Read the forum code of contact
By: - 3rd February 2015 at 11:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it were about economics most of the e jets would be gone an flown by TP
The problem is selling the image to the public.
The Vanguard for example enabled BEA to cut fares and was phenomenally fuel efficient in it's day, but the pax wanted jets and so the Comet and Trident were the main force losing money hand over fist.
OK, different conditions and figures today, but, the Jet versus TP is still that same problem now as it was then.
TP are considered old fashioned and Jets New
By: - 3rd February 2015 at 13:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem is selling the image to the public.
The 747 changed all before it by introducing cheap air transport to the masses. I'm very wary of applying accepted social norms from the era before that and apply it to modern day - the majority of people using air transport then were fundamentally different from the majority of people using it now.
For example; everyone hates Ryanair... yet they are the biggest airline in Europe (if not the world) in passengers carried.
If the ticket price was 20% cheaper, would people really put image ahead of cost? If they did focus on image, why do the majority fly Ryanair or Easyjet ahead of the likes of BA?
edit: I'm not saying you are wrong - certainly the perception that image is a problem for turboprops exist is widely held - is that perception correct? Is there any evidence in the modern day countering or supporting it? ATR and Bombardier have a decent backlog of turboprops - despite their small capacities inducing higher than possible seat-mile costs.
[I also know that serious studies have been done by the Airbus/Boeing on the next generation of narrowbodies using prop-fans.]
By: - 4th February 2015 at 16:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ryanair my well use 180/200 seat TP if they were available.
Where the TP is supreme is on medium/ shorter sectors.
Most intercity flights in Europe could be by TP.
If Ryanair did use huge TP, there would be an almighty backlash, but, yes, they would still outsell at the same levels.
Image has been a problem, but I don't really know, or, at least, I'm not convinced that it was not more of the airline perceiving something that was not really as big an issue as they made out, or perhaps an excuse for operating something they preferred even at extra cost. Flybe seems to be moving away from the Embraer's and back to the Dashes in part.
By: - 4th February 2015 at 21:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with TP is the level of of vibration from teh engines. And the longer the fuselages are the stronger the level of vibration.Of course, there is now active damping such as in teh ATR and Q400. However, with bigger turboprop, the problem would be serious (think at the Tu95 crew).
Prop fan have never reached the market simply because the market can't regulate itself for teh next 40 years in term of emissions just like noticed by a RR manager lately (I have to found the link alrdy posted somewhere). And it is more easy to improve an enclosed system than an open fan. But the tech is ready.
I have also noticed on the Mil thread a number of R&D project at long term toward the renewal of propfan studies through new tech in Russia. Maybe this will reach the civil market at one time or another.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 3rd February 2015 at 10:49
ATR have been talking about a 90 seat turboprop, with the idea in limbo due to disagreement between shareholders Alenia and Airbus.
But, I've been thinking, why are turboprops limited to such small PAX numbers? (For reference, the Bombardier Dash8-Q400 takes about 80 people.)
From Boeing, in 2013, there were 25.2 million flights and 54.9 million flight hours; or an average of 2hrs 10 mins.
The speed difference between a Dash8 and A320 (for example) is about 100 mph (airspeed), so over that 2 hr flight, the A320 goes about 1000 miles - to cover the same distance takes the Dash8 2hrs 30 mins - given the hour+ spent at the airport before the flight and the 15-30 mins at the destination airport this is only 12% or so slower (i.e. total transit time is A320:1+2+0.5 = 3.5 vs Dash8:1+2.5+0.5 = 4).
A jet will burn about 20% more fuel than a turboprop...
Hence me concluding - surely there is a (significant) market for a 150 seat turboprop capable of flying up to 1000 miles. The engine technology exists, fuel pressures in the last decade were increasingly high on airlines. Did Bombardier drop the ball by not producing a sister family to the Dash 8 that would compete with the two incumbent narrowbodies (A320/B737) on a battleground that Airbus/Boeing couldn't fight on? (giving up speed for fuel consumption)