bigger turboprops

I have been wondering about a large medium range turboprop airliner for some time.

I know there were passenger carrying commercial variants of the C-130 Hercules, but clearly not very sucessful, compared to jetliners.

How about a stretched EADS A-400?

Are turboprops more expensive to maintain than turbofans?

I would fly in a civilian A-400 airliner rather than an equivalent jetliner if I knew it was less damaging to the environment.

While the motivation for the Soviets was a bit different.

Possibly true, however the outcome was a very efficient aircraft for its day with a fantastic range and what a beauty to look at:)

A grand idea! As pioneered by the Soviets with the Tu114 back in the 50s.
I guess what comes around goes around!!;)

While the motivation for the Soviets was a bit different.

Hi guys

RR, according to this week’s issue of Flight International, suggested the A400M engine for a quad civilian turboprop. Looking at the MTO of the A400M one should be able to build something like the A310 (230 seats, 8000 km range) with it. Or a 150 seater with two of them. This could IMO revolutionise the industry – or rather help keep it alive in the face of ever rising fuel costs

what do people think?

cheers

Bernhard

A grand idea! As pioneered by the Soviets with the Tu114 back in the 50s.
I guess what comes around goes around!!;)

I am actually not sure on the latter part. if the fuel prices keep going up, flight prices will have to go up even in .eu. Arguably turboprops will be cheaper thus quite likely engendering a “cool i am being economical and eco-friendly” image. This is what I would shoot for if I was to start an airline.

Buy Q400s and call it GreenAir or something 😉

Most airline passengers, especially those that go on business trips, stop protecting the environment the moment they start working. All this environmental stuff is primarily superficial and people like it best, when “the other” (industry, Americans, Chinese, car driver, etc) does something for the environment. If gas wasn’t that expensive, everybody would take a big sßit on the environment with his 8 cylinder SUV.

I agree that people will choose the more cost effective way of traveling. But if your idea shall really have success, better make it a compromise between both worlds.

I am actually not sure on the latter part. if the fuel prices keep going up, flight prices will have to go up even in .eu. Arguably turboprops will be cheaper thus quite likely engendering a “cool i am being economical and eco-friendly” image. This is what I would shoot for if I was to start an airline.

Buy Q400s and call it GreenAir or something 😉

The problem at the moment is that no appropriate airframe is available. With the A400M a new generation of turbo prop is available that is characterized by:
– new generation engines
– lots of new technologies for noise and vibration minimization
– increase of economical cruise speed by over 10 Mach counts

An A400M can cruise at M0.72, with long range cruise being somewhat slower (about M0.68). Its altitude capability is comparable to an A320.

Considering the high number of flown connections is shorter than 1000km, these seems to be some potential.
A turbo prop flying M0.68 at 33000ft (~250 KIAS) is about 100km/h slower than a jet flying M.78 at 35000ft (~300KIAS). That is 10 minutes penalty on 1000km and about 18 minutes at 1000nm (1850km).

I would position the aircraft somewhere between the current turboprops with up to 70 seats and below the shrinked single aisles (A319, B737-700), basically directly on the CSeries and Sukhoi Superjet. Two TP400 engines are sufficient for that.

Highly important is that passenger don’t really feel like flying in a turbo prop, so it needs to have full jet feeling and at least a little bit jet looking. 😉

The interesting thing is that SAS for instance is already flying slower in order to save fuel. (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2076257020080520)

They are now flying 780 kph, which is ~ 421 kt, down from 469 kt.

A Q400 flies at 360 kt, so one wonders just howmuch more expensive fuel has to get for this to be viable.

For years, many have predicted the death of small regional jets because of fuel use.

I’d guess that the practicality would depend on not only aircraft size but also route length.

Would a big turboprop be better? Depends.
Could be on short range ops…there isn’t a 737/320 size turboprop out there now, it might be useful for some close European city pairs.
Also, turboprops are more complex and costly than some jets…extra gears, very expensive props…and it would inroduce another engine type to airlines maintenance programs…could be a factor if you have just a few for special short range operations.

Wonder if Boeing kept the data for the propfans it tested on a 727 and McDD did on the MD-80?