docmtl wrote:

Hi, folks

The French government has created a program to support a new regional aircraft to be delivered by 2030, within a $15 billion budget.

"The government has also outlined the creation of a new highly-efficient regional aircraft – using either hybrid electric or hydrogen technology – to enter service around 2030, following a demonstrator in 2028."

https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/ ... 53.article

Tough call for EMBRAER if it has to compete head-to-head with Airbus big bucks on the regional market...

docmtl

No way. Such an explicit subsidy action only makes it easier for Brazil to financially support Embraer in projects such as Advanced Turboprop as well as a competitor to the A320 / 321 family.

IMHO this date to enter service around 2030 is completely unrealistic considering the state of lack of maturity of alternatives to current engines. Airbus and RR just scraped the E-Fan project recently for example.

Nean1 wrote:

No way. Such an explicit subsidy action only makes it easier for Brazil to financially support Embraer in projects such as Advanced Turboprop as well as a competitor to the A320 / 321 family.

Even that Embraer had such money would be difficult to see the company going ahead with 2 such big projects at the same time. A competitor to the A320 and 737 would be crazy expensive for the company and the chances of success are slim unless Embraer provides a big breakthrough in the segment that justifies the migration of an airliner to this new aircraft family.

william wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think Embraer has witnessed that if you go head to head with Airbus or Boeing you better have a lot of time, political back-up and money.


keesje

So far Embraer has been smart enough to stay away there. Even to make the KC390 a succes, they realize they might need a partner.

Nice work Keejse almost as good as your EcoLiner. But what is the difference between this and the Boeing 7J7?

Only one aisle instead of two, tight seating instead of spaciousness, coaxial contra-rotating propellers instead of single-rotation propellers, engines at the rear instead of on the wings, high-mounted wings instead of low mounts, and major corporate backing.

How were the Turboliner specs determined? 114,500 lbs MTOW seems very low for a 737/320-sized plane. If you look on slide 16 at the MD-80 tribute site (https://www.md-80.com/mcdonnell-douglas ... /md-80-uhb), the MTOW for the proposed 155-seat MD-92 propfan derivative was 146,000 lbs. So the Turboliner is more than 20% lighter than McDonnell Douglas's offering, even though the Turboliner's wingspan is 2 meters wider than the MD-92's ancient wing. The OEW difference of 59,520 lbs vs. 86,650 lbs is even more eye-opening, since the open rotor aircraft proposed usually have heavier OEW than equivalent turbofan aircraft but lower MTOW, as slide 16 shows.

keesje wrote:

I think Embraer has witnessed that if you go head to head with Airbus or Boeing you better have a lot of time, political back-up and money.


keesje

So far Embraer has been smart enough to stay away there. Even to make the KC390 a succes, they realize they might need a partner.

While this is technically possible, I just wonder at what airplane mass and / or speed requirement, there's simply no point to install turboprop engine? Modern very high bypass jet engines already resemble a shrouded propeller rather than a classic jet design, except they can't change blade angles (at least yet).
In the mid-nineties, there was a pretty interesting Antonov An-180 passenger turboprop project, powered by 2 contra rotating D-27 propfans with 70 tonnes MTOW and 170 pax. It never materialized though.

AleksW wrote:

Modern very high bypass jet engines already resemble a shrouded propeller rather than a classic jet design, except they can't change blade angles (at least yet).

That's something to think about. I assume that means the distance up to which a turbofan is better shifted towards shorter distances.
Which distance earlier, which distance now? Let's speak of an E195-E2. But then there is no turboprop engine to compare with. They are all outdated. And the engine for the E2 is too powerful. We don't know yet about E175-E2.

I anyway favor high speed turboprops. What would be the fuel consumption difference between a 600 km/ h cruising speed turboprop at 25.000 feet and a 750 km/h cruising speed high bypass turbofan on a 500nm route? Assuming the same wing and same payload, how much higher would the turbofan fly?

How much fuel do the changing blade angels of a turboprop save on a 300nm trip?

Embraer is just getting the E175-E2 ready. Even though they want to build a turboprop?
Smart. Not everybody needs 2000 nm range. They may have a monopoly for 4-abreast.

A stock P-3 set a speed record around 1970 of 500 mph. Almost as fast as a 737. With new engines and props (Orion 21) it would easily be just as fast and have better loiter and acceleration.

The P-8 is very ill-suited to the mission compared to the Orion 21. Probably won because Lockheed already won JSF.

Again, as the NASA ATP (advanced turboprop) program proved, turbofans will always be double-digit less efficient than turboprops/propfans up to .90 mach. The cowl/shroud is and will always be the problem and it will only become worse the higher turbofan bypass ratios get.

High Speed turboprops. How fast a "fast turboprop" can go ?
A400M is M 0.7
Is there any faster turboprop on the market?

A380MSN004 wrote:

High Speed turboprops. How fast a "fast turboprop" can go ?
A400M is M 0.7
Is there any faster turboprop on the market?

An oldy, the Tupolev Tu-95 geared contra rotating props. 4x 13000 shp, 925 km/hr. Not on the market though.

The TU-114 was pretty fast as well just as his "older brother". He was also the loudest commercial airplane ever produced thanks to the Sonic boom produced by the propellers.

- Maximum speed: 870 km/h (540 mph, 470 kn) at 8,000 m (26,000 ft)
- Cruise speed: 770 km/h (480 mph, 420 kn) at 9,000 m (30,000 ft)

- Range: 8,950 km (5,560 mi, 4,830 nmi) with max fuel and 15,000 kg (33,000 lb) payload ; 6,200 km (3,900 mi; 3,300 nmi) with max payload and 60 minutes fuel reserves
- Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)

The Antonov An-70 entered service in 2015 for the Ukrainian armed forces. Whether it's faster than the A400M depends on which source you find. (One article says it can go up to Mach 0.8.) Unfortunately there's only one of them, and they can't build more until Ukraine either settles its differences with Russia or finds alternate Western suppliers for the plane, including its 26,800-pound thrust, Ivchenko-Progress D-27 propfan engines.

Incidentally, the Kuznetsov Design Bureau (which made the Tu-95/Tu-114 powerplants in the 1950s) bench-tested a open rotor engine in the 1980s called the NK-62. It put out 55,000 pounds of static thrust, and its 4-bladed contra-rotating propellers had a diameter of 4.7 meters - smaller than the TP400's propeller by a couple of feet. If Embraer doesn't want to eat at the kids' table anymore, maybe it could build a MOM turboprop.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120314022 ... ation.html

CowAnon wrote:

The Antonov An-70 entered service in 2015 for the Ukrainian armed forces. Whether it's faster than the A400M depends on which source you find. (One article says it can go up to Mach 0.8.) Unfortunately there's only one of them, and they can't build more until Ukraine either settles its differences with Russia or finds alternate Western suppliers for the plane, including its 26,800-pound thrust, Ivchenko-Progress D-27 propfan engines.
....

An-70 indeed was inducted in 2015, but don't forget -- it first flew in 1994. Unfortunately, Antonov team was naive enough to allow DASA to inspect it at length (witnesses say "crawl over it, for a while"), within "cooperation protocol". Voila, A400M was born. But I digress.

D-27 is actually a Motor-Sich engine, so Ukrainian product -- as an engine. However, it is my understanding that some prop technology is sourced from Russia, so there might be difficulties in using it "as is" without redesign.

Phosphorus wrote:

CowAnon wrote:

The Antonov An-70 entered service in 2015 for the Ukrainian armed forces. Whether it's faster than the A400M depends on which source you find. (One article says it can go up to Mach 0.8.) Unfortunately there's only one of them, and they can't build more until Ukraine either settles its differences with Russia or finds alternate Western suppliers for the plane, including its 26,800-pound thrust, Ivchenko-Progress D-27 propfan engines.
....

An-70 indeed was inducted in 2015, but don't forget -- it first flew in 1994. Unfortunately, Antonov team was naive enough to allow DASA to inspect it at length (witnesses say "crawl over it, for a while"), within "cooperation protocol". Voila, A400M was born. But I digress.

I don't doubt that the people behind the A400 took every chance to study the An-70, but the Euroflag FLA/FIMA concept had already firmed up to look pretty much like the current A400 by 1992-1993 (with the turbofans being replaced with turboprops in 1994), so the claim that it was somehow copied or inspired by the An-70 sounds dubious. Take a look through the archives of various aviation media', there were lots of renders back in the day. It is the same old story, similar requirements and available technology developed in parallel lead to similar results.

Phosphorus wrote:

CowAnon wrote:

The Antonov An-70 entered service in 2015 for the Ukrainian armed forces. Whether it's faster than the A400M depends on which source you find. (One article says it can go up to Mach 0.8.) Unfortunately there's only one of them, and they can't build more until Ukraine either settles its differences with Russia or finds alternate Western suppliers for the plane, including its 26,800-pound thrust, Ivchenko-Progress D-27 propfan engines.
....

D-27 is actually a Motor-Sich engine, so Ukrainian product -- as an engine. However, it is my understanding that some prop technology is sourced from Russia, so there might be difficulties in using it "as is" without redesign.

I guess the D-27 is now part of Motor-Sich intellectual property, the project however, was started and had its first run in the mid 80-s (in USSR).

Sokes wrote:

How much fuel do the changing blade angels of a turboprop save on a 300nm trip?

That would be difficult to answer (about blade angles impact), but here are a couple of articles about turboprop vs jet things:

http://www.spsairbuz.com/story/?id=417
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/p ... -vs-atr72/

A quote:
"The ATR 72 is the lesser of the two turboprops in performance, but displays better fuel economy. For a typical Bengaluru-Hyderabad sector, which is 250 nm, the aircraft consumes approximately 770 kg of fuel. The Q-400 consumes close to 1,000 kg, the CRJ-700 consumes close to 1,200 kg, and the Embraer E-170 1,300 kg; all three aircraft carrying 78 passengers."

If all above is correct, a relatively slow flying turboprops like the ATR series, are on average 30-35% more economical than jets of comparable era.

Damn, I would love to see the D-27 numbers is comparison to a modern geared turbofan.

AleksW wrote:

That would be difficult to answer (about blade angles impact), but here are a couple of articles about turboprop vs jet things:

http://www.spsairbuz.com/story/?id=417
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/p ... -vs-atr72/

A quote:
"The ATR 72 is the lesser of the two turboprops in performance, but displays better fuel economy. For a typical Bengaluru-Hyderabad sector, which is 250 nm, the aircraft consumes approximately 770 kg of fuel. The Q-400 consumes close to 1,000 kg, the CRJ-700 consumes close to 1,200 kg, and the Embraer E-170 1,300 kg; all three aircraft carrying 78 passengers."

If all above is correct, a relatively slow flying turboprops like the ATR series, are on average 30-35% more economical than jets of comparable era.

Damn, I would love to see the D-27 numbers is comparison to a modern geared turbofan.

Due the fact that the ATRs are generally consider an underpowered aircraft makes sense to them to be more economical as well.

EMBSPBR wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Embraer absolutely could and should consider it! Even in the current situation. Perhaps an Embraer 120 NG on steroids? 30 to 50 seats would be ideal.

Will never happen.
Again, a small niche with small gains ...

I know what you mean. However, would it not be wise to build a smaller aircraft with CFRP wings (prop or Jet) before jumping into direct competition with airbus and Boeing?

Maybe SAAB would be interested in getting back into the regional aircraft market. They’ve got CFRP experience, too.

After the huge loss of the 340/2000 project I have serious doubts as to whether SAAB would risk entering the commercial aviation sector again.

VSMUT wrote:

Neat. Underfloor cargo is really useful, less CG issues. It's an awesome cabin design for passenger comfort.

I wonder what they mean with the engine ratings. Is that per engine or total?

That 6000 shp on the slide is per engine for the NGRT engine. The Q400 has 5000 shp so it is safe to say the Embraer turboprop will be much bigger than the ATR72 and Q400.

The NGRT design starts at 4500 shp with growth all the way up to 8000 shp. Embraer turning E-jet into a turboprop will be fairly easy as they have a wing plant in house.

I actually proposed Bombardier could have done the same thing with the C series using the larger 8000 shp engine. It would now be called the ATR150.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/ATR150.jpg

RJMAZ wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Neat. Underfloor cargo is really useful, less CG issues. It's an awesome cabin design for passenger comfort.

I wonder what they mean with the engine ratings. Is that per engine or total?

That 6000 shp on the slide is per engine for the NGRT engine. The Q400 has 5000 shp so it is safe to say the Embraer turboprop will be much bigger than the ATR72 and Q400.

The NGRT design starts at 4500 shp with growth all the way up to 8000 shp. Embraer turning E-jet into a turboprop will be fairly easy as they have a wing plant in house.

I actually proposed Bombardier could have done the same thing with the C series using the larger 8000 shp engine. It would now be called the ATR150.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/ATR150.jpg

The slide says the minimum power economical version would be around 3500 shp, which only gives a marginally better performance than an ATR when considering the extra size.

IMO, the minimum power version looks more likely. Embraer already has a high performance 90 seater, the E190E2. A 12000 shp turboprop would start overlapping with it.

TonyClifton wrote:

bigb wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

In the northeast in January, I’ll take a CRJ in the ice every day of the week. Say what you want about the -200, but even with all the speed it hauls in, I never worried about icing. Boots will never come close to bleed air.

I will agree with you everyday of the week about bleed air being > boots with icing conditions. But the flying with 200 sucks in icing conditions lol with it’s hard wing.

Anyways, I can see a new gen turboprop use a form of electrical heating elements for heating up the prop and wing leading edge.

200 just flies fast as all dickens on approach to make up for it! I believe some procedures on it were changed within the last year expanding the required use of anti ice, but don’t know specifics.

Could we see a 787-style anti ice perhaps?

This would be a fix on the fear of the turboprop. Icing scared everyone off and the 50-seat RJ emergence gave the airlines an out. I remember the competition in the Midwest with “we’re all jet” with AA. Now, we have nothing in that space that makes the situation any better When an aircraft in that void is now needed. The ATR fix is about operating guidelines and a slightly larger boot, but that’s not really a fix for a plane that flys longer in areas more prone to icing and electro-thermal would resolve that. Composite wings make it possible.

RJMAZ wrote:

That 6000 shp on the slide is per engine for the NGRT engine. The Q400 has 5000 shp so it is safe to say the Embraer turboprop will be much bigger than the ATR72 and Q400.

The NGRT design starts at 4500 shp with growth all the way up to 8000 shp. Embraer turning E-jet into a turboprop will be fairly easy as they have a wing plant in house.

I actually proposed Bombardier could have done the same thing with the C series using the larger 8000 shp engine. It would now be called the ATR150.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/ATR150.jpg

How fast would this plane go, and how large would the propellers be?

After the Boeing-Embraer merge fell apart back in April, a scenario for a new turboprop JV between Embraer and Saab was suggested:

"Merluzeau can also envision an Embraer-Saab tie up. The companies already partner on the Gripen fighter jet programme, and Saab could use a new turboprop for a military surveillance aircraft. Such an aircraft could replace surveillance variants of Saab 340s and 2000s."

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 00.article

Both companies are partners in the Grippen NG program, and Brazil was lobbying with Sweden to join the KC-390 bandwagon. They both had successful smaller turboprops in the market (Embraer-120 and Saab 340/2000), so know-how is not a problem.

Moreover, Saab's business strategy seems to be based on JV and partnerships, which fits its relatively modest size (company and countrywise). Latest examples are the Grippen NG and the T-7 Red Hawk.

Does anybody know whether Embraer and SAAB are in active discussions to develop such new turboprop design in the 30-50-76 seat range ?

docmtl

CowAnon wrote:

How fast would this plane go, and how large would the propellers be?

A lower diameter prop with more blades will often result in a faster aircraft. Speed would probably be between 650 and 700 km/h

At high weights the A400m can comfortably cruise at 750km/h. The Q400 can cruise at 650km/h. The ATR-72 can cruise at 500km/h

This is quite a big difference in speeds. The lack of wing sweep in the Embraer images means it will not be as fast as the A400m. It would be suicide to make a large turboprop fly at the speed of the ATR72.

RJMAZ wrote:

The lack of wing sweep in the Embraer images means it will not be as fast as the A400m.

Which image from Embraer?
Am I missing something here ???

It was shown in this thread before, but the post must've been deleted.

I think the image is from a 2016 Leeham News article:
https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/24/pw-ca ... certainty/

CowAnon wrote:

It was shown in this thread before, but the post must've been deleted.

I think the image is from a 2016 Leeham News article:
https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/24/pw-ca ... certainty/

This was one of several concepts that emerged that time.

Shelved for a while since ...

In an interview today with Airfinance Journal Week, the president of the vice-president of marketing for Embraer Commercial Aviation, Mr. Rodrigo Silva e Souza,
revealed, among other topics on how Embraer will emerge after COVID-19, the first images of the new turboprop being developed by the company:

source: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6NR0jB ... ouF0I3gewg

Images courtesy by aeroin.net

Hmm

Looks like a big Brazilia

Max Q wrote:

Hmm

Looks like a big Brazilia

It does. The wing-body join fairing is a lot beefier though - maybe they're putting more fuel there, or landing gear?

Preliminary details:

- cabin comfort similar to EJets;
- commercial operation in 2027;
- range of 80 to 100 passengers;
- low wing according to the new regulations for crashworthiness standards;
- T-tail;
- the company is looking for partnerships that go beyond suppliers, but something in the JV style,
for a joint development and production of the new aircraft.

And, in parallel, a new military transport aircraft to replace the EMB-110 Bandeirante and EMB-120 Brasília is being developed together with FAB - Brazilian Air Force.
This plane that will have a hybrid-electric propulsion.

Source: (translated from portuguese):
https://www.aeroin.net/embraer-fala-nov ... -eletrica/

Excerpts (please use the google tool to translate the full article):

"During an interview with Aviation Week, Francisco Gomes Neto, President of Embraer, spoke about what the company has been doing in
terms of new propulsion technologies for the development of more environmentally friendly aircraft.
The executive stated that the company already has plans for this. , but in another area. "

“We are working on a new light military aircraft, which is being built with the Brazilian Air Force.
It will be this plane that will have a hybrid-electric propulsion during the development stage of the project ”.

"This aircraft should be the probable substitute for Embraer Bandeirante mainly and also Brasilia, which has already been in service for 30 years."

Do they’ve the funding to develop a cleansheet airliner? I thought they where on thin ice after the Boeing-deal fell thru.

This looks really interesting, I look forward to following its development.

Has an announcement been made on engine choice?

EMBSPBR wrote:

- range of 80 to 100 passengers;
- low wing according to the new regulations for crashworthiness standards;
- T-tail;

This seems like a threat to the non-selling E2-175. Interesting that the military version would be the test bed for the hybrid propulsion system.

Devilfish wrote:

Interesting that the military version would be the test bed for the hybrid propulsion system.

It will not be used in this project.
Source:

Excerpt (translated from Portuguese):
https://www.aeroin.net/embraer-fala-nov ... -eletrica/

“We understand that hydrogen propulsion is one of the lines of research for the future, but it is still really at an early stage.
We at Embraer are working on a hybrid-electric aircraft, we have already done research on fuels and we believe that this technology
will be available in a short or medium term for commercial use ”, says Francisco."

When asked whether the previously announced regional turboprop would be the aircraft to incorporate such technology,
Francisco says no, but it will be a military aircraft.

“It is not with the turboprop yet. We are working on a new light military aircraft, which is being built with the Brazilian Air Force.
It will be this plane that will have a hybrid-electric propulsion during the development stage of the project ”.

Newark727 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Hmm

Looks like a big Brazilia

It does. The wing-body join fairing is a lot beefier though - maybe they're putting more fuel there, or landing gear?

I'm really interested to see the nose.

Is it 3 or 4 across? Looks wider, so I guess 4.

Presumably the weight is being tailored to fit within US airline scope limits.

GE and Pratt will compete fiercely for the new engine. I like the concept. I was staring at it looking for design details.

That is an underside laminar flow wing.
The gear will be tall, I bet details still in review.

That wing looks too thin to be aluminum. Is it the angle or CFRP?

Lightsaber

diverdave wrote:

Presumably the weight is being tailored to fit within US airline scope limits.

I would expect to see a shorter version (75 passengers), with high performance targeting the US market and another elongated version (95 passengers) looking for more CASM sensitive markets.

That fuselage profile doesn't look like it's a double-bubble like the E-Jet(notice how low the doors go), yet the cabin goes too far back to leave room for an aft baggage compartment. I wonder how the real plane will turn out.

The problem with a lower deck is you can't make it too low because of bulk loading & people..
Maybe they'll make the cabin high for real big bins and a wide aisle so most luggage can be cabin.
Looking at e.g. the engine its a real preliminary artist impression. For 2027 EIS they must launch real soon.

GSOtoIND wrote:

That fuselage profile doesn't look like it's a double-bubble like the E-Jet(notice how low the doors go), yet the cabin goes too far back to leave room for an aft baggage compartment. I wonder how the real plane will turn out.

I've been trying to figure out where the bags go and... I cannot.

Lightsaber

could this be an island hopper for HA?

Pratt already has an engine capable of powering this, the PW150 (Q400 engine - 5071 SHP max) although I'm thinking Embraer would want something newer and more fuel efficient. One disadvantage of the low wing is adequate ground clearance for the prop so most likely a 6 or 8 blade will be used. I'll be interested to see if they still use heated boots on the prop or if they can design something that eliminates the need for de-icing. That competition will most likely be between Hamilton Sunstrand and Dowty.

So a low wing ATR?

I wonder if they will do a freighter/ cargo version as a 120 replacement?

m1m2 wrote:

Pratt already has an engine capable of powering this, the PW150 (Q400 engine - 5071 SHP max) although I'm thinking Embraer would want something newer and more fuel efficient. One disadvantage of the low wing is adequate ground clearance for the prop so most likely a 6 or 8 blade will be used. I'll be interested to see if they still use heated boots on the prop or if they can design something that eliminates the need for de-icing. That competition will most likely be between Hamilton Sunstrand and Dowty.

I bet in a 8 blade propeler.