KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3244 posts, RR: 3 Posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2770 times:
Hi,
Well, given the inherent advantages of turboprops over turbofans (greater effeciency), I'm just wondering how feasible an aircraft of, say Lockheed Electra size would be today.
Of course, aircraft like the Dash 8 Q400 have shown that noise control (inside and out) isn't the issue it used to be...
How fast could it be made to cruise at FL350? I'd imagine that being prop-powered would slow down overall cruise. Could it be made swept wing, and would that improve performance over, say, the Lockheed Electra?
Just curious, and the A400M project is what sparked my interest along these lines
P.S. I'm aware of the public perception issues that a prop-powered aircraft will have...
EDIT: Oh yeah, I mean as a civil airliner, not a military transport. Probably should have said that
[Edited 2007-10-10 12:05:26]
Rulebooks and regulations are made from paper...and they do a poor job at preventing metal from contacting rock-Ernest G
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
I've already said this before - a low-wing twin turboprop with the A400M's engines would be both a nice regional airliner and a nice maritime patrol aircraft.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12327 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2638 times:
Quoting DHHornet (Reply 1): Great aircraft for London-Paris for example.
Indeed. This is a good distance. However in this specific case Eurostar is a tough competitor if you are talking city centre to city centre travel. But there are plenty of one hour city pairs that would work.
In the end, the pax will take the plane offered. If a large turboprop is sitting at the gate, I doubt a lot of people would turn back.
Quoting DHHornet (Reply 1): Who knows with fuel going up all the time?
Indeed.
My real self is a Blood Elf Mage in Azeroth. Meet him on Boulderfist.
Ba97 From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Could the numbers work if you built a large long range plane (Atlantic range)- knowing it is slower than a jet, you build out the interior for business seating spaces with all the gizmos. You sit in the plane longer but have a flying work station/sleep area and pay less than typical business fares. Or you are able to offer charter fares with better service and space?
there is economy class, business class, first class...then Concorde..pure class
Ex52tech From United States, joined Dec 2006, 337 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Quoting Ba97 (Reply 4): Could the numbers work if you built a large long range plane (Atlantic range)- knowing it is slower than a jet, you build out the interior for business seating spaces with all the gizmos. You sit in the plane longer but have a flying work station/sleep area and pay less than typical business fares. Or you are able to offer charter fares with better service and space?
With most businesses and business men, "time is money". Slow + Time = Money. Come guys...........a large multi engined turbo prop liner..........Why????
"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
G4LASRamper From United States, joined Dec 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
I dunno, tprops seem to be thought of as only for short to medium distances these days and thus not the largest of payloads. But I could see a modern version of the Tu-114, or maybe better a pax version of the An-70 - 200+ pax, supersonic prop tips (well maybe not due to noise), swept wings and tail, fairly high gross weight and payload, long endurance and range. I think it'd be a tough sell though.
"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig." - Porco Rosso
Strathpeffer From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
I asked this question, or something similar, a while back. The replies were a bit disappointing.
Yes, I think the inevitable rise in oil prices will slowly 'clarify' the economic benefits of large turboprops (maybe up to 120 seats) over city pairs up to a couple of hours flying time.
I suspect that flights longer than that means they won't be able to compete on speed, and aircraft much bigger than that would struggle without having four engines - incurring a big cost/wieght penalty.
Boeing is already mooting UDFs for the 737 replacement (although these aren't strictly turboprops, or are they ).
Ex52tech From United States, joined Dec 2006, 337 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Quoting Strathpeffer (Reply 8): Yes, I think the inevitable rise in oil prices will slowly 'clarify' the economic benefits of large turboprops (maybe up to 120 seats) over city pairs up to a couple of hours flying time.
If there wasn't such a strangle hold on drilling and refining oil by all the eco-freaks out there, then the price of oil would plummet. In the mean time we can't drill for oil while we are being held hostage by the middle east. Until we come up with a more viable alternative, that works as cheap as oil, we have to stick with oil. So let's start drilling, if they would like my front yard is available, I wouldn't mind the noise one bit.
"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
Strathpeffer From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2412 times:
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9): If there wasn't such a strangle hold on drilling and refining oil by all the eco-freaks out there, then the price of oil would plummet. In the mean time we can't drill for oil while we are being held hostage by the middle east. Until we come up with a more viable alternative, that works as cheap as oil, we have to stick with oil. So let's start drilling, if they would like my front yard is available, I wouldn't mind the noise one bit.
Agreed, but I can't see attitudes to this changing much in the next few years (especially in Europe) and even if we went drilling mad over the next few years it is difficult to predict how quickly the inevitable demand in India and China will push prices up again.
I love the idea of large props though, a bit of a change from all the generic CanaBoeEmbBuses about!
PJ
P.S. I live and work around the O&G industry in Aberdeen. The noise might bother you a bit...
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4017 posts, RR: 43 Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2411 times:
Quote: With most businesses and business men, "time is money". Slow + Time = Money. Come guys...........a large multi engined turbo prop liner..........Why????
Fast prop? Want one that cruises at 415Kts (Say, that's about an F100!) and can fly at FL390 (Higher than a 732/3/4/5)...
Heck it goes 6000km! *Bloody Hell!
Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-114
I really want to know what the operating figures were for those planes!!!! It was reported to be cheaper to operate than the Il-62s that replaced it!
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12327 posts, RR: 55 Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2411 times:
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 5): With most businesses and business men, "time is money". Slow + Time = Money. Come guys...........a large multi engined turbo prop liner..........Why????
- Modern turboprops aren't that much slower than jets anymore. SAAB 2000 and Dash-8 Q400 are not the old crates of the 60s.
- There are plenty of shorter routes (1-3 hours) that are served by widebodies today. Look at Japan and Europe. On these routes the slightly slower cruise speed of a prop only has a very small effect on the flight time.
Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 11):
Turboprops aren't nearly as efficient at the altitudes, ranges, and speeds that a turbofan would normally fly at.
Plenty of RJs fly what should by rights be turboprop routes. RJs are more suitable for long thin routes where their edge in speed comes into play. In any case I don't think the initial poster is proposing a transatlantic turboprop. But on, say, Osaka-Tokyo top speed is hardly the main factor.
My real self is a Blood Elf Mage in Azeroth. Meet him on Boulderfist.
Timz From United States, joined Sep 1999, 4777 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 14): It operated HAV-SVO nonstop!
Maybe-- or maybe it stopped at Murmansk or Archangel. Supposedly when they started that flight circa 1963 they had to fly around Scandinavia and the rest of Europe.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
Quoting Timz (Reply 15): Maybe-- or maybe it stopped at Murmansk or Archangel. Supposedly when they started that flight circa 1963 they had to fly around Scandinavia and the rest of Europe.
The outbound flight stopped in Murmansk, but not the inbound.
KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3244 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 14): Make that more than 8000km. It operated HAV-SVO nonstop!
Yeah, but when modified for such duties, it had been stripped from almost 200 seats down to 70 seats, and had much of the cargo hold fitted with extra fuel tanks... (read the Wikipedia article ).
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13): In any case I don't think the initial poster is proposing a transatlantic turboprop.
Definitely not. That became kind of a sub-thread after about 4-5 posts But hey, the military does that all the time with C-130's (but they cheat, they use air-to-air re-fuelling).
Rulebooks and regulations are made from paper...and they do a poor job at preventing metal from contacting rock-Ernest G
Irish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 445 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2354 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 17): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
In any case I don't think the initial poster is proposing a transatlantic turboprop.
Definitely not. That became kind of a sub-thread after about 4-5 posts But hey, the military does that all the time with C-130's (but they cheat, they use air-to-air re-fuelling).
C-130s flying the Atlantic do not refuel in flight - most of them are not equipped for this in any case. In cases where they need to tech-stop it is at an airport such as Gander, Goose Bay or St John's on the Canadian side and Prestwick or Shannon on the European side.
Alessandro From Sweden, joined Sep 2001, 4766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
Well, depends on the future fuelprice, unfortunatly it´s very few companies making these airplanes anymore.
But technically I don´t think there´s any problem.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3244 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined May 2006, 252 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3251 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12327 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2007, 76 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4017 posts, 
But hey, the military does that all the time with C-130's (but they cheat, they use air-to-air re-fuelling).
From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 445 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Sep 2001, 4766 posts,