FlyingBattery26
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:41 pm

I've been doing some reading, it would seem that both Bombardier and ATR are planning to build a 90-seat turboprop (with the former being simply a stretched version of the Q400). I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment (I'm thinking of Flybe in particular, who would no doubt have went for a 90-seat version of the Q400 had it been available).

Would a 90-seat turboprop generate a lot of interest from potential buyers, does it have potential to compete with regional jets of similar capacity, and is a good or bad idea? Just looking for people's opinions.

I found this leaked design of an ATR 90-seat turboprop. Note 8 prop blades instead of 6:



[Edited 2013-03-29 10:47:27]

[Edited 2013-03-29 10:47:48]
 
User avatar
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:22 pm

The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud... I was looking at some tickets today online, and one even had a bold warning "Operated by turboprop equipment"... Making it sound even worse.

Personally, if it works out, I will gladly book a prop over a jet any day
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
Web
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:51 pm

Despite the notion of props being old, slow, and unsafe, I think airlines finally using their heads and starting to build their turboprop fleets back up, and I only see this trend continuing. With their inherent efficiencies in short-haul markets, I definitely foresee a 90-110 seat turboprop being offered by ATR, BBD, or both to build on the trend and replace short-haul flying on large RJ (i.e. E-jets, larger CRJs) equipment and even A319/73Gs on short flights. That being said, I wouldn't epxect EIS for a good 5-10 years.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
I was looking at some tickets today online, and one even had a bold warning "Operated by turboprop equipment"

I'm booked with UA on a trip with a YYZ-CLE segment operated with a Q300 and that "warning" is given, although they call it "non-jet equipment". I thought airlines tried to sell flights, not scare people off...
 
FlyingBattery26
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:05 pm

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud... I was looking at some tickets today online, and one even had a bold warning "Operated by turboprop equipment"... Making it sound even worse.

Ugh, I couldn't agree more. I hate the way people view turboprops. I personally love them. People complain about the noise, what noise? The cabin of the Q400, for example, is the quietest place you can be, certainly it's quieter than any jet I've been on, and its rate of climb is incredible. Not to mention the fuel savings of all turboprops is enormous.

Some airlines like to avoid turboprops because of this stupid perception the public have, giving ridiculous "warning" signs on tickets isn't going to help people's ignorance. I really wish people were more aware of the benefits of a turboprop over a jet. Very glad to see them making a comeback in recent years.

[Edited 2013-03-29 12:10:02]
 
mhkansan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:02 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:19 pm

I've flown aboard ATR-72, Q300s, and Beech 1900ds and the noise and vibration is comparable to any regional jet. A small plane with thin skin is designed to be light - it isn't the engines any more than it is the fuselage. I've found the ATR to be more comfortable in turbulence and the Qs to be fast - just as good as any jet.

I think the flying public ought to embrace large turbos, because one may have the ability to lower operating costs (and perhaps fares) quite a lot, especially on short, intercity sectors (ORD-IND, DFW-LIT, ATL-JAX) - places that need service with larger aircraft and good frequency. On shorter stage lengths, these aircraft would have a large cost advantage to jet and nearly the same, if not shorter block time of today's mainline jet.
 
william
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:19 pm

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 3):
Some airlines like to avoid turboprops because of this stupid perception the public have, giving ridiculous "warning" signs on tickets isn't going to help people's ignorance. I really wish people were more aware of the benefits of a turboprop over a jet. Very glad to see them making a comeback in recent years

Its not the customer's job to ponder the benefits of a turboprop. American Eagle have banished their ATRs from DFW for a while now, but given a choice between flying on a EMB RJ or ATR72, give me EMB RJ anyday. As aviation enthusiasts we appreciate the virtues of turboprops, we appreciate the variety, but the customer could are less, he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10002
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:28 pm

In my opinion there was a market for a 90 seater a few years ago, but I'm not so convinced any more.

The major advantages of a 70 seat turbo-prop vs a jet are;

Runway performance
Cost of operation
Environmental footprint

But for a 90 seater stretch none of those points stand up against the next generation of 80-120 seat regional jets, with the exception perhaps of very short island hopper routes.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment (I'm thinking of Flybe in particular, who would no doubt have went for a 90-seat version of the Q400 had it been available).

I wouldn't say that. The ERJs were purchased for expansion into Europe, which is why they opted for jets.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:30 pm

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud...

And because of that silly perception almost all US regionals now have zillions of loss-making CRJ's...
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:41 pm

This topic is turning into one of those epic A.net topics discussed ad infinitum every other month  

I would love to see one, and I hope someone does build one that is commercially successful. But I do wonder how well it can sell given how relatively big it is (meanining it won't be cheap) while having such restricting performance (speed). It just sounds to me like a significant investment for what is basically a niche aircraft.

I say this from an airline's perspective, not the OEM.


PS: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...urboprop-jv-with-finmeccanica.html
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
ouboy79
Posts: 4111
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2001 1:48 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:44 pm

If airlines weren't stupid, thanks to public perception, I would argue dozens of cities and hundreds of markets would still exist today if props weren't ran off to near extinction. I'm hopeful we'll get back there with these new generation props coming out to help bring a lot of the short haul markets back.
 
FlyingBattery26
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:26 pm

Quoting william (Reply 5):
he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

Are you suggesting you can't have a comfortable flight on a turboprop?
 
william
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:38 pm

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 10):
Quoting william (Reply 5):
he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

Are you suggesting you can't have a comfortable flight on a turboprop?

No, I have had many a smooth flights on turboprops when the weather is right. But take off the aviation enthusiast hat for a second, a RJ is smoother and quieter than a turboprop.

And yes, Horizon has successuflly transistioned from RJs to Qs. So I guess its possible for large regionals to transition out of CRJ800s to turboprops. Outside of Horizon, I do not see many regionals racing to change.
 
FlyingBattery26
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:12 pm

Quoting william (Reply 11):
But take off the aviation enthusiast hat for a second, a RJ is smoother and quieter than a turboprop.

I disagree, I actually find RJs louder. In RJs the in-flight noise is like a low rumble, in a turboprop it's a faint buzzing sound. In particular, I found the Q400 to be quieter than any jet I've flown on. Prop planes used to be very loud, but that just isn't the case any more. The noisy "image" has stuck, unfortunately, and that impacts the public's perception of turboprops.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:00 pm

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment

E170/175s need to be close to full for the airline to break a profit or have higher fares with less passengers. VA (formally DJ) no longer operates E170s because of the high costs involved and now operates ATR72s and E190s.

Quoting william (Reply 5):
the customer could are less, he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

I doubt RJs can only provide comfortable flights. I've had plenty of comfortable flights in NZs Q300s and ATR72s.


NZ is rumored to be interested in the ATR90.
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:40 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment

E170/175s need to be close to full for the airline to break a profit or have higher fares with less passengers. VA (formally DJ) no longer operates E170s because of the high costs involved and now operates ATR72s and E190s.

Republic Airways recently ordered 47 E175s (with options for 47 more) to be operated for American Eagle.
Republic Airways Order 47 Embraer E175 (by queb Jan 24 2013 in Civil Aviation)
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10002
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:54 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
E170/175s need to be close to full for the airline to break a profit or have higher fares with less passengers.

Such is true of all aircraft, so I really don't see how it's valid to suggest it's unique to the ERJ170/175.

Different aircraft work best on different stages. If you are operating mainly 500km routes then the efficiency of the jet really takes over.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
L1011
Posts: 2134
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:02 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:41 pm

If they want a turboprop of that size, why not build one similar to the Electra? The Electra was the most comfortable turboprop I've ever flown on.

Bob Bradley
Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
 
waly777
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:44 pm

There should definitely be a market for 90 seat turboprops, they will provide almost unbeatable low cost per seat for airlines. However, fuel prices will probably need to go up a bit more for airlines to push for it's launch. GE and PW are targeting 10 to 15% fuel efficiency for the next generation of turboprop engines.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:49 pm

I haven't flown on the new ATRs or Qs, but the previous generation ATRs are horrid loud and vibrate a lot. There is no way to compare a jet to that thing. It's more comparable to a Cessna 172 in terms of comfort.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
ZuluAlpha
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:22 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:05 am

I can defiantly see a market for a 90 seat prop service here in Australia. Especially to the remote, regional locations for FIFO work for the mines. It would only work however if the proposed 90 seat aircraft has the same / similar take off and landing capabilities as its 70 seater market.

Some of the remote airport locations (especially in Queensland) do not have the length / strength to handle a jet, and the local councils of these remote regions do not have the monies to strengthen / lengthen the runway. It would also have to have great range as well (like the Q400 already has with its non stop SYD GLT service)
Flown on:_CRJ, CR& D10 DHT DH8, DH2, DH3, DH4, EMB, E45, E75, E90, F28 J32 M80 SH6 320, 32B, 332, 333, 380, 717, 732, 733, 734, 73H, 743, 744, 752 762, 763, 772, 77W
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:08 am

Quoting L1011 (Reply 16):
If they want a turboprop of that size, why not build one similar to the Electra?

Too heavy, and a 4-engine turboprop would be uneconomic with today's costs and deregulated fares.

The empty weight of the Electra was only about 12% less than the maximum takeoff weight of the Q400 and at MTOW the Electra was about 75% heavier.

Interestingly, the Q400 is 3 feet longer than the Electra. Many Electras operated with fewer seats than today's Q400s.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10002
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:17 am

Quoting waly777 (Reply 17):

There should definitely be a market for 90 seat turboprops, they will provide almost unbeatable low cost per seat for airlines.

On some short routes perhaps, but props are about to go up against a new generation of ultra quiet, ultra fuel efficient jet engines. The CS100 brings 20% fuel savings and a 20dB margin to CH4 noise regulations to its class. I expect the MRJ and ERJ-NG to offer similarly game changing economics and environmental benefits. In fact the CS100 will be quieter than an ATR or Q400 - so long as it meets spec, but with Bombardier being very bullish recently I have no reason to doubt this.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
waly777
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:51 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 21):
On some short routes perhaps, but props are about to go up against a new generation of ultra quiet, ultra fuel efficient jet engines. The CS100 brings 20% fuel savings and a 20dB margin to CH4 noise regulations to its class.

Indeed, short routes are where turboprobs excel and will keep doing so more efficiently than any jet. As mentioned earlier, GE & PW are looking into turboprop engines aiming for 15% fuel efficiency over the engines of today. In other words, the 90 seat turboprop aircraft will grow in size whilst consuming even less fuel....further reducing it's cost per seat/

Whilst the C-series is bringing improved fuel efficiency, it is still heavier and has more capacity. Thus not making it the most efficient aircraft for routes where tuboprobs are most suited. The C-series is generally targeting a different market to that of the turboprobs and I believe there is definitely a market for larger turboprobs.

Regarding the noise, it is still not a major issue as I can't think of any airports which have excluded current gen turboprops because of noise. Plus I'd expect even further noise reduction with regard to the next gen of turboprobs....looking at the the 90-seat ATR, the 8 bladed prob should enable lower rpm thus reducing noise.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
zotan
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:25 am

I work in the aircraft leasing industry and the ATR 72-600 is quickly reshaping how turboprops are viewed. The US is a bit of an exception, but the rest of the world (and especially Asia and Latin America) have fallen in love with the airplane and are making it a key aircraft in their fleet.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10002
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:28 am

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Indeed, short routes are where turboprobs excel and will keep doing so more efficiently than any jet. As mentioned earlier, GE & PW are looking into turboprop engines aiming for 15% fuel efficiency over the engines of today. In other words, the 90 seat turboprop aircraft will grow in size whilst consuming even less fuel....further reducing it's cost per seat/

I wouldn't say that for certain, the short routes are getting shorter. The tipping point for Q400 vs E175 is around 300 miles and shrinking - supposing both next gen engines achieve their targets, the advantage still falls in favor of the jet. The exception here is the ATR 72 which has exceptional economics, but the speed means it doesn't work so well on longer routes.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Whilst the C-series is bringing improved fuel efficiency, it is still heavier and has more capacity. Thus not making it the most efficient aircraft for routes where tuboprobs are most suited. The C-series is generally targeting a different market to that of the turboprobs and I believe there is definitely a market for larger turboprobs.

The point I was making is that the same advances will be applied to aircraft which compete directly with current 70 seat turboprops. The C Series is only relevant here because it is first to market and appears to be proving the technology.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Regarding the noise, it is still not a major issue as I can't think of any airports which have excluded current gen turboprops because of noise.

You're looking at it back to front. Many regional airports and the communities around them are opposed to jet aircraft being introduced because they are nosier than turbo-props. Now there is a large regional jet which is quieter than a Q400/ATR72. Imagine the same technology, with de-rated/smaller engines, on a 70-90 seat jet like the smaller E Jets or the MRJ - I'd be highly surprised if they weren't quieter still. I'm sure the next generation of turbo-props will see decreases too, but that's like polishing an apple when the public are interested in having an orange.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3702
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:31 am

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 4):
I think the flying public ought to embrace large turbos,

The flying public might well have to.

For all the cons of a Tprop, airlines can't argue with a much lighter fuel bill, especially as fuel is an increasing proportion of the operating cost, even on short flights.

While the price of fuel seems to have stabilized, somewhat, these days, it is really only a matter of time before it starts increasing, likely faster than inflation.

The day the airlines start buying Tprops in large quantities again, I'm guessing they'll be done with these ridiculous warning notices.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
silentbob
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:52 am

The regional model is changing, I don't think you'll see many airplanes with less than 90 seats flying for an airline in a decade.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:57 am

SCOPE might be a limiting factor. Turboprops can also fall under scope clauses. At AA even the ATRs fell under scope. Usually how this would happen is that regional ASMs can only be a certain % of mainline ASMs. So any regional plane would be limited.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 18):

If you think the older ATR42s were loud and horrid, you obviously never had the pleasure of flying a plane with RR Darts. Shrill high pitched scream. Allison turbo props on the Convairs were more tolerable.
 
FlyingBattery26
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:15 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 21):
On some short routes perhaps, but props are about to go up against a new generation of ultra quiet, ultra fuel efficient jet engines.

The next generation of jets will perhaps be as fuel-efficient as the turboprops of today. But the next generation of turboprops will be more efficient still, so the gap between jets and turboprops isn't really going to close.
 
waly777
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:48 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
I'm sure the next generation of turbo-props will see decreases too, but that's like polishing an apple when the public are interested in having an orange.

I can't comprehend the logic behind that statement, Q400 & ATR (version 500/600) already meet all current noise requirements, the next gen turboprobs will certainly go down as well (I do remember there being a significant decrease in noise levels between the first ATR version and the current version -600 and they use essentially the same core engine) Hence you too can picture the level of improvements regarding sound levels e.g more efficient blade design, lower rpm, quieter core etc)

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
The tipping point for Q400 vs E175 is around 300 miles and shrinking - supposing both next gen engines achieve their targets, the advantage still falls in favor of the jet

Sorry but I disagree, we concluded a fleet planning evaluation a few weeks ago and we compared the Q400 and E175 @ 31" pitch resulting in 76 and 86 seats respectively. The Q400 offered lower costs per seat until 440nm (despite having a 15min slower block time @ that range) and still had a lower fuel burn till roughly 850nm. This of course varies depending on airline configuration and the region involved. I would post the data but I doubt i'm allowed to.
My point is, the 90 seat props being looked at by bombardier and ATR will carry more pax whilst burning even less fuel than the Q400 and the ATR....that will drop the cost per seat to a region even next gen regional jets cannot touch on routes under 500nm.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 28):
The next generation of jets will perhaps be as fuel-efficient as the turboprops of today. But the next generation of turboprops will be more efficient still, so the gap between jets and turboprops isn't really going to close.

Exactly what I was trying to say.....thank you.   
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:03 am

After flying the Il-18, I am pretty sure there is a great market for something in the size of an Il-18, with options of going a bit bigger and a bit smaller. 2+3 (maybe 3+3) cabin comes to mind. And besides, the comfort on the Il-18 was great, and the plane was not loud at all inside. So I think that on shorter distances (basically all off Europe) the atvantages of a 2 engined 100 seat turboprop would be an argument for it. But I don't see it being a streech of an existing model, not of the ATR nor the Dashs... And as we know, speed is never an argument over economy, or we would have seen more CV880 CV990 ies.

From a plane point of view, the Il-18 is not even bad in terms of todays requirements. It could even do runs up to 6500km and has a quite good performance. And we're talking about a 50's design, just imagine what we can do today. Any aircraft in this category could substitute any Fokker 70/100, classic 733/5 and even the smaller new gens. And I am sure 95% of the flying public would not see a difference between a turboprop and a jet aircraft, espesially if the fares are less...
flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,J31,F50,F70,F100,ATP,142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38...and others
 
FlyingBattery26
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:16 am

I just wanted to share this, to show just how quiet the Q400 is (a few comments back we were comparing engine noise between jets and turboprops, so this is relevant). Listen to just how quiet the engines are when fully powered up and speeding along the runway - apart from a light buzzing sound, all you can hear is the wind rushing past:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVn8UfwDu8

Now just imagine how quiet the next generation of turboprops will be - not to mention being possibly faster and even more fuel efficient. I can say with confidence that many airlines will opt for regional turboprops over regional jets, should ATR or Bombardier produce a 90-seater turboprop. I just love turboprops  

Does anyone notice how fast the Q400 climbs? It's the Ferrari of the sky...

[Edited 2013-03-30 04:19:19]
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7603
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:29 am

Well there was a thread recently about ATR studying a 90 seater. They wanted for it to be a new plane but with as much commonality with the current ones as possible, including similar engines (not more powerful and expensive like the ones the Q400 uses).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
mbm3
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:56 pm

Quoting Web (Reply 2):
I'm booked with UA on a trip with a YYZ-CLE segment operated with a Q300 and that "warning" is given, although they call it "non-jet equipment". I thought airlines tried to sell flights, not scare people off...

I believe there is some sort of regulation regarding this notice.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 10):
Are you suggesting you can't have a comfortable flight on a turboprop?

I think many Americas equate turboprops to the tiny EMBs and the old ATRs of the 90s that were, in my opinion, awful at best and why the RJ generation was born. I happen to enjoy the new Q4s and in most situation as as PAX prefer them over a ERJ and in any situation prefer them over a CRJ.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
Sorry but I disagree, we concluded a fleet planning evaluation a few weeks ago and we compared the Q400 and E175 @ 31" pitch resulting in 76 and 86 seats respectively. The Q400 offered lower costs per seat until 440nm (despite having a 15min slower block time @ that range) and still had a lower fuel burn till roughly 850nm. This of course varies depending on airline configuration and the region involved. I would post the data but I doubt i'm allowed to.

Great info, thanks for sharing what you could.
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
 
ThePinnacleKid
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:47 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:48 pm

It isn't just the traveling public in the US... and it's not just uneducated that dislike turboprops... I'm an airline pilot.. I certainly know their safety, reliability (or lack there of), and financial performance... but I still dislike and avoid turboprops... I would rather be cramped in a tiny CRJ-200 than a Q400... I hate the Q4 and CR2 with a passion but Q4 is the only plane I make a point to avoid at all cost, even on deadheads. As far as the E145 series.. give me that over any CRJ product and the only RJ I find better is the EMB's.

One random area that most don't touch on here with the never ending TP vs RJ arguments... for a lot of carriers and the demands of route flexibility, the range/time factor becomes a major player because while the Q400 may be more efficient on the IAH-DFW run than say a CRJ-700... the CRJ-700 can continue right on to LAX/SFO without skipping a beat and make it a wash or even outperform the Q400... Sometimes the flexibility of scheduling is more important than the short segment minor victories of a prop (esp. true in the US where distances vary greatly between major markets)
"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:02 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 32):
Well there was a thread recently about ATR studying a 90 seater. They wanted for it to be a new plane but with as much commonality with the current ones as possible, including similar engines (not more powerful and expensive like the ones the Q400 uses).

Wise choice, the Q400 is a great aircraft but too expensive for many airlines, hence why ATR has a huge order backlog and Bombardier hasn't.
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10002
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:20 pm

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 28):
The next generation of jets will perhaps be as fuel-efficient as the turboprops of today. But the next generation of turboprops will be more efficient still, so the gap between jets and turboprops isn't really going to close.

I'm not saying it will close completely, just that it will shrink further. And that's the problem when discussing the viability of a 90 seat turbo-prop - the competitive edge is getting smaller and the market tougher.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
I can't comprehend the logic behind that statement

It's simple, the public generally prefer flying on jets but the communities around airports would rather have turbo-prop services, because they are quieter. This is something I've researched extensively, there is a somewhat hysterical fear of the jet engine which makes people imagine that their local airport is about to turn into a second Heathrow as soon as regional jets are mentioned. But now it seems possible to operate jet services with lower noise footprints, and that is a more significant development than shedding a few EPNdB off turbo-props.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
Sorry but I disagree, we concluded a fleet planning evaluation a few weeks ago and we compared the Q400 and E175 @ 31" pitch resulting in 76 and 86 seats respectively. The Q400 offered lower costs per seat until 440nm (despite having a 15min slower block time @ that range) and still had a lower fuel burn till roughly 850nm. This of course varies depending on airline configuration and the region involved. I would post the data but I doubt i'm allowed to.

The key being the variation - those ranges are significantly more than the figures I have (and no I wouldn't suggest posting them, I'm not about to do so and break my NDAs).

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
My point is, the 90 seat props being looked at by bombardier and ATR will carry more pax whilst burning even less fuel than the Q400 and the ATR....that will drop the cost per seat to a region even next gen regional jets cannot touch on routes under 500nm.

And that's what I'm suggesting exercising caution about saying. The details I have point to the economics of turbo-props getting better (~13-15%), but not to the same margin as the next generation of regional jets (~20+%), meaning the gap will narrow. Of course I'd love to be proved wrong and for ATR or Bombardier to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but for now the RJ vs TP pendulum appears to be swinging back again.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:25 pm

It is my understanding that the more recent turboprops have active noise reduction. Is this correct? Which ones?

I should think a 90 seater would be great for a short high density route. Maybe even a shuttle service that is very short.
...are we there yet?
 
bohica
Posts: 2304
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:39 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 27):
If you think the older ATR42s were loud and horrid, you obviously never had the pleasure of flying a plane with RR Darts. Shrill high pitched scream.

I miss the F-27's.   Not taking away from your comment about the RR Darts, but any airplane powered by a Garrett engine is louder than any ATR42. ie SWM, J31/J32, J41.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:16 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 27):
If you think the older ATR42s were loud and horrid, you obviously never had the pleasure of flying a plane with RR Darts. Shrill high pitched scream. Allison turbo props on the Convairs were more tolerable.

The Dart's distinctive sound was more noticeable outside than inside. I've flown on quite a few Dart-powered aircraft and always found them quite smooth and not overly loud, especially compared to the piston-engine types they replaced. Even the first Dart-powered type, the Vickers Viscount, was fairly quiet inside.
 
ZuluAlpha
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:22 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:09 pm

Quoting flylku (Reply 37):
It is my understanding that the more recent turboprops have active noise reduction. Is this correct? Which ones?

From Bombardier, it started with the Dash 8 - Q200 QF advertised it quite heavily where the Q meant for, yep, quiet. Since then with the -300 and the -400 models they have all be. It works like your 'noise cancelling' headphones where it sends out a signal to help neutralise the sound of the props.

As for the ATR's I have no idea, though I am sure they do have something similar
Flown on:_CRJ, CR& D10 DHT DH8, DH2, DH3, DH4, EMB, E45, E75, E90, F28 J32 M80 SH6 320, 32B, 332, 333, 380, 717, 732, 733, 734, 73H, 743, 744, 752 762, 763, 772, 77W
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:29 pm

For noise, it would be tough to beat the original Handley Page Jetsteams, HPJ-137, with the Turbomeca Astazsou engines......on the occasion the darn things would start. We could hear them landing from inside the terminal over anything else...one never snuck up on us. We had regular passengers that would wear the ear muff headsets on the flights.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Apoll...d=4297cd921771eb689e6e813937f3e337

But back on subject,
The image in the original post is, I believe, from an older thread that included a stretch of the current ATR 72. But for 90 seats, would it indeed be a stretch, or would it be a whole new frame? Cargo between the cockpit and passenger cabin like the current ATR, under the floor, or aft? And forgive my remedial understanding, but what is more efficient: low or high wing? Is the high wing of the DHC-7 & -8, and ATR 42/72 more efficient than a low wing, or is it necessary for props'ground clearance if you don't want the cabin to be up on long legs with a long stairway up? It was a long way up to the Convair 440-580 series. Would the 8-blade props be shorter, and therefore allow a low wing, again, if it helped efficiency? I'm picturing something like an E190 with props.

[Edited 2013-03-30 15:30:11]
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:02 pm

Most of you, busy on the speed and comfort discussion forget one of the most important asets of a turboprop airliner : its capability to fly in and out of much shorter runways - and hence smaller airports .
The proof is in the recent purchase of 50 ATRs for Garuda - CityLink.
The speed argument is also very weak : A jet at FL 350 / .80 Mach and a turboprop at FL 250 / .71 Mach will have sector times of respectively 1 hour 17 minutes and 1 hour 34 minutes (taking climb and descent times into account ).
Those are ballpark figures which show that the difference is not that great .
Now take the simpler / lighter systems needed by a turboprop : for just an instance, the pressurisation won't need the power-greedy bleed architecture of a high flying jet, the flight controls will be also much simpler ( do away with spoilers, simpler flaps due to the straight wing... etc...)
I'mù afraid for the jet lovers, it can't compare on price, costs, capabilities with a prop.

ATR reckons that in the next twenty years, the market is just short of 4000 airplanes, of which 1000 should be in the 90-seat models : there's is a market there... and if the fuel price starts again to climb, I'd be worried by the jet prospects.
Contrail designer
 
waly777
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:11 pm

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 42):
The image in the original post is, I believe, from an older thread that included a stretch of the current ATR 72. But for 90 seats, would it indeed be a stretch, or would it be a whole new frame? Cargo between the cockpit and passenger cabin like the current ATR, under the floor, or aft?

This is an article from flightglobal in January. It looks like it'll be a new frame but with a lot of commonality to current ATR's.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roval-of-90-seat-turboprop-381418/

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 42):
And forgive my remedial understanding, but what is more efficient: low or high wing? Is the high wing of the DHC-7 & -8, and ATR 42/72 more efficient than a low wing, or is it necessary for props'ground clearance if you don't want the cabin to be up on long legs with a long stairway up?

Ooh the low wing dihedral config is always the most stable but with turboprobs the high wing is preferred for things like prop clearance etc. It's usually easier for ground services too
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
SYDAIRPORTS
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:15 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:11 pm

A 90 seater TP would work on short sectors only or very thin markets.
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:26 am

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):

Stick the props on aft mounted engines facing rearward. Basically revive the UDF concept. It could fly if it incurred a significant fuel savings without sacrificing speed and comfort. Many passengers would just think it's the newest jet model out there. As long as the Griswalds can get from BWI to MCO in 2 hours with their pooping screaming kids they wouldn't no the difference!
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5214
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:45 am

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 45):
Stick the props on aft mounted engines facing rearward. Basically revive the UDF concept.

Perhaps Embraer should start cracking on a bigger version of this?    .....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Hebmuller
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Hebmuller

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Prost
Posts: 1882
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:54 am

My belief is that the travelling public can easily be manipulated in to embracing advanced turbo props through marketing.

Flight number 123 from XXX-YYY operated by Eco-Greenliner turboprop. You are reducing your carbon footprint X amount by booking this ticket versus an equivalent regional jet.
 
blrsea
Posts: 1435
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:07 am

In many places in Asia, people don't care whether it is turboprop or jet. TurboProps open up many routes that would be considered unviable with jets. In India specifically, there are many regional airports in tier-II or tier-III cities which are suitable for turboprops but not jets. And many are happy to have aircraft service and don't care whether it is turboprop or jet. And the prices can be more affordable. ATR-72s is still widely used in India, and now SpiceJet is operating Q400s. Given the government policy of encouraging more air connectivity to smaller citiies, I would see a big market for turboprops in India.
 
FlyingBattery26
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?

Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:45 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 46):

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 45):
Stick the props on aft mounted engines facing rearward. Basically revive the UDF concept.

That's not what UDF is. UDF are open rotor engines. Turboprops facing rearwards are just that - turboprops facing rearwards, similar to the Piaggio Avanti aircraft.

This is UDF:
Big version: Width: 713 Height: 478 File size: 56kb


This is a turboprop facing rearwards:
Big version: Width: 640 Height: 492 File size: 118kb


[Edited 2013-03-31 02:50:41]