Looks like turboprops are back on menu, boys!

L-16B said:
I thought they were a lot more fun than any of the three pure jets I’ve flown in the 121 world. The Saab flying and the Q400 flying I used to do was way more fun. I miss the layovers in smaller towns too.
Click to expand...

Different strokes I guess. They’re more hands-on, but that’s all they have going for them.
 
Slow and Low, that's the real draw for a turboprop.
images.jpg

I did love the King Air, but I sure don't often miss life in the 20's and 200's.
 
Apophis said:
Different strokes I guess. They’re more hands-on, but that’s all they have going for them.
Click to expand...

Like what else would they have going for them? You're still flying something, at least sorta. Flying a 747 is like operating a lathe or a reactor. Maybe an oil tanker, if I'm feeling kind. Don't get me wrong, it pays well, and I'm not looking to trade out with some kid risking his/her life to get the urine samples to Kansas City on time, but there's absolutely nothing fun about it, like itself. It's just an enormous appliance.
 
Maximilian_Jenius said:
So these turboprop redux, since they're so efficient, apparently moreso than current high bypass ratio turbofans. Are they also talking about putting them on say narrowbody and widebody jets? Are they going to be replacing current gen turbofans?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Current plans have fittings on newer airplanes up to around 280-300 pax.
Then plans for retrofit on 767 and the equivalent are also in the works.
 
Maximilian_Jenius said:
I don't know if serious.
Click to expand...

Yep!
CFM RISE program

In short, it saves gas.

The marketing will show that it'll reduce emissions and run on hydrogen and SAF.

In reality, it'll have fewer moving parts require less maintenance.

Over a certain diameter fan, the outer shroud becomes heavy, unwieldy, and a huge drag penalty so an open rotor really is the next logical pathway.

That and the fact that electrical powered fans are likely the next technology in line, so the open rotor research will benefit the fan(propeller) tech, mounting structure and placement and, operational techniques.

You'll see that Boeing is now working with NASA to develop a braced wing prototype. It's likely something that can easily be optimized for newer technologies including open rotor designs.

The Open Rotor design would also benefit any Blended Wing solutions, specifically if rear mounted pusher configuration eliminating shroud or fuselage armor requirements.
 
DropTank said:
Yep!
CFM RISE program

In short, it saves gas.

The marketing will show that it'll reduce emissions and run on hydrogen and SAF.

In reality, it'll have fewer moving parts require less maintenance.

Over a certain diameter fan, the outer shroud becomes heavy, unwieldy, and a huge drag penalty so an open rotor really is the next logical pathway.

That and the fact that electrical powered fans are likely the next technology in line, so the open rotor research will benefit the fan(propeller) tech, mounting structure and placement and, operational techniques.

You'll see that Boeing is now working with NASA to develop a braced wing prototype. It's likely something that can easily be optimized for newer technologies including open rotor designs.

The Open Rotor design would also benefit any Blended Wing solutions, specifically if rear mounted pusher configuration eliminating shroud or fuselage armor requirements.
Click to expand...

Okay, will this open rotor design allow a plane with 300-450 pax get up to FL410?
 
Maximilian_Jenius said:
Okay, will this open rotor design allow a plane with 300-450 pax get up to FL410?
Click to expand...

Much of this is still in consideration and not much has been published.
You'll see reports of up to M.80 in the prelims, but more likely have an upper limit of .85 but having a fuel sweet spot of .72-.75
As for altitude, I see no limitation of FL410 operations.
For any flights over 2 hours, the inability to climb over 390 would be a non starter for multiple reasons, fuel burn being the primary.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Like what else would they have going for them? You're still flying something, at least sorta. Flying a 747 is like operating a lathe or a reactor. Maybe an oil tanker, if I'm feeling kind. Don't get me wrong, it pays well, and I'm not looking to trade out with some kid risking his/her life to get the urine samples to Kansas City on time, but there's absolutely nothing fun about it, like itself. It's just an enormous appliance.
Click to expand...

I get my fun on days off. That being said, it just makes me chuckle when some guy in an Airbus, sipping on coffee with his little tray table extended, above the ice, reminisces about how "awesome" turboprop flying was.

It's more work. That's about it. (Again, my opinion only, YMMV)
 
Apophis said:
It's more work. That's about it. (Again, my opinion only, YMMV)
Click to expand...

Hey man, you do you. If some idiot were willing to pay me what my Union has negotiated for me to fly the "Big Iron" in order to fly an MU-2 (or even a Falcon), with the same benefits, long-term stability, etc. (which is obviously impossible), I would think about it for about .032 seconds and jump. *shrug*.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Hey man, you do you. If some idiot were willing to pay me what my Union has negotiated for me to fly the "Big Iron" in order to fly an MU-2 (or even a Falcon), with the same benefits, long-term stability, etc. (which is obviously impossible), I would think about it for about .032 seconds and jump. *shrug*.
Click to expand...

Wait... you're actually getting takeoffs and landings? :D The sim doesn't count.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Hey man, you do you. If some idiot were willing to pay me what my Union has negotiated for me to fly the "Big Iron" in order to fly an MU-2 (or even a Falcon), with the same benefits, long-term stability, etc. (which is obviously impossible), I would think about it for about .032 seconds and jump. *shrug*.
Click to expand...

I agree totally but in reverse, Falcon for sure. You and I had very different experiences with the MU-2, and while I do like it there is still a bit of lingering trauma from my old employer. That being said I'd still love to hop in the rowdy old beast and take it for a joy ride.
 
arkflyr said:
I agree totally but in reverse, Falcon for sure. You and I had very different experiences with the MU-2, and while I do like it there is still a bit of lingering trauma from my old employer. That being said I'd still love to hop in the rowdy old beast and take it for a joy ride.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, in retrospect I've come to understand that (and correct me if I'm wrong) I worked for the only operator of the type that actually gave a poop about, you know, maintenance and not-crashing-very-much. I suspect I would have very different feelings about the damned thing if I'd worked for ACT or Bankair. Not sure.

That said, let's compromise on Falcon. A nice, clean, working Falcon 50 on a nice, pretty, clear day is a glorious thing. If you're not working for @CK, anyway.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Well, yeah, in retrospect I've come to understand that (and correct me if I'm wrong) I worked for the only operator of the type that actually gave a poop about, you know, maintenance and not-crashing-very-much. I suspect I would have very different feelings about the damned thing if I'd worked for ACT or Bankair. Not sure.

That said, let's compromise on Falcon. A nice, clean, working Falcon 50 on a nice, pretty, clear day is a glorious thing. If you're not working for @CK, anyway.
Click to expand...

You definitely worked for the good one. When ACT was resurrected and we were flying some of your old airplanes we were all "man look at how nice these are!" It only took one cycle through our mx phase/100hour to bring us all back to reality.

The only Falcon I've flown was the 900EASy, but a nice 50 will do just fine.
 
Every step up I’ve taken in aircraft, people have assured me I would get bored and miss the flying I was doing before. So far that hasn’t been true, at least as far as the aircraft. I did miss the proficiency that went with flying 8+ legs a day when I moved to medevac from air taxi. And I guess I did miss the Navajo a little bit. But moving from the Pilatus to the Lear everybody has been like “don’t you miss it!?!?” And honestly no not really. I like having 2 turbine engines, a second pilot to help keep my dumb ass out of trouble, an APU, and hot wings and tail. Presumably if I (hopefully soon) get to the bus driving part of the career I’ll appreciate all the positives there too.
 
Roger Roger said:
Every step up I’ve taken in aircraft, people have assured me I would get bored and miss the flying I was doing before. So far that hasn’t been true, at least as far as the aircraft. I did miss the proficiency that went with flying 8+ legs a day when I moved to medevac from air taxi. And I guess I did miss the Navajo a little bit. But moving from the Pilatus to the Lear everybody has been like “don’t you miss it!?!?” And honestly no not really. I like having 2 turbine engines, a second pilot to help keep my dumb ass out of trouble, an APU, and hot wings and tail. Presumably if I (hopefully soon) get to the bus driving part of the career I’ll appreciate all the positives there too.
Click to expand...
There are a few days where I miss clicking off the autopilot and flying a visual into Dutch Harbor on a nice day, or Unalakleet. Those are the parts I miss. Don't get days like that anymore.
 
Roger Roger said:
Every step up I’ve taken in aircraft, people have assured me I would get bored and miss the flying I was doing before. So far that hasn’t been true, at least as far as the aircraft. I did miss the proficiency that went with flying 8+ legs a day when I moved to medevac from air taxi. And I guess I did miss the Navajo a little bit. But moving from the Pilatus to the Lear everybody has been like “don’t you miss it!?!?” And honestly no not really. I like having 2 turbine engines, a second pilot to help keep my dumb ass out of trouble, an APU, and hot wings and tail. Presumably if I (hopefully soon) get to the bus driving part of the career I’ll appreciate all the positives there too.
Click to expand...
Lears and APUs should've never been combined, even the 60 was a pain in the ass. To remove the batteries there was literally a cable with a pulley and a stirrup to lower the damn things as part of the airplane. I will say that they at least made removing the APU pretty easy, a few electrical connectors, a couple of fluid fittings, several bolts and you could wrestle it out of the hellhole like a very heavy Christmas present, the APU and enclosure are a box that fits in that square. I never opened that present, but I appreciated how easy it was to remove. The problem was the APU was never the issue, inevitability whatever you needed to work on required the batteries and APU to be removed for access. The Lear 28 and 60 are the epitome of the brand, I'm not saying the 40/45/70/75 aren't good airplanes, I just think they're more Challenger than Learjet and they don't have the character of the original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top