all seem to have come to the conclusion a market is opening up for a ~ 100 seat turboprop. Airlines seem willing to give up speed, payload, cargo etc if the CASM / fuel consumption can be brought down significantly.
Open rotors seem far away, efficient props are available / under development. RR and GE are working on 7500hp turboshaft engines.
Maybe the collective knowledge of airliners.net can help them out !
I'm thinking of 22 rows 5 abreast Thompson seating at 34 inch pitch with no more room available the required and a 19 inch aisle..
Questions : high or low wing ? landing gear attached to fuselage or not? how big a belly stowage, T-tail, how wide the seats ? Minimum weight and fuel consumption are essential..
KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3490 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4522 times:
Mid-wing would be the way to go, along with underfloor cargo holds, just like the Electra and Convairs had This would not only make the main floor wider (about as wide as a mainline narrowbody jet), but help distinguish the aircraft from regional aircraft.
Put two A400M engines on it, but I don't know if the current eight bladed props would be practical in a civilian role: in a mid-wing config, they will be able to kick up pebbles and stones, and the MX department might not like the repair bills from keeping up with eight prop blades
Rulebooks and regulations are made from paper...and they do a poor job at preventing metal from contacting rock-Ernest G
KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3490 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4497 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3): Man, I'd love to see a modernized Convair....
2H4
Rumor has it that the CV-580 that was seen about a year or two ago here at PDX doing multiple touch 'n goes was flight testing some of the 787 avionics... Don't know if you'd want the modernization to extend beyond the flight deck, though
Rulebooks and regulations are made from paper...and they do a poor job at preventing metal from contacting rock-Ernest G
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 7250 posts, RR: 54 Reply 6, posted (4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4489 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5): Don't know if you'd want the modernization to extend beyond the flight deck, though
I'd grudgingly accept an upgrade from the giant, squared-off, 4-bladed props to some new, curvy, 8-bladed composite jobs. They would offer a very different kind of coolness, but it would be coolness nonetheless.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12882 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted (4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4462 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): I'm thinking of 22 rows 5 abreast Thompson seating at 34 inch pitch with no more room available the required and a 19 inch aisle..
34 inches is nice, but I'm sure lots of operators would be quite satisfied with 30-32.
My real self is a Blood Elf Mage in Azeroth. Meet him on Boulderfist.
Wingscrubber From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 426 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4440 times:
Bring back the vickers viscount I say! A composite re-designed modern iteration might allow a slightly wider fuselage to push the maximum 5 abreast to 6 abreast high capacity, that would take max capacity from 65 to 78. Higher still if stretched a little.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 210 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4373 times:
No, you're all wrong! You need to do a stretch of the Vickers Vimy, and replace the engines with the A400M jobbies!
But it is true the market is crying out for a 100+ seat sized turboprop, and perhaps not only so much in the regional market either. I can see it taking on short haul routes also, especially with medium cargo loads instead of pax.
Gliding is to power flying as seduction is to rape.
If the seatwidth is similar to 737 and you have a 3-2 cabin width 19 inch aisle, how wide will the cabin be using thses Thompson seats?
Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 8): A composite re-designed modern iteration might allow a slightly wider fuselage to push the maximum 5 abreast to 6 abreast high capacity
I think 4 abreast is maxed out with the EMB 195, 6 abreast seems suboptimal below 140 seats... Everyone (DC9, CSeries, F100, Superjet) seems to go 5 abreast. Now because this "...." (name anybody?) is likely to be short haul 5 abreast without 3000nm comfort seems to best way to keep OEW down..
About OEW I think an estimation based on the F100 seems realitic, a bit shorter, slower, newer, etc. so 10% off?
Cargo for short haul. IMo it is hard to beat a door to door truck on short haul. The Q400 and ATR have a real issue with luggage, forget cargo.
I'm thinking enough belly to hold the luggage of 100 holiday makers.. Issue is if you have a high wing + cargo hold you're going very high landing gear (heavy).
So maybe the midwing mentioned with a slight seagull to give way to a big (6 bladed?) prop?
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5500 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4279 times:
The 5 abreast seating is definitely a winner in this case IMO. It helps keep the overall length of the plane down, keeping it in line with 70 seaters at 4 abreast. And it's good if we want an underfloor cargo compartment (we do, don't we?). W/5 seats @ 18" wide (about 50" tall) and a 19" isle, I'm getting a circular fuselage with a 42" tall underfloor compartment that has a 61" wide flat floor. A double bubble x-section could get rid of some of the wasted space at the sides of the cabin and maintain the rest of the dimensions.
IMO STOL and unimproved field capability should be foregone for this design, therefore a mid wing, with wing mounted main gear would be ideal. All in all I'm thinking of this as a bigger fatter SAAB 2000 with state of the art turboshaft engines. What ever happened to that weird counter-rotating rear-facing prop engine they tested on an MD-8X/9X a while back BTW?
KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3490 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4273 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): - Mid-wing ? does anyone have fuselage cross sections ? why is it not applied anymore?
As for it not being applied anymore, I think that is because traditionally it would have taken the spar clear through the center of the fuselage(!). Maybe you could compromise, raise thef wing just high enough so that it only creates a small "bump" in the floor as you pass down the aisle...although I'm sure that today, with a few creative engineers, maybe you could somehow integrate the fuselage frames in that section with the spar in such a way that a spar carry-through through the fuselage isn't necessary (disclaimer: although I studied one semester of statics in college, I'm by no means a structural engineer ).
Rulebooks and regulations are made from paper...and they do a poor job at preventing metal from contacting rock-Ernest G
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8250 posts, RR: 26 Reply 13, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4266 times:
Quoting LY744 (Reply 11): W/5 seats @ 18" wide (about 50" tall) and a 19" isle, I'm getting a circular fuselage with a 42" tall underfloor compartment that has a 61" wide flat floor. A double bubble x-section could get rid of some of the wasted space at the sides of the cabin and maintain the rest of the dimensions.
To "push the boundaries"I was think of a cabin that can only handle 5 abreast with the aid of Thompson seats. Did you include that in your estimation?
Wing configuration high should take care of a big prop, lower wing is more practicle for landing gear etc. I'm wondering how big a 6 bladed scimitar prop able to transfer 8000hp efficiently would have to be.. anyone?
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5500 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4235 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 13): To "push the boundaries"I was think of a cabin that can only handle 5 abreast with the aid of Thompson seats. Did you include that in your estimation?
Nah, I threw a CAD sketch together in about 2 minutes. Pardon my ignorance, but what's special about Thompson seats?
Quoting Keesje (Reply 13): Wing configuration high should take care of a big prop, lower wing is more practicle for landing gear etc
By the way, when I said "mid" I meant mid-to-low, like any typical jet liner you could think of, just low enough that the spar is under the floor.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 13): how big a 6 bladed scimitar prop able to transfer 8000hp efficiently would have to be.. anyone?
I don't know, but I know a smaller diameter prop can spin faster.
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12): although I'm sure that today, with a few creative engineers, maybe you could somehow integrate the fuselage frames in that section with the spar in such a way that a spar carry-through through the fuselage isn't necessary
It's possible but would make for some ugly frames (either you make them thicker and therefore the cabin narrower at that point, or you make them spaced closer together, possibly eliminating windows). I'm not sure, but I would like to know if anyone has ever actually implemented this solution, because it does show up in textbooks.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 210 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4230 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12): I'm sure that today, with a few creative engineers, maybe you could somehow integrate the fuselage frames in that section with the spar in such a way that a spar carry-through through the fuselage isn't necessary
I just made a quick sketch in Solid Edge. Whilst I'm sure the structure would be easily improved (perhaps if some calculations were calculated rather than hunched). But I'm unsure if the lack of through spar would repay the weight penalty of the additional structure.
Gliding is to power flying as seduction is to rape.
KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3490 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4196 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 15): I just made a quick sketch in Solid Edge. Whilst I'm sure the structure would be easily improved (perhaps if some calculations were calculated rather than hunched). But I'm unsure if the lack of through spar would repay the weight penalty of the additional structure.
Aah, thanks for that. Wish I had access to tools that could do that. Must be fun!
Rulebooks and regulations are made from paper...and they do a poor job at preventing metal from contacting rock-Ernest G
Actually saw one up close and personal. Nice ride. Roomy cockpit.
I say bring back the Dash 7. Put it on a diet and clean up the airframe a little and you will have a 100 seat turboprop that can serve almost anyplace worth serving.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." -Final words of Gen. John Sedgewick 1864
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8250 posts, 
From United States, joined Oct 2004, 7250 posts, 
This would not only make the main floor wider (about as wide as a mainline narrowbody jet), but help distinguish the aircraft from regional aircraft.
From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 1995 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12882 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 426 posts, 
