Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 7762
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:24 am

Turboprops have high rates of efficiency. Has there ever been a proposal or design for a twin aisle turboprop aircraft? For example, a 2-2-2 Q400 sized aircraft would have around 114 seats. The wider fuselage will allow for a real, pressurized cargo hold, and also an extended pax cabin, if said aircraft is developed from the ATR or Q400.

Also, would a 200 seat, widebody turbo prop with a 3500nmi range were to exist, would it be a viable alternative for airlines to operate across the Atlantic versus the 737 max and A321neo?

The only downfall I see for the larger aircraft is that it will require 4 engines instead of 2.

Thoughts?
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:35 am

That sounds horrible! Think about how many more people would be bumped around even more severely during turbulence!
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5729
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:37 am

Quoting intotheair (Reply 1):

That sounds horrible! Think about how many more people would be bumped around even more severely during turbulence!

Jets have turbulence too!
 
DiscoverCSG
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:22 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:47 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
Also, would a 200 seat, widebody turbo prop with a 3500nmi range were to exist, would it be a viable alternative for airlines to operate across the Atlantic versus the 737 max and A321neo?

What would be the cruising speed? And what would that do to trip times?
 
flyzapper
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:56 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:49 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
Turboprops have high rates of efficiency. Has there ever been a proposal or design for a twin aisle turboprop aircraft?

It sounds like a C-130 to me. With insulation and comforts of a modern airliner, a C-130 style and size aircraft fits your idea.
 
Max752
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:56 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:55 am

Quoting flyzapper (Reply 4):
It sounds like a C-130 to me. With insulation and comforts of a modern airliner, a C-130 style and size aircraft fits your idea.

I totally agree. I was trying to envision what it would like and the C-130 looks about what I was thinking.

As a passenger, the flight times would be greater so, there's that. Cabin comfort? I don't see it being an issue. From an armchair CEO's standpoint, I don't really see the need but...okay I guess.

-Max
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:57 am

Trans-Atlantic has been done with the L-188 Electra, the Bristol Brittania and the Canadair CL-44. Left in the dust by the jets, nevermind some serious issues.

I can see a bigger turboprop but 3-3 seating with a single aisle is more likely; less airplane with the same passenger capacity. Heavier would probably negate any cost advantage.

Probably not for longhaul, but 1-2 hour stage lengths more likely unless the speed somehow gets up to jet speeds.
 
User avatar
rj968
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:57 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:39 am

C-130's make great airlines, and who needs aisles!

 
cschleic
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:33 am

Didn't Lockheed pitch an airline passenger version of the C-130 in the past?
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:15 am

Quoting cschleic (Reply 8):
Didn't Lockheed pitch an airline passenger version of the C-130 in the past?

The L-100. It's still on the market as LM-100J, based on the C-130J Super Hercules I believe.

Quoting flyzapper (Reply 4):
It sounds like a C-130 to me. With insulation and comforts of a modern airliner, a C-130 style and size aircraft fits your idea.

I was thinking more like a TU-144.

A 100 seat turboprop with 3+2 or 3+3 seating sounds like it could be plausible, made for shorter segments where cruise speed is not as important. Like others have mentioned, the L-188 Electra was one such aircraft.

I don't think we'll see a widebody turboprop made for TATL or general long haul. The lower cruise speeds matter more the further the flights are. That being said, there are some extremely fast turbprops. The Saab 2000 and Bombardier Q400 are pretty fast, the TU-95 Bear and it's derivative TU-144 is incredibly fast with 510 knots cruise speed which matches modern jet airliners. But I don't believe the fuel economy is that great.

[Edited 2016-02-06 21:17:21]
 
zanl188
Posts: 3880
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:16 am

Quoting cschleic (Reply 8):

Yes, and sold a couple...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Petr Popelar Collection

 
NWADC9
Posts: 3954
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:33 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:25 am

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 10):
Yes, and sold a couple...

Here's the inside:
 
S75752
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:38 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:29 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 9):
Quoting zanl188 (Reply 10):

What on earth...

I had never heard of that thing before, nor that Lockheed still did anything for civilian aviation in the past decade or two.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:54 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
For example, a 2-2-2 Q400 sized aircraft would have around 114 seats.

2-2-2? Why not just have 3-3 and make it the size of the A320Fam cross section for containerized hold?   
It'll make a lot more sense than 2-2-2, if baggage hold is your argument, then, well, screw the pax, just use a cargo prop!

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 6):
Trans-Atlantic has been done with the L-188 Electra, the Bristol Brittania and the Canadair CL-44. Left in the dust by the jets, nevermind some serious issues.

I remember a 3 hour flight on an L-188... I'd trade that for a 2 hour flight on a jet anyday, even an old jet... I may have had blurred vision for an hour after that 3 hour Electra flight!

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 9):
The Saab 2000 and Bombardier Q400 are pretty fast, the TU-95 Bear and it's derivative TU-144 is incredibly fast with 510 knots cruise speed which matches modern jet airliners. But I don't believe the fuel economy is that great.

You mean Tu-114...   Fuel economy? I do wonder about the fuel consumption of the Tu-95/114/142... Oh hang on, if we publish them here, we might end up killing the future of these "large turboprop" threads   
 
doug_or
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:06 am

Quoting S75752 (Reply 12):
I had never heard of that thing before, nor that Lockheed still did anything for civilian aviation in the past decade or two.

The pic is 26 years old, and the aircraft was delivered well before then.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 6):

Trans-Atlantic has been done with the L-188 Electra, the Bristol Brittania and the Canadair CL-44. Left in the dust by the jets, nevermind some serious issues.

Who flew the Electra trans-Atlantic? I thought the range was a bit short for that.

[Edited 2016-02-07 00:14:40]
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:47 am

Quoting doug_or (Reply 14):
Who flew the Electra trans-Atlantic? I thought the range was a bit short for that.

Well you may have me on that one....I may have incorrectly assumed that KLM flew them T/A. Anybody have that info?
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:47 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):
You mean Tu-114... Fuel economy? I do wonder about the fuel consumption of the Tu-95/114/142... Oh hang on, if we publish them here, we might end up killing the future of these "large turboprop" threads

Full power fuel use for a Bear should be in the range of 10t/hour. ( 4 times 11.000kW @ .219kg/kWh )
Now how much of full power do they use at cruise?

.219kg/kWh for the NK-12 isn't bad at all
TP400-D6 is either 167g/kWh or 213g/kWh ( first for shaft power takeoff )
the best stationary and large diesel engines go down to 162g/kWh.

The gain or loss ( whichever way you see it ) is in propulsive efficiency which is better for a (good) prop.
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:14 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):

You mean Tu-114... Fuel economy? I do wonder about the fuel consumption of the Tu-95/114/142... Oh hang on, if we publish them here, we might end up killing the future of these "large turboprop" threads

Most certainly. Everybody knows a modern designed turboprop aircraft cannot possible be better than the pinnacle of soviet engineering 60 years ago  

I believe a twin turboprop with 120-140 pax, a range of 1000-1200Nm and a service ceiling of around 30k feet and a speed somewhere between the ATR and Q400 would have potential to sell a couple of thousand.

/Lars
 
Heinkel
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:15 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:18 am

The most modern big turboprop is the Airbus A400M. And it comes (unlike the Hercules) with a valid type certification for civlian use.

Put some modern airline style seats inside and you have the aircraft you are looking for.
 
StTim
Posts: 3851
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:23 am

Call them open rotor and whiz bang - they are the way to go  
 
factsonly
Posts: 3191
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:39 am

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 15):
Well you may have me on that one....I may have incorrectly assumed that KLM flew them T/A. Anybody have that info?

Definitely not TATL.

KLM operated DC-7C and DC8-30/50 on TATL routes when the Lockheed Electra was in service.

The Lockheed Electra was a dedicated European/Mid-East/North and West Africa aircraft for KLM in the early 1960's. By late 1960's the aircraft had become an exclusive European short-range regional aircraft.

The furthest the KLM Electra operated in 1961 was multi-stop routes to the Middle East and West Africa, with destinations: Abadan, Amman, Basra, Baghdad, Benghazi, Beirut, Cairo, Jeddah, Dhahran, Tehran, Tripoli, and Casablanca, Monrovia, Conakry, Accra, Kano, Lagos and also Moscow.


KLM Electra in 1961:

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/kl/kl6106/kl61-27.jpg

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/kl/kl6106/kl61-11.jpg

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/kl/kl6106/kl61-12.jpg
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:43 am

The thread opener talks about a twin isle turbo prop and than about 2+2+2 seating. A turboprop would be about cutting cost. A 6 a row configuration would be done single aisle 6+6. Twin aisle should start of with 3+2+3 or something similar.
The L-100 is a bad example, as military to civil conversion are usually expensive.
The minimum twin aisle I could imagine than would be an A310 sized body.

No such frame would be ever even thought about while the price of oil is low.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:25 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 21):

2 times TP400-D6 would give you a ~100t MTOW plane. ~A322 size  
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4735
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:29 pm

The Tu-114 was the largest turboprop ever built. Of course it's not economically profitable compared to modern aircraft, but in those days it was a safe and reliable aircraft.

Also the Bristol Britannia deserves to be mentioned as well as the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. Both of them has a pretty long range (the Stratocruiser was even designed for intercontinental use) and were pretty large aircraft compared to others back then.

Right now a large turboprop aircraft wouldn't make sense since on long haul jets are still cheaper than turboprops.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:30 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 16):
.219kg/kWh for the NK-12 isn't bad at all
TP400-D6 is either 167g/kWh or 213g/kWh ( first for shaft power takeoff )
the best stationary and large diesel engines go down to 162g/kWh.

Isn't the TP400-D6 supposed to be at 238g/kWh ?
But then, the NK-12 is about a ton heavier than the TP400 and D-27

Quoting WIederling (Reply 16):
The gain or loss ( whichever way you see it ) is in propulsive efficiency which is better for a (good) prop.

The question is how will that efficiency be at high subsonic cruise?
I think there are still hurdles for large turboprops to go up against jets... passenger perception is one... We can go on the Q400 vs CRJ700 and see what's more efficient... and see what's sold more... it's promising for the turboprop... but then we go to the fact that the Atr72 has sold more... and wonder...   

Quoting Heinkel (Reply 18):
Put some modern airline style seats inside and you have the aircraft you are looking for.

And do we have orders for passenger versions of the A400? I didn't hear any...

Quoting larshjort (Reply 17):
Everybody knows a modern designed turboprop aircraft cannot possible be better than the pinnacle of soviet engineering 60 years ago

Just on the SFC alone, the old NK-12 still makes me shake my head...

I think if a widebody prop can carry 200-300 passengers on medium haul cheaper than let's say the 767 and A310, for the same block times as those 2 jets, and the same if not better total and direct operating costs than those 2 jets plus say the A332 and 787... then it might happen... otherwise... forget it.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:51 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
Turboprops have high rates of efficiency.

I will challenge that this efficiency difference is dropping with more modern engines. If PW or any other manufacturer can get a large geared turbofan to work, then the propeller won't improve efficiency much. Fans and bypass ratios are getting so big that their efficiency is improving. A huge fan if they can keep much of the blades subsonic is getting close to turboprop efficiency. For that reason I see fewer turboprops in the future, not more.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:05 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 24):
Isn't the TP400-D6 supposed to be at 238g/kWh ?
But then, the NK-12 is about a ton heavier than the TP400 and D-27

ref:
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/S...es_PUB_AST-CD-Version_13-04-23.pdf

a bit burried it is either 167g/kWh shaft power take off or 219g/kWh for propulsion use.

IMU the 238g data point is bogus. and does not fit the picture ( current, historic )

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 24):
Just on the SFC alone, the old NK-12 still makes me shake my head...

Russians couldn't wipe their ass without help   ( here Germans ) _but_ they invariably siphoned off the inherent knowledgebase and then continued on their own from there. They also have a very good scientific/theoretical base
which makes the difference being good in innovations while the US handyman approach excels in fine tuning and industrialisation.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3880
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:16 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 12):
I had never heard of that thing before, nor that Lockheed still did anything for civilian aviation in the past decade or two.

New LM-100Js are on offer...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/LM-100J.html

Southern Air also operated L-100 Combis complete with FA & booze... Real PITA for us to load cargo due to the requirement for fire blankets on all pallets.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hern-to-develop-l-100-combi-21893/
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:31 pm

Why 4 props?
While all the jets are going 2-engines, why a prop should have 4?
Something as the C27J should do.
see: http://www.finmeccanica.com/-/c-27j-fwsar
It is a fine aircraft, and I have seen with my eyes it has incredible capabilities on short and diffcult runways. I think a 100 - 130 seater derivative could be done with great performances, especially for those countries over there in the far North (or South, of course). WB? Ido not think so. 3+3 would be fine IMO.

[Edited 2016-02-07 05:35:37]
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:32 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 28):

you could resurrect the Transall with new engines  
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:32 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 29):
you could resurrect the Transall with new engines

Oh that would sell well on the cargo market !
Get rid off those old engines!
 
incitatus
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:52 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):
2-2-2? Why not just have 3-3 and make it the size of the A320Fam cross section for containerized hold?
It'll make a lot more sense than 2-2-2, if baggage hold is your argument, then, well, screw the pax, just use a cargo prop!

Exactly! The fixation of a.net with aisles is starting to drive me crazy. 2-2-2 is detached from air transportation economics. Any reasonably written senior thesis would kill it. It is like a 6-wheel car!
 
NoTime
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:14 pm

Agree that the C-130, A400 and C-27 all come to mind when thinking about this.

I don't see how TATL routes would ever work. But, could something like this work on a short, fat route? If you could manage to get 200 seats into a turboprop, and still see some noticeable increases in efficiency (vs. jets), could you use something like that on a EWR - DCA route or something similar?
 
User avatar
rj968
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:57 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:32 pm

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 27):
Southern Air also operated L-100 Combis complete with FA & booze... Real PITA for us to load cargo due to the requirement for fire blankets on all pallets.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hern-to-develop-l-100-combi-21893/

Thanks for the link on that, that was new to me. I spent lots of time in a C-130 "module" only we called them Capsules at the time. Quiet inside too. Note the galley, an lav at the back

 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:36 pm

In the early 1960s there was an idea to turn the Shorts Belfast (still on the drawing board) into a double deck passenger widebody aircraft. I have the pics at home, though i imagine range would not have been great. It could well have been the A380 of it's day..
 
stlgph
Posts: 11403
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:58 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
The only downfall I see for the larger aircraft is that it will require 4 engines instead of 2.

and you left out the invention of the jet engine.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3880
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:21 pm

Quoting rj968 (Reply 33):

Pushed an ABCCC off/on a k-loader a time or two.

Wish I had a pic of the L-100 combi setup. It was pretty sweet, from pax side anyway. They were new at the time I worked them, ~1996.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:15 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 16):
Full power fuel use for a Bear should be in the range of 10t/hour. ( 4 times 11.000kW @ .219kg/kWh )
Now how much of full power do they use at cruise?

Tu-114 ( Bear with a Cabin   is said to take 4.2t fuel in cruise.
ref:
http://www.rikoooo.com/images/addon-...14_126_fsx_p3d/manual/history.html
second last para short of "military service"
 
JETnyc
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:13 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:29 pm

Hence the C-130 a perfect wide body & turbo prop...     
 
peanuts
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:30 pm

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 10):
Quoting cschleic (Reply 8):

Those windows look very similar like the ones on the L-1011.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:40 pm

… ah, a Lockheed Starliner, with turboprops…   
 
MHG
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:44 pm

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 10):
Quoting S75752 (Reply 12):

Well, there were only two passenger frames ever ...
And IIRC these were not delivered by Lockheed ex works but mil frames converted by IPTN in Indonesia into 100 pax config. including airliner windows and airliner interior. (when inside you wouldn´t know it´s a Hercules unles you looked at the wings ...)
MERPATI was the sole operator these two aircraft. When MERPATI folded both frames were taken over by Indonesian Air Force.
One of them crashed in 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Indonesian_Air_Force_L-100-30%28P%29_crash

So, only one remains with the Indonesian Air Force and is still in service to date.
(it still has it´s airline style windows visible - don´t know if it´s still in pax config, though)
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:55 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 37):
Tu-114 ( Bear with a Cabin   is said to take 4.2t fuel in cruise.
ref:
http://www.rikoooo.com/images/addon-...14_126_fsx_p3d/manual/history.html
second last para short of "military service"

the TU-114 was a plane of its time, when passenger air travel was still developing. soviet airliners of this time were very overdesigned, resulting in airframes that could take max fuel and max payload, there were literally no range shortfalls due to MTOW. even with the overdesigned structures, MZFW levels were rather low and went up over the years. the best example for such an airliner is the IL-18. many IL-18 pilots i have talked to refer to this airliner as the best they have ever flown, since it knew no limitations. many told me that they would fly them overloaded by many tons, and still the aircraft would perform overwhelming (they do not say this about the AN-12!). the TU-114 was such an airliner as well, with an astonishing performance.

the maximum fuel onload for this airliner is at just above 60 to. depending on the onload and thrust settings, the burn off will be anything between 4,2 up to 7 to. even though being the fastest, biggest and most capable turboprop in the world, it's economical speed was at about 700 to 750 km/h, bringing it closer to the DH4 than to a TU-154B. also the shortfalls were greater with increasing onloads, and not nearly linear. at the time it entered service, due to it being a low wing design and thus very tall, there were no stairs available for it, and it was too monstrous for many airports, especially in the SU.

the BIGGEST disadvantage was it's noise level. at the time the soviet union's ideology focussed very much on developing mankind, and the TU-114 seemed a step back under these aspects. it in fact was so loud that the noise insulation was even greater than with the TU-144! this was the main reason it got removed from SU's route network and replaced by the IL-62 NK-8 classic versions. the "new" ilyushins could more or less match the performance of the TU-114, even though burning off nearly double on the same payload... but what was fuel at the time??? with the IL-62M D-30 versions, the leap forward was so great, that the counter rotating high speed turboprops were no topic any more in the soviet union. not so much because they were inefficient, but because they were "unsuitable" for airliner use. the NK-12 found it's way onto other projects, such as the AN-22, some ekranoplans and if i am not mistaken even onto some hovercrafts.

from an aeronautical point of view, the NK-12 is one of the most interesting and astonishing engines ever designed! the next thing that comes close to the NK-12 engine in concept is actually the western GE-36 and the PW-578-DX (as well as the D-27). they all have one major disadvantage: they shake you fillings loose during flight!

and from my flight in the IL-62 in the back rows i can only imagine the noise from the TU-114, if the IL-62 was considered silent. i actually also know a person that flew the TU-144, and with this airliner, noise was not so much the impression, rather than the heat... but that is a different story.
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:01 pm

oooooh... and i forgot to sum it up: a GE90-115 kind-of-innovative counter rotating turboprop would most probably outperform any other propulsion system based on the turbofan, including the GTF. the issue will be NOISE....

but i am sure that a 180-240 seat single aisle aircraft would sell and outperform existing A320/B737s on missions up to 3 hours - and it all depends on fuel prices as well. when every gallon burned counts, it would make sense, and passengers will choose price over engine choice.... they up until now still fly ATRs, don't they???

but for a 60ies design the TU-114/95's NK-12 is a miracle!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7534
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:19 pm

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 43):
oooooh... and i forgot to sum it up: a GE90-115 kind-of-innovative counter rotating turboprop would most probably outperform any other propulsion system based on the turbofan, including the GTF.

No problem with that. Just have to pick up development of the Progress D-27 engine.....

http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2013/1/17/262764.jpg
http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/ima...loaded-images/2013/1/17/262764.jpg


Better yet, get the whole shebang...    ...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephan Franke - Fighter-Wings



[Edited 2016-02-07 14:20:11]
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:41 pm

Widebody Turboprops are possible, no question. They are an unexplored technology, so would require some learning curve for the OEM, so the first of its kind is a 10 Bio$ investement.

Turnoprops are slower than jets, and let us assume they use less fuel. So they are all about reducing production cost per seat mile. This limits the potential sales price - they have to be cheap. So I cannot consider a margin per aircrafdt above 5Mio $ - so the question is: Is there a market for far more than 2000 widebody turboprops?

I do not think so. A few hundred sure for short hops like Brussels to London or Rome to Palerrmo, but not thousands.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:08 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
For example, a 2-2-2 Q400 sized aircraft would have around 114 seats.

Like many others have said, why have twin aisles for 6 across seating? Just do 3-3 seating with a single aisle.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):
2-2-2? Why not just have 3-3 and make it the size of the A320Fam cross section for containerized hold?

  

Quoting incitatus (Reply 31):
2-2-2 is detached from air transportation economics. Any reasonably written senior thesis would kill it. It is like a 6-wheel car!

  
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:13 pm

Why are so many of these types military.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:13 pm

I am of the opinion that we will not see a twin aisle turboprop frame or not even a big single aisle one in the near future.

But here is some talk about limitations in speed and service ceiling that do not apply to a turboprop as a rule. If we have a look at the newest big turboprop frame, the A400M, than cruising speed is 422 knots and service ceiling 12,200 m, just about 40,000 feet, not that bad numbers.

[Edited 2016-02-07 14:58:32]
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Widebody Turboprop: Feasible? Possible?

Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:14 pm

The next logical step is a stretch of the ATR72 by about 20 seat - if this succeeds let us see further.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos