Embraer Rear Engine turboprop
 

https://www.flightglobal.com/airfram...145078.article

are turboprops covered by scope?

Not going to happen here, does it need more wing?

At United, 37 seat turboprops don’t count towards block hour limits, but bigger than that they do. Anything more than 50 seats would count as a 70/76 seat aircraft, regardless of engines. I don’t know about the other airlines.

Might happen. Lot more fuel/carbon efficient.

On typical stages, a modern prop job is almost as fast as a jet.

The real drawback was always customer perception. A roomy, quiet turboprop might go over OK, especially if the props in the back somehow alleviate pax innate fear of "crop dusters". I mean it looks high-tech, right? They could lay on the green marketing too.

Low wing, loads via jet bridge and has e175 overhead space I think pax will be fine.

I dunno... during a V1 cut, having the props at the rear of the plane are going to create one hell of a yawing moment

As opposed to on the wing where there's more arm for the asymmetrical thrust???

Most passengers are clueless about aviation, however passenger perception would be a significant hurdle. The bigger issue is the size of the plane. The article mentions that the plans are for a 70-90 seat turboprop to replace the 50 seat jets. Is there a legacy scope clause that would allow something that big? I just don’t see airlines lining up to replace 175’s on a 1 to 1 basis with these things restricted to 70/76 seats. If it is designed over 50 seats it will most likely be geared to foreign markets like the E2 due to US scope restrictions.

taking away most of the “this is a turboprop” cues will help a design escape notice of the clueless general public

and yeah, size is a big issue, although if cost savings are as advertised it could probably be 550’d at a competitive CASM/RASM delta to outgoing crj200/e145

yep. Plenty of shortened designs out there too; A319, embraer did it in the past with the 145-135.