Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Technology
Embraer Rear Engine turboprop >

Embraer Rear Engine turboprop

Notices
Aviation Technology New, advanced, and future aviation technology discussion

Embraer Rear Engine turboprop

Old 08-14-2021, 03:49 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,012
Default Embraer Rear Engine turboprop

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

are turboprops covered by scope?
ZeroTT is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 04:33 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
trip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,221
Default

Not going to happen here, does it need more wing?
trip is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 04:53 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,206
Default

Originally Posted by ZeroTT View Post
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.
Hedley is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 05:50 AM
  #4  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

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.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 05:54 AM
  #5  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,012
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
The real drawback was always customer perception. A roomy, quiet turboprop might go over OK.
Low wing, loads via jet bridge and has e175 overhead space I think pax will be fine.
ZeroTT is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 11:21 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SonicFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,573
Default

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
SonicFlyer is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 11:27 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 168
Default

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer View Post
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???
EAFF95 is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 01:04 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,206
Default

Originally Posted by ZeroTT View Post
Low wing, loads via jet bridge and has e175 overhead space I think pax will be fine.
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.
Hedley is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 04:12 PM
  #9  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,012
Default

Originally Posted by Hedley View Post
Most passengers are clueless about aviation, however passenger perception would be a significant hurdle. The bigger issue is the size.
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
ZeroTT is offline  
Old 08-14-2021, 04:30 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,948
Default

Originally Posted by ZeroTT View Post
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.
DarkSideMoon is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
serhito
Flight Schools and Training
11
12-20-2016 07:20 AM
Chris516
Hangar Talk
16
01-22-2016 08:40 PM
AZFlyer
Technical
12
07-31-2011 12:01 PM
DWS1
Technical
164
09-01-2009 05:57 PM
skidmark
Hangar Talk
92
08-12-2009 06:34 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices