Deutsche Aircraft has selected the Garmin® G5000 avionic suite as part of its "Companion flight deck" which it describes as a "brand-new benchmark" solution.

https://www.deutscheaircraft.com/news/d ... o-aircraft

One pilot which they said all along but nobody here believed.

My 2 cents (pfenniges) - they should put a APU in the tail to generate electricity and residual thrust. Put batteries in the belly and 2 electric motors instead of the turbines. Make it a hybrid!

MohawkWeekend wrote:

My 2 cents (pfenniges) - they should put a APU in the tail to generate electricity and residual thrust. Put batteries in the belly and 2 electric motors instead of the turbines. Make it a hybrid!

The 328Jet already had an APU in the tail.

A bigger one that can generate enough electrical power to run the main propulsion motors during take-off and landing. If it could generate some thrust for take-off or landing go-arounds that would help. At cruise, the batteries could handle the load. This way you are not carrying so many batteries to meet the large power needs of takeoff and landings

Sort of like a flying Toyota Plug in Prius. When the planes on the ground, charge the batteries from the grid.

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

airlineworker wrote:

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

Main reason those days are gone is because carriers got rid of those smaller aircrafts as they aged out. There's definitely still a market for it in some areas.

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

Main reason those days are gone is because carriers got rid of those smaller aircrafts as they aged out. There's definitely still a market for it in some areas.

They got rid of them because carrying 19-50 passengers was not a good use of crews, 70 seat and up seem to be the current trend as 50 seaters are being parked. Also passengers don't like props and will opt for an RJ when they can. For years I flew many dozens of Dash-8 flights and it was 3rd world flying, the noise, vibration, can't fly over bad weather and slow speeds made travel a bad experience for me.
While some feel there is a market for prop flights, the airlines don't think so as evidenced by the move to larger RJ's and no props in their fleets.

airlineworker wrote:

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

Actually I see a future trend going the opposite direction with the emerging technology being developed today. Rolls Royce, Honeywell, SAFRAN, and GE are all pouring money into hybrid propulsion technology and the fruits of all that R&D will be a generation of new aircraft flooding the marketplace. It's really easy now to imagine small (10-20pax) VTOL autonomous air taxis operating in a little over a decade allowing "whistle stops" into small communities to pick one or more passengers. with this technology. We are standing at the edge of an exciting new era of general aviation.

IAHObserver wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

Actually I see a future trend going the opposite direction with the emerging technology being developed today. Rolls Royce, Honeywell, SAFRAN, and GE are all pouring money into hybrid propulsion technology and the fruits of all that R&D will be a generation of new aircraft flooding the marketplace. It's really easy now to imagine small (10-20pax) VTOL autonomous air taxis operating in a little over a decade allowing "whistle stops" into small communities to pick one or more passengers. with this technology. We are standing at the edge of an exciting new era of general aviation.

Given the current track-record of autonomous vehicles (Tesla comes to mind), it is hard to imagine autonomous aircraft within the next decade.

Unlikely yes. I don't think it's dumb though. With so many CRJs and EMB 145s set to retire soon there will be a need for smaller planes at some airports. Again unlikely to happen but they will have a market down the road

WayexTDI wrote:

IAHObserver wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

Actually I see a future trend going the opposite direction with the emerging technology being developed today. Rolls Royce, Honeywell, SAFRAN, and GE are all pouring money into hybrid propulsion technology and the fruits of all that R&D will be a generation of new aircraft flooding the marketplace. It's really easy now to imagine small (10-20pax) VTOL autonomous air taxis operating in a little over a decade allowing "whistle stops" into small communities to pick one or more passengers. with this technology. We are standing at the edge of an exciting new era of general aviation.

Given the current track-record of autonomous vehicles (Tesla comes to mind), it is hard to imagine autonomous aircraft within the next decade.

Agreed. 0% chance. Look at how many issues with cars and they just go back and forth and left right. An airplane is so much more complex and a crash could kill whatever is below etc. 0% chance that's gonna be a while

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

IAHObserver wrote:

Actually I see a future trend going the opposite direction with the emerging technology being developed today. Rolls Royce, Honeywell, SAFRAN, and GE are all pouring money into hybrid propulsion technology and the fruits of all that R&D will be a generation of new aircraft flooding the marketplace. It's really easy now to imagine small (10-20pax) VTOL autonomous air taxis operating in a little over a decade allowing "whistle stops" into small communities to pick one or more passengers. with this technology. We are standing at the edge of an exciting new era of general aviation.

Given the current track-record of autonomous vehicles (Tesla comes to mind), it is hard to imagine autonomous aircraft within the next decade.

Agreed. 0% chance. Look at how many issues with cars and they just go back and forth and left right. An airplane is so much more complex and a crash could kill whatever is below etc. 0% chance that's gonna be a while

Disagree - 90% of the issues with cars are because the operator is treating it as more autonomous than it really is. And despite only maneuvering in 2 dimensions, a car has to contend with a lot more changes in the immediate environment than an aircraft would (traffic lights, humans in crosswalks, animals, debris in the road, construction work, etc. etc.) A small VTOL aircraft like IAHObserver proposes would mostly just have to contend with internal issues and weather. There does of course need to be much more redundancy to mitigate the internal issues.

Interestingly, airlines like Air Nostrum, Finnair, Volotea or Wideroe have recently expressed interest to move into 11-20 seater territory although this is a market segment they have long left (or never operated in) - thanks to new technology becoming available. I guess we really have to start thinking outside the box.

airlineworker wrote:

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

Main reason those days are gone is because carriers got rid of those smaller aircrafts as they aged out. There's definitely still a market for it in some areas.

They got rid of them because carrying 19-50 passengers was not a good use of crews, 70 seat and up seem to be the current trend as 50 seaters are being parked. Also passengers don't like props and will opt for an RJ when they can. For years I flew many dozens of Dash-8 flights and it was 3rd world flying, the noise, vibration, can't fly over bad weather and slow speeds made travel a bad experience for me.
While some feel there is a market for prop flights, the airlines don't think so as evidenced by the move to larger RJ's and no props in their fleets.

It's not so much that it "wasn't a good use of crews" — the recent changes to the federal requirements for Part 121 pilots also screwed over the economics of smaller regionals, because there were no longer any pilots with the requisite hours and experience willing to fly Beech 1900s, Saab 340s, and Dash 8s for the kind of payscales that are economical to those aircraft.

Yes, there is a lot of negative public perception surrounding turboprop aircraft, but generally speaking, they're much more economical to operate on shorter routes than 50-seat jets.

The Q400 made a big leap towards making props more comfortable from a cabin experience (noise canceling, etc), but it wasn't perfect. I'd like to think that technology has evolved even further to where turboprops could be more comfortable to the average traveler, but unfortunately the opinionated perceptions towards props are still harder to overcome.

dennypayne wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Given the current track-record of autonomous vehicles (Tesla comes to mind), it is hard to imagine autonomous aircraft within the next decade.

Agreed. 0% chance. Look at how many issues with cars and they just go back and forth and left right. An airplane is so much more complex and a crash could kill whatever is below etc. 0% chance that's gonna be a while

Disagree - 90% of the issues with cars are because the operator is treating it as more autonomous than it really is. And despite only maneuvering in 2 dimensions, a car has to contend with a lot more changes in the immediate environment than an aircraft would (traffic lights, humans in crosswalks, animals, debris in the road, construction work, etc. etc.) A small VTOL aircraft like IAHObserver proposes would mostly just have to contend with internal issues and weather. There does of course need to be much more redundancy to mitigate the internal issues.

Well, a vehicle is either 100% autonomous or it's not; as of right now, Teslas have been spoofed in many common instances (such as, a vehicle stopped on the side of the highway, the Tesla went straight into it).

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

JBo wrote:

Main reason those days are gone is because carriers got rid of those smaller aircrafts as they aged out. There's definitely still a market for it in some areas.

They got rid of them because carrying 19-50 passengers was not a good use of crews, 70 seat and up seem to be the current trend as 50 seaters are being parked. Also passengers don't like props and will opt for an RJ when they can. For years I flew many dozens of Dash-8 flights and it was 3rd world flying, the noise, vibration, can't fly over bad weather and slow speeds made travel a bad experience for me.
While some feel there is a market for prop flights, the airlines don't think so as evidenced by the move to larger RJ's and no props in their fleets.

It's not so much that it "wasn't a good use of crews" — the recent changes to the federal requirements for Part 121 pilots also screwed over the economics of smaller regionals, because there were no longer any pilots with the requisite hours and experience willing to fly Beech 1900s, Saab 340s, and Dash 8s for the kind of payscales that are economical to those aircraft.

Yes, there is a lot of negative public perception surrounding turboprop aircraft, but generally speaking, they're much more economical to operate on shorter routes than 50-seat jets.

The Q400 made a big leap towards making props more comfortable from a cabin experience (noise canceling, etc), but it wasn't perfect. I'd like to think that technology has evolved even further to where turboprops could be more comfortable to the average traveler, but unfortunately the opinionated perceptions towards props are still harder to overcome.

I think the validity of the whole "people will only use props when hell freezes over" mantra really depends on the competitive environment. If the D328eco as a 40 seater will be used as a...

... hub feed aircraft (not its prime market though) it will depend on whether the competition a) serves the market at all and b) if so, sees fits to deploy a jet - the smallest of which will be soon an 80seater E75
... hub-bypassing aircraft on longish thin regional routes: will folks opt for a time-consuming connection to guarantee jet flights or drive to the nearest larger airport that offers a nonstop jet flight to the destination in question (if at all)

20 years ago the competitive environment was quite different as plenty of 37-50 seats jets were around that would serve exactly those markets. Alas, most of them have become soda cans by now or will meet this fate sooner than later.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Unlikely yes. I don't think it's dumb though. With so many CRJs and EMB 145s set to retire soon there will be a need for smaller planes at some airports. Again unlikely to happen but they will have a market down the road

Are the airlines looking for planes to carry less than 50 passengers? If there was a need the airlines would have put feelers out to OEM's for specs and quotes but it's not happening. I flew a few times to GON on B-1900's and the loads were not good, if a flight cannot support a 19 seat plane, the airlines don't want that city on their route map. Props especially small props are not in the future. Passengers who used GON now use PVD, many more options in the form of airlines and flights. Kind of like the railroads, years ago the trains stopped at every tiny hamlet to let off or pick up 2-3 or so passengers. It's just not profitable for airlines to try to serve every little city in the country, over the years many small towns have been dropped and people have adapted. The props have had their day but they never really came up with a totally new frame, the Dash-7, Dash-8 and the Dash-400 were all old designs, the same as the ATR props, a little tweaking here and there, but no groundbreaking advancements. OEM's cannot justify the cost of a new prop when airlines are not clamoring for them. No more 727's, DC-9's, BAC-400's, even the A-380 is on the way out. It's nice for some to reminisce about the old days, but time marches on and old things are left behind.

airlineworker wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Unlikely yes. I don't think it's dumb though. With so many CRJs and EMB 145s set to retire soon there will be a need for smaller planes at some airports. Again unlikely to happen but they will have a market down the road

Are the airlines looking for planes to carry less than 50 passengers? If there was a need the airlines would have put feelers out to OEM's for specs and quotes but it's not happening. I flew a few times to GON on B-1900's and the loads were not good, if a flight cannot support a 19 seat plane, the airlines don't want that city on their route map. Props especially small props are not in the future. Passengers who used GON now use PVD, many more options in the form of airlines and flights. Kind of like the railroads, years ago the trains stopped at every tiny hamlet to let off or pick up 2-3 or so passengers. It's just not profitable for airlines to try to serve every little city in the country, over the years many small towns have been dropped and people have adapted. The props have had their day but they never really came up with a totally new frame, the Dash-7, Dash-8 and the Dash-400 were all old designs, the same as the ATR props, a little tweaking here and there, but no groundbreaking advancements. OEM's cannot justify the cost of a new prop when airlines are not clamoring for them. No more 727's, DC-9's, BAC-400's, even the A-380 is on the way out. It's nice for some to reminisce about the old days, but time marches on and old things are left behind.

Turbo-prop for under 50 passengers? There is already such a plane available on the market, it's the ATR42.

WayexTDI wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Unlikely yes. I don't think it's dumb though. With so many CRJs and EMB 145s set to retire soon there will be a need for smaller planes at some airports. Again unlikely to happen but they will have a market down the road

Are the airlines looking for planes to carry less than 50 passengers? If there was a need the airlines would have put feelers out to OEM's for specs and quotes but it's not happening. I flew a few times to GON on B-1900's and the loads were not good, if a flight cannot support a 19 seat plane, the airlines don't want that city on their route map. Props especially small props are not in the future. Passengers who used GON now use PVD, many more options in the form of airlines and flights. Kind of like the railroads, years ago the trains stopped at every tiny hamlet to let off or pick up 2-3 or so passengers. It's just not profitable for airlines to try to serve every little city in the country, over the years many small towns have been dropped and people have adapted. The props have had their day but they never really came up with a totally new frame, the Dash-7, Dash-8 and the Dash-400 were all old designs, the same as the ATR props, a little tweaking here and there, but no groundbreaking advancements. OEM's cannot justify the cost of a new prop when airlines are not clamoring for them. No more 727's, DC-9's, BAC-400's, even the A-380 is on the way out. It's nice for some to reminisce about the old days, but time marches on and old things are left behind.

Turbo-prop for under 50 passengers? There is already such a plane available on the market, it's the ATR42.

Maybe but it (ATR-42) isn't as tech advanced as the DO-328ECO. I was always amazed at how fast the plane can climb. It's also faster than the ATR-42.

airlineworker wrote:

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Is here really a market for 30-50 seat planes? The days of every little town having air service is gone.

Main reason those days are gone is because carriers got rid of those smaller aircrafts as they aged out. There's definitely still a market for it in some areas.

They got rid of them because carrying 19-50 passengers was not a good use of crews, 70 seat and up seem to be the current trend as 50 seaters are being parked. Also passengers don't like props and will opt for an RJ when they can. For years I flew many dozens of Dash-8 flights and it was 3rd world flying, the noise, vibration, can't fly over bad weather and slow speeds made travel a bad experience for me.
While some feel there is a market for prop flights, the airlines don't think so as evidenced by the move to larger RJ's and no props in their fleets.

A lot of the reason 50 seaters are being parked is because the maintenance costs on old CR2s (last one built 2005ish) and E145s (2007? 2008?) is getting prohibitive. The same is even more true of anything further down in the range. Crew costs are part of it, but I suspect if you could build an efficient 50 seater, you'd be able to sell them. For one, a 70 seater requires an extra FA over a 50.

eraugrad02 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Are the airlines looking for planes to carry less than 50 passengers? If there was a need the airlines would have put feelers out to OEM's for specs and quotes but it's not happening. I flew a few times to GON on B-1900's and the loads were not good, if a flight cannot support a 19 seat plane, the airlines don't want that city on their route map. Props especially small props are not in the future. Passengers who used GON now use PVD, many more options in the form of airlines and flights. Kind of like the railroads, years ago the trains stopped at every tiny hamlet to let off or pick up 2-3 or so passengers. It's just not profitable for airlines to try to serve every little city in the country, over the years many small towns have been dropped and people have adapted. The props have had their day but they never really came up with a totally new frame, the Dash-7, Dash-8 and the Dash-400 were all old designs, the same as the ATR props, a little tweaking here and there, but no groundbreaking advancements. OEM's cannot justify the cost of a new prop when airlines are not clamoring for them. No more 727's, DC-9's, BAC-400's, even the A-380 is on the way out. It's nice for some to reminisce about the old days, but time marches on and old things are left behind.

Turbo-prop for under 50 passengers? There is already such a plane available on the market, it's the ATR42.

Maybe but it (ATR-42) isn't as tech advanced as the DO-328ECO. I was always amazed at how fast the plane can climb. It's also faster than the ATR-42.

The Do-328ECO is faster or more technologically advanced than the ATR42, the Q400 is faster than the ATR72; yet one is flying yet (Do-328ECO) and the other one is on its death bed (Q400) while the ATR42 & ATR72 continue soldiering on.
As slow and "antiquated" (not really though, but whatever) the ATR is, it sells and its competitors don't. Isn't that proof that the ATR is what the market wants?

WayexTDI wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Turbo-prop for under 50 passengers? There is already such a plane available on the market, it's the ATR42.

Maybe but it (ATR-42) isn't as tech advanced as the DO-328ECO. I was always amazed at how fast the plane can climb. It's also faster than the ATR-42.

The Do-328ECO is faster or more technologically advanced than the ATR42, the Q400 is faster than the ATR72; yet one is flying yet (Do-328ECO) and the other one is on its death bed (Q400) while the ATR42 & ATR72 continue soldiering on.
As slow and "antiquated" (not really though, but whatever) the ATR is, it sells and its competitors don't. Isn't that proof that the ATR is what the market wants?

The European market and perhaps other small markets but none in the USA. What's the backlog on the ATR? Years back there was a company looking at a MD-80 prop version.
https://www.avgeekery.com/props-for-mcd ... -took-off/ Never went anywhere. RJ's have a greater range and thus can fill many more routes.

50 seaters have been in the US air fleet uninterrupted since 1947 with the introduction of the Martin 202 and Convair 240. Today these routes are being flown by 2 out of production aircraft - the CRJ's and EMB's. Some day those aircraft will need to be replaced.
I think there is room for a newer technology aircraft than the ATR. But the same debate is occurring on the Boeing MOM Aircraft thread. I'm not sure the airlines know exactly what they want or that the technology upgrades of the DO-328 aren't enough to sway orders. We will see how the US market responds.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

50 seaters have been in the US air fleet uninterrupted since 1947 with the introduction of the Martin 202 and Convair 240. Today these routes are being flown by 2 out of production aircraft - the CRJ's and EMB's. Some day those aircraft will need to be replaced.
I think there is room for a newer technology aircraft than the ATR. But the same debate is occurring on the Boeing MOM Aircraft thread. I'm not sure the airlines know exactly what they want or that the technology upgrades of the DO-328 aren't enough to sway orders. We will see how the US market responds.

When the Beech B-1900's and other smaller props were pulled, some said there would be a need for new 19 seaters, never materialized. I can point to some cities that lost airline service years back and still are without any service. Even the mainline portion of the majors fleets have seen an upgauge, 737-600's and A-318's are gone, also 737-700's and A-319 orders are very low. I cannot see OEM's pouring millions on a new design when airlines are going larger. I agree the 50 seat RJ's are being phased out but I don't see airlines wanting to serve small markets anymore. If a city cannot fill a 70 seater, airlines don't want to invest in a low volume airport. GON, BDR, FLO, LNS, DAN and others have lost major airline service. It's not cost effective to operate such small planes when airlines can carry more passengers with one plane than having two small props to small markets. Just my take on the prop issue.

How many 50 seaters run between hubs and large to medium cities today ? There is still a niche market for these aircraft. The majors have played a shell game with their brands in the US - they have outsourced their low density flying to another party. These contractors to the majors will need something new when the CRJ's and EMB's wear out. Otherwise hubs are going to lose a critical profit center. If 50 seaters didn't make sense for the majors - COVID would have grounded them all permanently.

But that new aircraft will need much more efficient then the current ones.

The Do 328 is still a very modern and capable base design to start with. It will be used as a test platform for some major scientific research project concerning electric flight in Germany with existing state funding. At the same time the USAF might need some replacement for their Do 328 fleet one day. This all forms the "perfect storm" to update engines and cockpit and target the regional aircraft market with some fast and efficient aircraft on a limited budget at the same time.
I could imagine that this aircraft might make sense for the German Luftwaffe as well as a small transport. After retiring the Transall they will have only four engined C-130J and A400M for tactical transport.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I think there is room for a newer technology aircraft than the ATR.

That's exactly where the AirbusZeroe turboprop comes into play. It will run on hybrid hydrogen technology. It seems like it's going to be the ideal replacement for the ATR series aircraft. The launch is around 2035, so I believe ATR/Airbus wouldn't want any other major upgrades done on the ATR, involving large investments, as it wouldn't have a long life once the hybrid hydrogen technology comes out.
https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero- ... zeroe.html

A re-engined ATR or one that runs on biofuel would be perfect to meet emission targets much like the Dornier 328eco. However, as mentioned above, it depends on whether if Airbus is willing to fund that major upgrade or hold on to the current model's technology with minor upgrades till mid 2030's.

Regarding the Embraer E3 turboprop, it seems to be based of conventional technology. I wonder how attractive would that be. There also isn't much news about it recently since they announced that project.

airlineworker wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

Maybe but it (ATR-42) isn't as tech advanced as the DO-328ECO. I was always amazed at how fast the plane can climb. It's also faster than the ATR-42.

The Do-328ECO is faster or more technologically advanced than the ATR42, the Q400 is faster than the ATR72; yet one is flying yet (Do-328ECO) and the other one is on its death bed (Q400) while the ATR42 & ATR72 continue soldiering on.
As slow and "antiquated" (not really though, but whatever) the ATR is, it sells and its competitors don't. Isn't that proof that the ATR is what the market wants?

The European market and perhaps other small markets but none in the USA. What's the backlog on the ATR? Years back there was a company looking at a MD-80 prop version.
https://www.avgeekery.com/props-for-mcd ... -took-off/ Never went anywhere. RJ's have a greater range and thus can fill many more routes.

I know a.net is US-centric; however, as aviation and a lot of other things go, the world is NOT US-centric.
The ATR is, right now, the turbo-prop airliner that's reigning on the market worldwide.

WayexTDI wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

The Do-328ECO is faster or more technologically advanced than the ATR42, the Q400 is faster than the ATR72; yet one is flying yet (Do-328ECO) and the other one is on its death bed (Q400) while the ATR42 & ATR72 continue soldiering on.
As slow and "antiquated" (not really though, but whatever) the ATR is, it sells and its competitors don't. Isn't that proof that the ATR is what the market wants?

The European market and perhaps other small markets but none in the USA. What's the backlog on the ATR? Years back there was a company looking at a MD-80 prop version.
https://www.avgeekery.com/props-for-mcd ... -took-off/ Never went anywhere. RJ's have a greater range and thus can fill many more routes.

I know a.net is US-centric; however, as aviation and a lot of other things go, the world is NOT US-centric.
The ATR is, right now, the turbo-prop airliner that's reigning on the market worldwide.

Here is why the US market is important: 2018 Airline Passengers https://www.citypopulation.de/en/world/ ... assengers/

1 USA 889,022,000
2 China 436,183,969
3 Ireland 167,598,633
4 UK 165,388,610
5 India 164,035,637
6 Japan 126,387,527
7 Turkey 115,595,495
8 Indonesia 115,154,100
9 Germany 109,796,202

So if someone can develop a new efficient 35 to 50 seat aircraft, they might make some money in the US.

Noshow wrote:

The Do 328 is still a very modern and capable base design to start with. It will be used as a test platform for some major scientific research project concerning electric flight in Germany with existing state funding. At the same time the USAF might need some replacement for their Do 328 fleet one day. This all forms the "perfect storm" to update engines and cockpit and target the regional aircraft market with some fast and efficient aircraft on a limited budget at the same time.
I could imagine that this aircraft might make sense for the German Luftwaffe as well as a small transport. After retiring the Transall they will have only four engined C-130J and A400M for tactical transport.

The issue is the Do 328 needs newer, more fuel efficient engines, subsystems (in particular predictive maintenance), and the wing is heavy by CFRP standards.

While there is argument over the US market, the reality is so much regional flying is under US scope that it can make or break sales of aircraft. There are two thresholds impossed by the requirement of an ATP for regional pilots:
1. 50 seats
2. 76 seats with the notorious 86,000lb MTOW limit.

The current 50 seaters are not efficient enough, this imposses a high cost per passenger which is, in my opinion, resulting in their fadding out.

The current 76 seaters were marginal vs 738/A329CEO. As the A220, NEO, and MAX enter the fleet, the mainline costs will drop while regional costs are stagnant.

The Do 328 needs an obvious niche. I do not see hiw it could be evolved to fit a US niche. While there is regional traffic elsewhere, I am of the opinion that if ghe Spacejet M100 had worked out, it would have pushed out turboprops from the 76 to (eventually) 100 seat market and made competition for the Do 328 worse. Much worse.

At yhis time I see better market prospects for the M100 and I don't think the Spacejet will return.

All aircraft always compete against the adjacent size aircraft. Sometimes the efficiency shifts so much, one category shrinks away. The ATP rules did that to sub 50 seaters in the USA. The ULCC model of 2x to 5x weekly frequency allows larger aurcraft to serve smaller markets.

I'm just not seeing a huge market available, in particular with Breeze and Bamboo flying cheap used E190. This is an unusually tough aircraft sales market.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/j ... NewsSearch

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... house-e190

I'm an aviation fan, but every aircraft must be designed to have economic advantage in a niche. Some are at range, some on frequency. The Do 328 needs new engines and subsystems to sell, in my opinion.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I'm an aviation fan, but every aircraft must be designed to have economic advantage in a niche. Some are at range, some on frequency. The Do 328 needs new engines and subsystems to sell, in my opinion.

Lightsaber

So if they lightened the plane a bit, and didn't worry about the speed as much could the 1600 HP (or a slightly upgraded version of it) GE Catalyst work as a replacement? I've been wondering if someone would pull a 20 or 30 seater with the Catalyst out of their hat, as it seems like the only engine on the market that could offer the step change in efficiency needed.

lightsaber wrote:

The Do 328 needs new engines and subsystems to sell, in my opinion.

Question is how long before an engine such as this can be developed, scaled up and certified to meet the thrust requirements of the D328e twin...or is it realistically limited to multiple (2++) engine applications only

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en ... sting.html

lightsaber wrote:

The issue is the Do 328 needs newer, more fuel efficient engines, subsystems (in particular predictive maintenance), and the wing is heavy by CFRP standards.

I'm an aviation fan, but every aircraft must be designed to have economic advantage in a niche. Some are at range, some on frequency. The Do 328 needs new engines and subsystems to sell, in my opinion.

The original Do-328 Prop had a fuel consumption in the order of 500 kg/hr, more than an ATR 42. Now they are proposing to put the PW127S on the new Do-328, but that's pretty much the same engine the ATR 42-600 has, and has had for several decades! In my experience, the latest PW127s don't offer better fuel consumption than the old ones (although they do give more power for a slightly higher consumption). They are going head to head with an established competitor with a product that at best only just matches the incumbent.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

The European market and perhaps other small markets but none in the USA. What's the backlog on the ATR? Years back there was a company looking at a MD-80 prop version.
https://www.avgeekery.com/props-for-mcd ... -took-off/ Never went anywhere. RJ's have a greater range and thus can fill many more routes.

I know a.net is US-centric; however, as aviation and a lot of other things go, the world is NOT US-centric.
The ATR is, right now, the turbo-prop airliner that's reigning on the market worldwide.

Here is why the US market is important: 2018 Airline Passengers https://www.citypopulation.de/en/world/ ... assengers/

1 USA 889,022,000
2 China 436,183,969
3 Ireland 167,598,633
4 UK 165,388,610
5 India 164,035,637
6 Japan 126,387,527
7 Turkey 115,595,495
8 Indonesia 115,154,100
9 Germany 109,796,202

So if someone can develop a new efficient 35 to 50 seat aircraft, they might make some money in the US.

That's rather misleading, lumping all the US states into one but listing every European country separately, and it is even missing a few of the big ones like Sweden and Norway. I did tally up the European countries in that list (not including Russia and Turkey, and as mentioned, at least Sweden and Norway), and the figure is 845.207.959.

VSMUT wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

I know a.net is US-centric; however, as aviation and a lot of other things go, the world is NOT US-centric.
The ATR is, right now, the turbo-prop airliner that's reigning on the market worldwide.

Here is why the US market is important: 2018 Airline Passengers https://www.citypopulation.de/en/world/ ... assengers/

1 USA 889,022,000
2 China 436,183,969
3 Ireland 167,598,633
4 UK 165,388,610
5 India 164,035,637
6 Japan 126,387,527
7 Turkey 115,595,495
8 Indonesia 115,154,100
9 Germany 109,796,202

So if someone can develop a new efficient 35 to 50 seat aircraft, they might make some money in the US.

That's rather misleading, lumping all the US states into one but listing every European country separately, and it is even missing a few of the big ones like Sweden and Norway. I did tally up the European countries in that list (not including Russia and Turkey, and as mentioned, at least Sweden and Norway), and the figure is 845.207.959.

Exactly.
The US are a big market; but it's not the only one; there are specificities in the US that do not apply to the rest of the world. If an airframer can develop a plane that caters to all countries but the US, then it's still a win.

VSMUT wrote:

The original Do-328 Prop had a fuel consumption in the order of 500 kg/hr, more than an ATR 42. Now they are proposing to put the PW127S on the new Do-328, but that's pretty much the same engine the ATR 42-600 has, and has had for several decades! In my experience, the latest PW127s don't offer better fuel consumption than the old ones (although they do give more power for a slightly higher consumption). They are going head to head with an established competitor with a product that at best only just matches the incumbent.

Unfortunately, the breakthrough engine would not come until middle of next decade at least.....

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... technology


And more importantly, the D328eco's conventional airframe doesn't seem to be suited to what the OEM is envisioning.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/cf ... 49.article

The reference to the size of the American market was due to the fact that a whole slew of CRJ's and EMB in the US will age out soon with no identified replacement. Does any other region or single country operate as many 40 to 50 seat aircraft as the US?

The rest of the world already uses ATRs and other propjets. In those markets, Dornier is going to have to steal future orders from ATR so the market is not very big. Otherwise we'd still see Jetstreams, Saabs, Fokkers or DHC still in production

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The reference to the size of the American market was due to the fact that a whole slew of CRJ's and EMB in the US will age out soon with no identified replacement. Does any other region or single country operate as many 40 to 50 seat aircraft as the US?

The rest of the world already uses ATRs and other propjets. In those markets, Dornier is going to have to steal future orders from ATR so the market is not very big. Otherwise we'd still see Jetstreams, Saabs, Fokkers or DHC still in production

And what are those 40-to-50-seaters replaced by? 70-90 seaters of more.
If US airlines want smaller aircraft, there is the ATR available, and the Q300 could most likely be restarted quickly; how many of those have have sold in the past 20 years?

WayexTDI wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The reference to the size of the American market was due to the fact that a whole slew of CRJ's and EMB in the US will age out soon with no identified replacement. Does any other region or single country operate as many 40 to 50 seat aircraft as the US?

The rest of the world already uses ATRs and other propjets. In those markets, Dornier is going to have to steal future orders from ATR so the market is not very big. Otherwise we'd still see Jetstreams, Saabs, Fokkers or DHC still in production

And what are those 40-to-50-seaters replaced by? 70-90 seaters of more.
If US airlines want smaller aircraft, there is the ATR available, and the Q300 could most likely be restarted quickly; how many of those have have sold in the past 20 years?

I am personally of the opinion that less than daily frequency of narrowbodies will displace the 50 seaters. The economics are against that size range. e.g., Allegiant, Breeze, Frontier, Spirit and other airlines that fly less than daily are continually gaining market share. I expect the majors to copy on a massive scale.

E.g., Allegiant flies 2x week LAX to Grand Junction CO, the flight times work for me, why wouldn't I fly it? Or Breeze has a TPA flight that works really well for me when I am there.

If the Spacejet had gone forward, I would have expected it to dominate small routes.

Until high yield business traffic returns, small planes are doomed with the 9-seat turboprops taking the leftovers.

Lightsaber

I believe there is a market for smaller than 70 seat aircraft in the US. It may only be 1/3 of what it was at it's peak, but it's there.

The existing 70 seaters and downsized CRJ-550 will not survive forever. They will cycle out or aging aircraft maintenance costs will ground them. No one bought prop jets in the last 20 years in the States because that bought hundreds of 40 to 50 seat CRJ's and EMB's.

What this market needs is the same quandary the major air frame manufactures and airlines are facing with MOM and 737/320 replacement. New technology engines and lighter weight. The DO328 reincarnation is not the answer. Nor is the ATR or Dash 8.

Late add to Lightsaber - don't those hubs need feed from the Traverse City's of the country to make that model work? Who is flying from TVC to DCA 2 times a week? IF business travel returns at all they need that feed to hit margins, no?

[Until high yield business traffic returns, small planes are doomed with the 9-seat turboprops taking the leftovers.

Lightsaber[/quote]

Perhaps an option is if Cessna or Textron built a 250 - 300 mph, hybrid plane (say 20 seats) and pushed for single pilot operation. PC-12's and Techams aren't the answer. Nor is Cessna's reincarnation of the CASA 212

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I believe there is a market for smaller than 70 seat aircraft in the US. It may only be 1/3 of what it was at it's peak, but it's there.

The existing 70 seaters and downsized CRJ-550 will not survive forever. They will cycle out or aging aircraft maintenance costs will ground them. No one bought prop jets in the last 20 years in the States because that bought hundreds of 40 to 50 seat CRJ's and EMB's.

What this market needs is the same quandary the major air frame manufactures and airlines are facing with MOM and 737/320 replacement. New technology engines and lighter weight. The DO328 reincarnation is not the answer. Nor is the ATR or Dash 8.

Late add to Lightsaber - don't those hubs need feed from the Traverse City's of the country to make that model work? Who is flying from TVC to DCA 2 times a week? IF business travel returns at all they need that feed to hit margins, no?

As more smaller RJ's are parked, the same pattern will follow as when the 30-37 seat props went away, small cities dropped. The small city market cannot justify new planes for a loads that are unprofitable. Also I remember when US had dozens of 37 seat Dash-8's clogging up the airlanes into LGA with a handful or so of passengers.There was talk years back of limiting LGA flights to 70 seats or greater. Would have been a good move.

You might be right but IMO that would be bad for the country. Congress thinks so too which is why you see the govt subsidized more and more routes.

If American is looking to buy electric VTOL's, I think they don't really want to see that feed into hubs disappear. These smaller cities just need more efficient aircraft. Dornier needs to leap further ahead than this reincarnation. I think they can because the 328 was ahead of its time too.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

You might be right but IMO that would be bad for the country. Congress thinks so too which is why you see the govt subsidized more and more routes.

If American is looking to buy electric VTOL's, I think they don't really want to see that feed into hubs disappear. These smaller cities just need more efficient aircraft. Dornier needs to leap further ahead than this reincarnation. I think they can because the 328 was ahead of its time too.

@"These smaller cities just need more efficient aircraft." Small cities need to provide more ridership and not very low passenger numbers. There seems to be the thought that all airports are entitled to air service. Airlines are businesses that are expected to be profitable, not non-profit organizations. I flew years back on Us Airways from PHL to GON on a 19 seat B-1900. There were about 4-6 passengers.on that flight that was a money loser and city was dropped. There many small cities that were dropped over the past years due to low passenger numbers. It's just a case of economics 101, airlines look at cities that are not profitable and after some time if ridership does not pick up, cities need to be dropped.
To expect OEM's to spend a large amount of capital to produce a frame that at best will have very little demand is not realistic. Just my take on this subject.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I think they can because the 328 was ahead of its time too.

What exactly about the Dornier 328 was ahead of its time?

Just because you like an aircraft and it wasn’t successful doesn’t mean it was ahead of its time. The 328 had plenty of contemporaries of similar size and economics. Some were more successful (Saab 340B, EMB-120), some where not (BAe Jetstream 41).

airlineworker wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

You might be right but IMO that would be bad for the country. Congress thinks so too which is why you see the govt subsidized more and more routes.

If American is looking to buy electric VTOL's, I think they don't really want to see that feed into hubs disappear. These smaller cities just need more efficient aircraft. Dornier needs to leap further ahead than this reincarnation. I think they can because the 328 was ahead of its time too.

@"These smaller cities just need more efficient aircraft." Small cities need to provide more ridership and not very low passenger numbers. There seems to be the thought that all airports are entitled to air service. Airlines are businesses that are expected to be profitable, not non-profit organizations. I flew years back on Us Airways from PHL to GON on a 19 seat B-1900. There were about 4-6 passengers.on that flight that was a money loser and city was dropped. There many small cities that were dropped over the past years due to low passenger numbers. It's just a case of economics 101, airlines look at cities that are not profitable and after some time if ridership does not pick up, cities need to be dropped.
To expect OEM's to spend a large amount of capital to produce a frame that at best will have very little demand is not realistic. Just my take on this subject.

Sure, but demand is not that simple of a creature and the line you're drawing is somewhat arbitrary (as it must be). A route that might be profitably operated on a B1900 (say it can fill 14 seats regularly) is a loser if all you have is an ATR, and even more of a loser on a CR2. Similarly, something that's marginally profitable on a CR2 (say, it regularly fills 37 seats at reasonable fares) would be a huge winner if you had a new, more efficient 50-seater but would go into the red if all that's available is a CR7. That second set of routes is now at risk even without any shift in demand.

The places that will lose out with the death of 50-seaters aren't places with literally four passengers. It's a meaningful chunk of routes, which is why there were so many 50-seaters in the first place.

Polot wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I think they can because the 328 was ahead of its time too.

What exactly about the Dornier 328 was ahead of its time?

Just because you like an aircraft and it wasn’t successful doesn’t mean it was ahead of its time. The 328 had plenty of contemporaries of similar size and economics. Some were more successful (Saab 340B, EMB-120), some where not (BAe Jetstream 41).

The DO-328 was fitted with a much more modern wing and powerplant than the other aircraft you mentioned. It's wing was advanced to the point that they put jet engines on a version. The 328 cruised 100 mph faster than the SAAB 340 and 50 mph faster than the EMB and Jetstream. And it didn't have the EMB's poor safety record

It was very much like the SAAB 2000 and Dash 400's though. If the regionals wanted speed they went with RJ's.

[
Sure, but demand is not that simple of a creature and the line you're drawing is somewhat arbitrary (as it must be). A route that might be profitably operated on a B1900 (say it can fill 14 seats regularly) is a loser if all you have is an ATR, and even more of a loser on a CR2. Similarly, something that's marginally profitable on a CR2 (say, it regularly fills 37 seats at reasonable fares) would be a huge winner if you had a new, more efficient 50-seater but would go into the red if all that's available is a CR7. That second set of routes is now at risk even without any shift in demand.

The places that will lose out with the death of 50-seaters aren't places with literally four passengers. It's a meaningful chunk of routes, which is why there were so many 50-seaters in the first place.[/quote]


I agree Cities like South Bend, Traverse City, Lexington KY, Charleston, WVA are examples of the cities that will be hurt.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Polot wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I think they can because the 328 was ahead of its time too.

What exactly about the Dornier 328 was ahead of its time?

Just because you like an aircraft and it wasn’t successful doesn’t mean it was ahead of its time. The 328 had plenty of contemporaries of similar size and economics. Some were more successful (Saab 340B, EMB-120), some where not (BAe Jetstream 41).

The DO-328 was fitted with a much more modern wing and powerplant than the other aircraft you mentioned. It's wing was advanced to the point that they put jet engines on a version. The 328 cruised 100 mph faster than the SAAB 340 and 50 mph faster than the EMB and Jetstream. And it didn't have the EMB's poor safety record

It was very much like the SAAB 2000 and Dash 400's though. If the regionals wanted speed they went with RJ's.

You can put jet engines on any wing, that doesn’t make them advanced. Why others did not/have not put jets on their turboprop wings is perfectly illustrated by the 328JET-you end up with a slow (for a jet) and thirsty aircraft because turboprop wings are optimized for slower speeds vs one designed with jets in mind. So your options are go much slower or burn a lot more fuel to match competing jets.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I believe there is a market for smaller than 70 seat aircraft in the US. It may only be 1/3 of what it was at it's peak, but it's there.

The existing 70 seaters and downsized CRJ-550 will not survive forever. They will cycle out or aging aircraft maintenance costs will ground them. No one bought prop jets in the last 20 years in the States because that bought hundreds of 40 to 50 seat CRJ's and EMB's.

What this market needs is the same quandary the major air frame manufactures and airlines are facing with MOM and 737/320 replacement. New technology engines and lighter weight. The DO328 reincarnation is not the answer. Nor is the ATR or Dash 8.

Late add to Lightsaber - don't those hubs need feed from the Traverse City's of the country to make that model work? Who is flying from TVC to DCA 2 times a week? IF business travel returns at all they need that feed to hit margins, no?

There is a need for hub feed. There is no perfect answer. What I do know is the MAX, NEO and A220 cut the cost per seat giving the advantage to larger catchment areas. I don't know if the hubs will work on less than daily frequency.
.What I do know is the ULCCs are gaining market share. 2.5% gain to 11.2% in 2020:
https://airlineweekly.com/2021/06/will- ... -recovery/

Allegiant is at 2019 passenger levels, Frontier will be soon, Spirit at the end of the year and Sun Country will grow slower, they seem to be prioritizing pilots for Amazon.

That business traffic capacity will depend on a return of business traffic. When business traffic returns, I imagine some feed will be lost. Delta is retiring their large CRJ-200 fleet in December 2023.
https://renespoints.boardingarea.com/20 ... y%20people.

So something is needed with better economics than the CR2. I don't see how the Do328 magically fills that role.

I guess some business traffic will have to find an alternative.

Lightsaber