Could it be time to reegine those crj100/200 and erj135/45 aircraft?
Also new composite bodies and maybe wings on them? Beter efficiency more range and better hot high performance on the erj's.
Maybe more spacious cabins with more cargo capibilities.
Not to talk about a legacy style sidestick with new avionics cockpit in f.e. the erj135/45
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- embraer175e2
- Posts: 291
- Joined:
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
Is the technology there for better engines on these birds?
-
- BawliBooch
- Posts: 1539
- Joined:
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
With 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew for 30 passengers, the cost/seat is still going to be higher as compared to a 50 seater of same vintage.
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
New composite bodies and new wings would be a whole new plane, not a re-engine. Then we're not talking about CRJ-200s or ERJ-145s but a clean-sheet design.
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
BawliBooch wrote:With 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew for 30 passengers, the cost/seat is still going to be higher as compared to a 50 seater of same vintage.
The lighter frame, new engines, and new components/materials would slash operating costs by a considerable margin.
It would be cool if EMB or BBD proposed a 50-seat, UDF-powered regional jet. I wonder if the general public would be able to distinguish a UDF from a normal turboprop.
When wasn't America great?
The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
-
- flyingclrs727
- Posts: 2714
- Joined:
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
TWA772LR wrote:BawliBooch wrote:With 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew for 30 passengers, the cost/seat is still going to be higher as compared to a 50 seater of same vintage.
The lighter frame, new engines, and new components/materials would slash operating costs by a considerable margin.
It would be cool if EMB or BBD proposed a 50-seat, UDF-powered regional jet. I wonder if the general public would be able to distinguish a UDF from a normal turboprop.
No. If it has a propeller, it might as well be as as ancient as a DC-3 to the public.
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
TWA772LR wrote:BawliBooch wrote:With 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew for 30 passengers, the cost/seat is still going to be higher as compared to a 50 seater of same vintage.
The lighter frame, new engines, and new components/materials would slash operating costs by a considerable margin.
It would be cool if EMB or BBD proposed a 50-seat, UDF-powered regional jet. I wonder if the general public would be able to distinguish a UDF from a normal turboprop.
For what? It will still burn more fuel than a turboprop and with those few seats it will still be inferior to a 70 seat or 90 seat plane, the cutting edge technology just pushes the capital costs up making it even harder to make money with the plane.
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20489
- Joined:
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
flyingclrs727 wrote:TWA772LR wrote:BawliBooch wrote:With 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew for 30 passengers, the cost/seat is still going to be higher as compared to a 50 seater of same vintage.
The lighter frame, new engines, and new components/materials would slash operating costs by a considerable margin.
It would be cool if EMB or BBD proposed a 50-seat, UDF-powered regional jet. I wonder if the general public would be able to distinguish a UDF from a normal turboprop.
No. If it has a propeller, it might as well be as as ancient as a DC-3 to the public.
There's your problem. Propeller = old in the mind of the average passenger.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
Starlionblue wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:TWA772LR wrote:The lighter frame, new engines, and new components/materials would slash operating costs by a considerable margin.
It would be cool if EMB or BBD proposed a 50-seat, UDF-powered regional jet. I wonder if the general public would be able to distinguish a UDF from a normal turboprop.
No. If it has a propeller, it might as well be as as ancient as a DC-3 to the public.
There's your problem. Propeller = old in the mind of the average passenger.
Just take away the choice, then people will become accustomed to the props in no time.
-
- cheapgreek
- Posts: 566
- Joined:
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
VSMUT wrote:Starlionblue wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:
No. If it has a propeller, it might as well be as as ancient as a DC-3 to the public.
There's your problem. Propeller = old in the mind of the average passenger.
Just take away the choice, then people will become accustomed to the props in no time.
People would still given the choice choose a jet. When props were more plentiful, the jets could increase ridership when replacing a prop by up to 20%. I have flown dozens of flights on Dash-8's and its no contest when compared to a RJ. Dash's are noisy,vibrate,and slow. Even though the prop is safe, its appearance to many travelers is less than favorable, it just looks old fashioned.
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
Starlionblue wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:No. If it has a propeller, it might as well be as as ancient as a DC-3 to the public.
There's your problem. Propeller = old in the mind of the average passenger.
I have long argued that solving these sorts of problems are exactly what marketing departments are for. It might take an effort, but a decent marketing campaign should be able to fix that.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
The next place props may make a resurgence is with some other technology leap. If someone can figure out bio fuels, electric power, solar power, etc to the point where it is a realistic option, I think the first place we would see it would be smaller, lighter prop aircraft. At that point, marketing could have a field day, and I think the public would be willing to get on board, literally and figuratively.
Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
So what new engine are you going to put on the CRJ 100/200? Is there anything out there that is an improvement on the small CF34? The new Pratt geared is way overkill at almost twice the thrust. I can't find anything out there that is in the 9,5-10K thrust range that isn't older technology than the CF34.
-
- flyingclrs727
- Posts: 2714
- Joined:
Re: re-engine and composite on 30-50 seat jets.
VSMUT wrote:Starlionblue wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:
No. If it has a propeller, it might as well be as as ancient as a DC-3 to the public.
There's your problem. Propeller = old in the mind of the average passenger.
Just take away the choice, then people will become accustomed to the props in no time.
I love turboprops. Back in the 1970's and 80's my father had a quarter interest in an 8 seat turboprop that he used for business travel. It's much more fun
flying at lower altitudes when the weather is good. There's much more scenery to see out the windows. That's one reason I've never understood why everyone wants to fly jets on short flights between the Hawaiian islands. When we were on vacation in Hawaii in 1978, dad got us a flight on a small prop plane from HNL to LIH on Maui for a day trip. It was much more scenic than flying on an Aloha 737-200 to KOA a few days later.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Lukas757, Starlionblue and 53 guests