other posts in the thread have debated whether it makes sense given the public's perceptions of turboprop flying vs. regional jet flying, than yes...we are talking about the real topic of this thread.


User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22258 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 14):
Looks as if we do not really get into talking about the real topic of this thread, do we??


As the OP is talking about a stretch Q400, and as other posts in the thread have debated whether it makes sense given the public's perceptions of turboprop flying vs. regional jet flying, than yes...we are talking about the real topic of this thread.

Well, I should say that "public perception" is one of many factors. But as somebody said before, with low enough fares this perception can be modified more or less easily. But I personally would prefer to concentrate on pax capacity, engines, fuel consumption, CASM, the ATR/Bombardier approachs, etc. or in questions as "How on Earth it is possible that Antonov, with all his huge experience in this field, is not well present in the world markets for turboprops?"



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinehh65man From Australia, joined Feb 2013, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Slap a second deck and some windows on the A400 and I am in. Nothing beats a massive turbo prop.  

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7075 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 21836 times:

My two cents, Bombardier went for the replacement small RJ market with the Q400 which did not pan out, RJ's are going away not because of fuel cost but due in large part to scope in the USA and the chpt. 11 reorganization and consolidation which has seen the power of the pilots reduced in the number and size of a/c that can be operated on behalf of the legacies.
The Q400 suddenly does not have much of a market in the USA and elsewhere in the world it is a bit too much a/c in terms of seats - yes I know the cost is comparable but if you are not filling the a/c you are dragging around weight - it is fast and technical, in some regions it needs to be a bit more rugged.

If they want a larger turbo they should look 5 or 6 across getting a wider fuse versus longer with 4 across.
I do not see the airlines using the cheaper cost of the turbo to lower their prices and since these are most likely operated by third parties on a fixed cost basis, where is the incentive to switch a/c, only commuter airlines not operating for the legaices maybe able to offer lower fares, I tend to agree with the quote below.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
I don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights


User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3524 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 21259 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
Huh? Putting aside that, according to US DOT, from 2000 to 2012, inflation-adjusted fares DECLINED 16.7 % while there was an overall increase in consumer prices of 32%, what examples are there of a jet flight that is unaffordable and a cheaper turboprop flight? Fares are set based on market forces, not based on the type of aircraft.

I think he is referring to the (future) choice that people will have and the evolution of the industry.

Fares may have declined since 2000, but it's come at the expense of a profitable airline industry. As consolidation continues to decrease competition and the supply of seats, fares will continue to rise as they have in the past two years. At some point, turboprop costs will give-in over jet costs for a certain type of flight (400/500 miles or less between medium-sized business centers and larger cities, such as Indianapolis/Chicago or Oklahoma City/Dallas) to help decrease the cost of high-frequency flights (high frequency is another trend that has really caught on in the last decade). I

So, if people want this type of high frequency, they will pay for turboprops. If they are willing to forgo high frequency, then it's possible turboprop use will stay out of favor.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21070 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
Put me in that category. I go out of my way on UA to book a Q400 over a -145 when I can. I find it to be so much more comfortable.

From what I have seen I have say your be an exception there. Back when COEX use to fly the Q400 to Dallas, passengers were not happy at all to see it pull up. I was flying DAL-IAH on a weekly basics and I hear people complain about a "old propeller" plane.

Before the Q400 DAL was all ERJs. I will say we really didn't know what hell was until Skywest brought in the CRJ-200. The CRJ-200 is worst plane I have flew on, now I know why it called the Devil's Chariot.

Back to the Q400 they used to breakdown all the time. We thought it was a Colgan problem but it seems to be even worst with Republic operating them. After my experiences with the CRJ-200, Q400, and CRJ-700 vs E-Jets, Bombarider need to get out of the passenger plane business. They make miserable aircraft.

Now a prop plane I love is the ATR-72-600. That is a nice plane. I prefer it 100 times over a Q400. I flew in some new ones at BW and I was impressed how much smoother, quieter, and nice the ride was compared to the Q400.

[Edited 2013-10-31 13:39:34]


Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10894 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21047 times:

Quoting DUSint (Reply 2):
I remember plans at ATR for a bigger turboprop.

Yes, and they even released an illustration.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roval-of-90-seat-turboprop-381418/
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_20_2013_p0-590236.xml

Quote:
Chief executive Filippo Bagnato showed a slide during the airframer's press conference in Toulouse on 23 January, depicting an outline of the future aircraft.

It featured a wing with upwards-angled winglets and engines with eight-blade propellers.

The illustration also showed a classic T-tail, with the horizontal stabiliser mounted on top of the fin. On current-generation ATR 42 and 72 aircraft, the fin extends above the horizontal stabiliser.

The horizontal stabiliser further featured small winglets, though these were downwards-angled.
http://oi43.tinypic.com/6jmyxz.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 20223 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 14):
As the OP is talking about a stretch Q400, and as other posts in the thread have debated whether it makes sense given the public's perceptions of turboprop flying vs. regional jet flying, than yes...we are talking about the real topic of this thread.

Ok, ok...

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 19):
Now a prop plane I love is the ATR-72-600. That is a nice plane. I prefer it 100 times over a Q400. I flew in some new ones at BW and I was impressed how much smoother, quieter, and nice the ride was compared to the Q400.

From my own - subjective - empiricism:
I tend to believe that the flying experience on both types, the Qseries and the ATR, depends on how modern and advanced the version is. For example:
I once flew an ATR-42-320 by Atlantique Air Assistance and it was a very loud, rattling thing. Nothing to enjoy.
Then, this summer I flew on a AirBaltic Q400 (more or less one year old) and it seemed much smoother.
And I am quite sure you could have the opposite experience with an ATR-72-600 and an old Q100 or even an old Q400.


User currently offlineJFKL1011 From United States of America, joined Oct 2013, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18759 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
I don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights

Unless of course the prop was a Q400 and the jet was a CRJ!!!!



So many places to fly and increasingly so few interesting aircraft to get there on.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7993 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 days ago) and read 18476 times:

Remember Keesje's old Turboliner proposal from five years ago? With modern engineering and using two of the same engines from the Airbus Military A400M transport plane, such an airliner could do economic cruise as high as Mach 0.7 but with way lower fuel burn on a CASM basis than possibly even the Bombardier CS airliners.

User currently offlinebmibaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1798 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (9 months 3 days ago) and read 18266 times:

As a frequent flyer on the Q400, I honestly fail to see how it can have an extra two rows of seats placed inside unless the aircraft itself is stretched? Flight global only mentions interior modifications - can someone explain how this would be possible? I can see only the internal forward hold being removed, but that would add only two seats - not two rows?

25 mbk1999 : Don't forget the TU-114 is alive and well as the TU-95 which still serves the Russian Air Force in a number of models.
26 silentbob : Remove the galley or reduce the size of the cargo bin even more? I wouldn't be surprised to see the extra rows come from thinner seats and reduced pi
27 Post contains images Superfly : That's what I was thinking. A stretched Q400 to cram more people in does not sound appealing at all. It's already a tight fit as it is. Agreed! I was
28 rfields5421 : It is in marketing surveys. It is why city airport boards cry in public when their service is 'downgraded' from a CRJ/ERJ to an ATR or Dash-8. Yes mo
29 YxwatcherMKE : I would love to see the re-birth of the Turboprop a/c. The bigger the better IMHO. But the key to it being successful is.... the better the a/c is for
30 727200LR : Tu114NG anyone? I'd book the first available ticket if it was to happen
31 atp50 : As a Global Services member with UA, I hope that they notice that they noticed my recent EWR-BUF booking for Jan-2014. Rather than taking a direct fli
32 ImperialEagle : Yes. That was kool. Sure do miss Keesje. Oh yeah! Or a wide-body CL-44J type with propulsion systems from the A400M. I agree that pax will grumble wh
33 TP313 : One could say that a PW1100 (GTF) engined A321 NEO is in fact a big turboprop. There is no significant conceptual difference (although some may take i
34 washingtonflyer : Here's a question for the bean counters....Can a 70 or 80 seat turboprop effectively replace a 50 seat CRJ? You've got more dollar costs with a larger
35 Post contains images r2rho : A higher density Q400, likely with slim seats at 30" pitch, is not what I would call a big turboprop, which for me starts at 100+ seats. This move by
36 CPHFF : I'm still curious as to the difinition of this. Had the misfortune to fly on a lot of SK's Q400's, and it felt very noisy irregardless of where I sat
37 washingtonflyer : I was amused to see one passenger on a recent Q400 flight.....she had her fingers in her ears the entire flight.
38 Post contains images bond007 : Airport boards are not passengers, even though a few 'passengers' might be on it. If you ask folks in a survey they will likely say they would prefer
39 flight152 : What are you even talking about? ...gotta love when non-pilots try to get technical.
40 United885 : Sorry, that´s wrong. If we´re discussing about routes, shorter than 550 km, a ATR would be much more profitable than a jet. On those short flights,
41 cobra27 : Maybe 4 engine 200-300 seat variant with like 10000 hp engines?
42 washingtonflyer : The AN22 in passenger configuration!
43 sassiciai : Time again to show my age! I remember in the early 1970s shuttling up and down frequently between Glasgow (where I was educated) and London (where I w
44 DfwRevolution : That's factually incorrect. The global middle class with purchasing power for commercial aviation is increasingly steadily.
45 Post contains links spantax : A good example of the jet/turboprop contest: Since last Monday Air Europa is offering 4 return flights Asturias (OVD)-Madrid (MAD) with ATR-72 in comp
46 Post contains links yeelep : I think you are referring to the UDF demonstrator. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BMNaXc1rL8
47 Viscount724 : Breakeven load factor on the Q400 is much lower than the 50-seat regional jets. AC (Jazz) has been replacing 50-seat CRJs with Q400s over the past co
48 freeze3192 : Hahahahah Wow. First of all, the Dash 8 is one of the best airplanes to be flying in around the "largest snow-making machines in the world." It was b
49 spantax : Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Another point in favour of turboprops.
50 Aesma : The shrinking middle class is of course not a global concept, but one that applies to developed countries only, where the middle class still flies 10
51 CRJ 900 : Well we have a few Q4s at Jazz. IMHO it was a sad sad day when they chose to order that thing. I have flown on the ATR many times and far prefer it. I
52 Viscount724 : ATR is also significantly slower than the Q400 which would be a factor on some of the longer AC Q400 nonstops like YZF-YYC (Q400 block time 2:24) and
53 queb : ...and 4-6 fewer seats per a/c.
54 CRJ 900 : I wasnt suggesting putting the ATR on those routes. TBH the Q shouldnt be running those trips either..the passengers hate them especially when you fly
55 KD5MDK : I wonder how well a 200 seat ATR would sell for short hops within Europe and Asia.
56 queb : ATR is too small to launch a 200 seats aircraft. If it happens, it will be an Airbus. They do not even have the engineers (and money) to launch a 90
57 rlwynn : That is not true. It is an EADS and Alenia company 50/50. They would have all the resources of both.[Edited 2013-11-12 12:53:16]
58 Viscount724 : But it lets them operate 5 daily flights YQM-YYZ (currently 4 Q400s and 1 CRJ) much more economically than the same number of jets. I expect most bus
59 queb : it's a little bit more complicated, otherwise it would be already launched.
60 KD5MDK : I think the market for the product would also have an effect.
61 Post contains links spantax : I found a very interesting article comparing ATR/Q400 http://theflyingengineer.files.wordp...ss.com/2011/11/q400_atr72usage.jpg Quote: "The average se
62 r2rho : The main issue IMO is that Airbus would never allow them to get into A319 territory and compete with their own product line. As for resources, ATR ma
63 spantax : Yes, but....well A319 is a jet, ATR are turboprops; quite a different market, isn't it? Besides, between the 70 pax of ATR-72 and the 124 (minimun, b
64 Post contains links KarelXWB : News update from the Dubai air show: ATR is still awaiting shareholder approval to launch a 90-seat turboprop, which is planned to enter service towar
65 flyingturtle : What is the current fuel efficiency of a turboprop compared to a turbofan, assumed the A/C equipped with turbofans and turboprops would have the same
66 Aesma : I doubt you'll get a straight answer but I'd like to have it too. Even when you take the same aircraft with turboprops and put turbofans instead (Dorn
67 spantax : Difficult answer. But here two tips: "On a typical short route of 300nm the fuel consumption of an ATR 72 is roughly half that of a regional jet" (ht
68 Post contains links Kuja : Sun Air of Scandinavia operate both. Trip reports have been made on both the 328 prop and the 328JET.
69 Ty134A : Welcome Air had. I talked to some crews and they all said that the prop is by far better than the jet. For the routes the operated at the time (it wa
70 Post contains links spantax : According to Aviation Week, there are five possible competitors for the "big" turboprop http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_08_05_2013_p38-601
71 Post contains links queb : BBD launch the 86 seats Q400 with Nok Air of Thailand http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-c...rdierandnokairofthailandsignp.html
72 Post contains links spantax : Wonderful news. I assume this puts even more pressure on ATR. But I was wondering where the hell are they going to put these 6 extra seats? If you lo
73 Post contains links spantax : Found the answer to my question (quote from Flightglobal) "The new high capacity version of the Q400 will seat 86 passengers in a single-class configu
74 r2rho : For equal technology level, etc, it's in the comfortable double-digit figures. 15% is a good guesstimate; ATR probably being higher than that, Q400 l
75 Post contains links spantax : Well, it's not only me who thinks this could bring some pressure. Quote from Le Journal de l'Aviation: http://www.journal-aviation.com/actu...-le-q400
76 silentbob : So it's not a new airplane, just jamming more people into the existing Q400 airframe.
77 Post contains images flyingturtle : Thank you all! If those such flights were offered, and came with a considerable fare reduction, I'd take turboprops on longhaul. One man's low and sl
78 Post contains links KarelXWB : ATR will also apply the engine technology of its proposed 90-seat turboprop to its existing ATR 42-600 and ATR 72-600 variants via a new engine family
79 r2rho : Now this is getting interesting. So we could see an ATR-72NEO alongside an all-new ATR-9x... but this doesn't depend as much on ATR as on the engine
80 jetblastdubai : From a 2008 thread on anet: MMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted Tue Jul 8 2008 00:11:09 your local time I'm not sure of the weig
81 Post contains images Azure : This is a key point. Airbus certainly know there is a market for a new big turboprop despite their veto on the ATR project last june. At least they c
82 r2rho : Interesting thought. Actually, Airbus may be having an excess of engineering capacity in the next years since they won't be building anything new for
83 bjorn14 : What makes the Q more expensive to operate than the 72? Is it solely the more powerful engine?
84 waly777 : Yes indeed, that extra power comes with the price of a significant increase in fuel burn & higher maintenance costs. In addition, the pw150 on th
85 bjorn14 : Thanks, Waly I've heard that the ATR is more of a hub feeder and the Q is more P2P. Too bad rhe ATR is almost a 100kts slower.
86 Grisee08 : Regardless of public perception, I would feel just as safe getting on a 1985 EMB-120 as I would a 2006 Boeing 717. It's not the airplane I ever worry
87 spantax : I was wondering... just for the sake of theoretical speculation. Would it be possible an ATR-72-600 with the PW150? Would it be enough with only a 'm
88 bjorn14 : And to add to Spantax's speculation what about doing it to a 42-600?
89 Arrow : The Q400 looks like the other Dash 8s, but the wing is quite different (along with a lot of other stuff) and it gets the extra speed not just from th
90 waly777 : I would be guessing it's poasible, although I doubt it will bring the same speed benefits. Each pw127 weighs about 1000lbs vs 1500lbs for each pw150.
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...
New 'Big Boss' posted Tue Jan 8 2002 08:23:35 by TR
The New Big 3: Alaska, Southwest, JetBlue posted Wed Sep 19 2001 23:33:52 by Woodsboy
A New BIG Partner For KLM posted Wed Jul 11 2001 14:05:22 by Emile
5 New ATRs How Big Can Hawaii Island Air Get? posted Mon Sep 10 2012 19:56:06 by Canflight
ATL-New Intl Terminal-Big Enough For Future? posted Tue Nov 17 2009 05:46:12 by DeltaDAWG
TUI Belgium: A New Era In Exterior Liveries posted Sun Nov 1 2009 10:15:19 by OwlEye
Baja Scores Big - New ESE Const Prog 2Q 08 posted Sat Feb 16 2008 02:12:49 by MayaviaERJ190
New Era Begins Today At IWA posted Thu Oct 25 2007 09:28:38 by AirCop
Big "Global Tourism" Announcement For New York? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 17:02:27 by Drgmobile
Big Sky 1900 In New Delta Livery posted Fri Jul 20 2007 14:47:29 by AviationAddict
Big "Global Tourism" Announcement For New York? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 17:02:27 by Drgmobile
SAS With New Big Cuts posted Tue Mar 25 2008 14:00:52 by Mortyman
New 'Big Boss' posted Tue Jan 8 2002 08:23:35 by TR
The New Big 3: Alaska, Southwest, JetBlue posted Wed Sep 19 2001 23:33:52 by Woodsboy
A New BIG Partner For KLM posted Wed Jul 11 2001 14:05:22 by Emile
5 New ATRs How Big Can Hawaii Island Air Get? posted Mon Sep 10 2012 19:56:06 by Canflight
ATL-New Intl Terminal-Big Enough For Future? posted Tue Nov 17 2009 05:46:12 by DeltaDAWG
TUI Belgium: A New Era In Exterior Liveries posted Sun Nov 1 2009 10:15:19 by OwlEye
Baja Scores Big - New ESE Const Prog 2Q 08 posted Sat Feb 16 2008 02:12:49 by MayaviaERJ190
New Era Begins Today At IWA posted Thu Oct 25 2007 09:28:38 by AirCop
Big "Global Tourism" Announcement For New York? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 17:02:27 by Drgmobile