|
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...4qIEw&usqp=CAU
Who needs AC? Just upgrade to Level 3. Not much different than a Vegas layover, anyway. |
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3163642)
I can't believe all this talk and no one has discussed whether or not the A/C system on props is cool enough to keep it comfortable at the gate and taxiing when it's in the 90's outside.
In the ERJ the packs (off APU bleed at least) do a pretty good job. I care A LOT more about flight deck temp than whether or not its a TP or TF. |
Originally Posted by tallpilot
(Post 3163746)
Marketing issues aside (which are not insignificant), dispatch reliability is an issue. However it is possible a brand new turboprop could have higher dispatch reliability than the 20+ year old 50 seat jet it replaces. It might also have RNP capability that allows it to operate in lower weather at non-CAT-II+ airfields than the 1990s avionics in the current 50 seat jets.
Many issues to consider here. In any case, the current 50 seat jets won't last forever. The manufactures insist they only exist because of U.S. airline scope restrictions and don't exist anywhere else on the planet (that seems absurd, but I am not an airline industry economist) but they certainly exist in abundance here and will need to be replaced sometime in the future. Great point. However this issue has been easily dealt with on business jets with vapor cycle air conditioning systems. Modern variable speed compressors are extremely efficient and not particularly heavy. So this is not an insurmountable engineering problem. |
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3163781)
I sure hope so because I NEVER want to ever again experience the pure hell of my previous job with 6 legs a day in SJU in a PC-12 which didn’t do jack to cool anything even at full power. Absolutely worse than flying a 172 in Fla in summer since at least there you can open windows.
The Swiss must think it’s in the 50s everywhere in the world with such a crappy air conditioning system😡😡 |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 3163859)
The NGs fixed that btw. Nice and cool in a few minutes even after sitting on the ramp with 110F outside for a day.
|
The E175 was one of the nicest planes I've ever flown...I'm sure they would make an excellent turboprop. The Q400 could have been much nicer if Bombardier didn't make it a common type.
Embraer still can't make a damn coffee maker though. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3162786)
Except that pushing the climate change agenda IS socialism.
|
Originally Posted by PontiusPilot
(Post 3166043)
Go back to the dictionary, please.
Actually, it is. Take for instance the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) that was implemented a year or two ago in the EU. Now, not only do they tax you on the fuel you purchase, but you have to buy carbon offset credits against the emissions of burning the fuel. This applies to all aircraft operators operating to/from and within the EU. This was one of the driving factors behind Brexit. The monies raised by this program do not necessary have to be used in conjunction with any climate program, but may be used on how the government sees fit. By not allowing natural forces to drive the industry (supply & demand, or cost / profit margins), a select group will use taxation and other government programs to dictate business practices. Now I certainly enjoy clean water to drink and fresh air to breath, I believe in government to protect the citizens against bad business. To that extent, it should be either allowed or not allowed. To tie this in with the subject at hand, I believe cost/profit margins will encourage Turboprops back into the U.S. industry. But to have the government dictate that they be used for the betterment of society, this is a double edged sword that can be turned against you. |
Originally Posted by Ziggy
(Post 3166172)
Actually, it is. Take for instance the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) that was implemented a year or two ago in the EU. Now, not only do they tax you on the fuel you purchase, but you have to buy carbon offset credits against the emissions of burning the fuel. This applies to all aircraft operators operating to/from and within the EU. This was one of the driving factors behind Brexit. The monies raised by this program do not necessary have to be used in conjunction with any climate program, but may be used on how the government sees fit. By not allowing natural forces to drive the industry (supply & demand, or cost / profit margins), a select group will use taxation and other government programs to dictate business practices.
Now I certainly enjoy clean water to drink and fresh air to breath, I believe in government to protect the citizens against bad business. To that extent, it should be either allowed or not allowed. To tie this in with the subject at hand, I believe cost/profit margins will encourage Turboprops back into the U.S. industry. But to have the government dictate that they be used for the betterment of society, this is a double edged sword that can be turned against you. |
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3166224)
That's still not what socialism is. Calling everything you disagree with "socialism" doesn't make it socialism.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:30 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands