Are turbo props here to stay?
- Thread starter FrankieFlyCRQ
- Start date
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Ah, the original regional jets, the 727 and the -9. Although, don't let the -9 guys hear you say that. 'Course that was also back in the day when people paid more than $75 each way to fly on "that there little plane."
ready2fly
Well-Known Member
Yup...and replacing them with ATR's from SJU.
Orange Anchor
New Member
Actually the -9 and the 737 were the RJs for the short hops. The 727 was designed for short AND medium range flights.
Remember the DC-9-10 only had seats for 70 pax and the original 737-100 was only purchased by Lufthansa for use in Europe. Some of the -100s eventually made their way to the US and flew with PeoplExpress before being folded into Continental.
Like the RJs the 727 was stretched and Boeing offered United the 727-300 with JT8D-200 series engines. The airplane never made it off paper but Boeing came back with same fuselage but different engines and planform called the 757.
SRA_kbad
Scooter Trash!!!
Shoot... I wouldn't even be surprised to see more props not only take over the shorter routes, but also pick up more and more longer "regional" routes as well.
WacoFan
Bigly
And if you look at some of the new engine proposals, they are being referred to as 'open rotors' when in the 80s they were referred to as the 'prop fan'. Lockheed modified one of NASA's Gulfstreams with a prop fan and McD0ug also reconfigured an MD-80 with a huge set of counter-rotating 'prop fans'. They referred to it as the UDF for UnDucted Fan.
And the Russians have long worked with propfans. Their new hauler, the AN-70 is a prop fan as well as the A-400 now being prepared for flight test. Lots of good reasons the turboprops or whatever marketing dreams up to call them will be around.
FWIW, note the C-130 tail in the background.
I have always been interested in the unducted fan on the MD-80 - why didn't they use that? What was the issue?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
honestly I think we should go farther! I think that t-props are good for some runs, but I think we should start seeing navajos on some really short runs. For a run that's a 30 minute run in the 1900 you can fly the same run in about 45 mins in a navajo. Plus, for short short hops, you're not going to cycle out the motors which you might do in a turbine bird. Don't fly as high, and don't worry about pressurization (one more step on the frugal road), and charge less for the seats. I think with the cost of airline tickets going up every friggin' day, you could bring the cost down with a fleet of Jos or a fleet of something similar.
Or, if you're still into the whole turbine thing, get a PC-12, and fly it twice as often as your CRJ, fill the flights, and for the shorter hops go just about as fast. I don't think people would be all that averse to a flight that was a little longer if it had cheaper seats and better service (free beverages, two bags etc.). Plus, in the smaller stuff you can start to offer more point to point service, which leads into less time at TSA, more and closer to your ultimate goal.
Personally, I'm half tempted to buy an Apache and a 135 cert. and sell tickets to Kenai for $70 a pop instead of Era's $99 one way ticket. Ok, so it takes you 25mins to get there instead of 18. Woopti-do. People will eat up ten minutes for $20 more bucks and less hassle.
Or, if you're still into the whole turbine thing, get a PC-12, and fly it twice as often as your CRJ, fill the flights, and for the shorter hops go just about as fast. I don't think people would be all that averse to a flight that was a little longer if it had cheaper seats and better service (free beverages, two bags etc.). Plus, in the smaller stuff you can start to offer more point to point service, which leads into less time at TSA, more and closer to your ultimate goal.
Personally, I'm half tempted to buy an Apache and a 135 cert. and sell tickets to Kenai for $70 a pop instead of Era's $99 one way ticket. Ok, so it takes you 25mins to get there instead of 18. Woopti-do. People will eat up ten minutes for $20 more bucks and less hassle.
KLB
Well-Known Member
I can see that. To understand, you have to look no further than garrett engines like the ones on the metro and mitsubishi. There would be a lot of
death rampers out there.
Orange Anchor
New Member
Fuel costs went down. Public perception is that props are ancient technology and the airplanes are noisy. Granted, most people know only 3 airplanes, Cub, Learjet and 747 but they have strong perceptions and perception is often what drives the market.
As mentioned, the Russians have a long history with t-props. The "Bear" has the same wing sweep as the B-52 and those huge engines are putting out around 15,000shp each. When Lockheed was investigating their prop fan, I spoke with one of the lead engineers and he said that after studying various configurations, he and his team concluded that the Russians had designed just about the best gear box that could be built for such a big engine. The Bear has been around about as long as the -52 and the latest version, the Tu-142 is prowling the skies again.
Orange Anchor
New Member
McDoug brought the UDF to Paris one year for the airshow and while the noise was different, I do not remember it being that loud. I do remember reading that the cabin noise and vibration was high but this was before ANR and also before a number of companies making engine mounts applied the ANR technology to the engine mounts. I believe NW used the mounts on their DC-9s and reported the rear seats now had the same noise level as an overwing exit seat. (the mounts are 'elastomeric discs (sp?) which change their rigidity according to the primary engine vibration frequency thus basically isolating the engine from the airplane and reducing the structure borne noise)
The airframe wound up at Mohave and was later scrapped.
You will note there is NOT the same number of blades for the front and rear props. That too had to do with noise reduction.
jdlilfan
Well-Known Member
As mentioned, the Russians have a long history with t-props. The "Bear" has the same wing sweep as the B-52 and those huge engines are putting out around 15,000shp each. When Lockheed was investigating their prop fan, I spoke with one of the lead engineers and he said that after studying various configurations, he and his team concluded that the Russians had designed just about the best gear box that could be built for such a big engine. The Bear has been around about as long as the -52 and the latest version, the Tu-142 is prowling the skies again.
How about the passenger version, the TU-114. I'm sure it could put the hurt on a 737/DC-9. It was designed in the late 50's to beat the upcoming 707/ jetliners. Holds up to 220 pax, cruises up to 460kts, and flies up to 39,000 ft!
JA Yawd Bwoy
Well-Known Member
BajtheJino
I'm looking at you.
Need a partner?
Orange Anchor
New Member
Hate to admit it but I remember when Kruschev came to the US in one of these. A big machine and it turned heads when it arrived.
I have read that -15 drivers intercepting the Bears can hear them 'growling' as the engine create a lot of sound.
And to drop back even farther... I remember standing in the yard as a kid and watching 3 B-36s go over. WHAT A SOUND!!!
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Yeah going to the all Q fleet. Now if they would just stop breaking all the time.
