Tprops in a Jet world
 

So I hate to be that guy but I've had a nagging question with the continuing rise of gas prices. Why are we seeing no new turboprops in the 50 seat market? I know there are a number of markets in the Saab where we are weight restricted with pax and if a 50 seat CRJ isn't economical, why is nobody seemingly pursuing this. I believe that there are markets where 34 seats is too little and 76 seat is too much, so why are we not seeing a resurgence and advancement of tprop technology in the 50 seat market?

Reluctance of investors to deploy a large amount of capital into a volatile industry during an economic downturn might be one reason.

What economic downturn? Ask the government, we're fine!

SAAB should make the SAAB 2010! a 70 seat t prop!

There was just an article in AIN that I read the other day talking about how ATR is slated to deliver over 60 new aircraft this year.

In fact the -600 series is on the books for deliveries starting in 2010. New sophisitacted digital integrated avioncs, larger, more powerful yet more fuel efficient engines. Inflight entertainment and LED cabin lighting etc. ATR CEO was quoted as saying, "despite jet-mania, turboprops are back for the long term."

The ATR 42 does seat up to 50.

i would love to trade in the 145 and get back into a real plane like the ATR. of course my passengers wont like it cause it has props and i cant land the damn thing but its alot more fun and saves money!

it'll take time, but they'll be back

Hail the Neo-Prop revolution

Because the flying public is afraid of turboprops?

Yes. The general public is stupid.

Stupid is right. Give people the option when they book. Have $20 fuel surcharge when they book if the want to fly the 145, that would be funny to see.

I for one am headed back to the Prop as CA and I'm excited. It's nice to see the future starting to include these, what some where calling, relics. There efficiency at the regional level is often underrated due to the public’s perception but with the next gens including higher cruising speed and more passenger comfort, I truly believe that they hold an important role in domestic's air travels future. With higher fuel prices mainlines starting to shift more flying into international markets while pulling out of (errrrr neglecting) domestic because of Joe Publics unwillingness to pay higher fuel surcharges, this is the reason why 30-74 PAX T-Props will see a resurgence. If Joe Public wants a $100 ticket then they’ll have to fly on T-props (Emb-120, Saab 340, Q2/3/4's) for their short to short/intermediate hops, larger RJ's (CR7/9, E-170/75) for intermediate, small narrowbodies (E-190/5, C-series, 717, 737, A319/20) for intermediate/long haul, larger narrowbodies (737-800, A321, 757) for long haul/transcontinental domestic with the occasional small widebody (767) for transcontinental.

Regardless, fuel surcharges have to increase..............period.

I agree one hundred percent

Be that as it may, they are the reason you have a paycheck.

Dash 8 300??? that has 50 seats right? Maybe they are dumping all the money is something better than the q400??!?!?!?

You can put I believe 57-60 but doesnt make sense 7-10 more people if fully loaded doesnt work since the whole FA requirement thing.

Didn't an FA say something like that on David Letterman? "The customer is the enemy." That was classic.

Expect to see Colgan get started in the Dash 200/300 business.

Hey stupid question, What is the difference between the dash 100/200. Thanks

You havent heard about plans on the drawing board for the Q400X? 90 passengers, they plan on just stretching the fuselage a bit, strengthening the gear and not derating the current engines on the Q400s.

400X, It already looks like its dragging its rear on take off and landing and now they want to make it longer. COOL Thanks for the info Sarge on the 100/200

I want something like the EMB120 again. What is it with these turboprops and their high wings (referring to Dashs and ATRs)? Perhaps they could have some kind of 50-pax EMB120 2.0.

There is. It's called the Q300.

But there is also an argument to be made that with the operating economics of the Q400, an operator is just as well off with that airplane, rather than having the Q300 and being limited to 56 seats.

The "flying public" couldn't care less what propulsion system the aircraft uses, as long as they can get $29 fares.

referring to the saab, and an older female passenger... "oh my its one of these airplanes, these things must be older than I am" and I sit silently and think to myself, we'll ma'am, enjoy your connecting flight on a DC9

Last I heard it would sit close to 7 inches higher than the normal 400.

Actually, they do and quite a bit at that. In fact, that's one of the reasons we ended up with RJs in the first place. Some of you would be surprised to know how many pax are very afraid of flying and in their minds a jet is "safer" than a prop -- the "big" airlines used to fly props, but now they fly jets, ergo jets MUST be safer, plus all jets must be new and all prop jobs must be old. :) It's not smart reasoning, but just watch any news story about aviation and you'll see how clueless the public is about aviation. :D

To add to this I'll tell a little story (one of the only one's I have so far in this industry).

We had a quick turn in PVD from gate 1, or well more like pad 1 since there is no actual gate there. Next to us was a Colgan (I think, it doesn't matter which company actually) S340 in the USAE livery. While we had just shut down and were waiting to deplane our PAX the gate agents had sent out the Saab PAX to board that flight. Since there is no sign pointing to the right airplane about 20 people tried to board our airplane (E-145). When the F/A told them that this was not their airplane and they should go to the Saab their faces turned to "Oh my God, how old is this thing?" Between that look and just the look of utter disappointment it was a fun moment for me!

The point I think I might be trying to get at is that PAX will be scared of a turboprop no matter how new it is!

Story time over!

They'd do the same thing if your E-145 was sitting next to a 737. The difference? They be on the 73 looking disappoint about your E-145.

My point, Jow Public wants to fly a 747 between MEM and ATL.

Everthing else aside.....the "RJ" revolution was brought on by at the least two things.. one... the desire of mainline mgt to fly small jets on the cheaper AND the perception of TProps to the general public. My sister for one will not fly a tprop... and I HAVE nearly 3000 hours in them.... she doesnt like them...never has... she flies jets 20-25 times a year. Personally I think more care than not.

I definately agree that there is a stigma in regards to props and the flying public. That being said, in the two short months that I have been flying a prop we are consistently booked at over 80% and probably every third flight depending on where we are is booked at 74 with standbys. For example, looking at the loads between EWR and PIT tomorrow of the 6 flights, 3 are overbooked, 1 is at 67, 1 is at 64 and the lone flight at 6:30am has 38 people on it.

While there are many who will not fly a prop there are still enough kicking around to fill the planes if there is a market in the area and it shows up on the top of the "cheap" list when looking at orbitz. I would say for the most part we are kidding ourselves when we dont think that your average traveler does not look on a travel site, type in their destination and then pick the cheapest of the list regardless.

Would you mind adding some info to this comment. What did you find more "fun" about an ATR vs. a -145? I have almost zero time in anything with a prop. To me they are both airliners, so I'm just wondering what could make one more of a "real plane" or more "fun" than the other. Not flame bait, I'm genuinely curious.
Thanks.

If you're going to have a 50 or 70 seat turbo prop you're gonna need the a larger/longer props that are going to need to be mounted higher. Manufacturers want low wings so that they can save on the weight of linking the landing gear in some way to the wing spars.

Besides high wings rock! Don't ja'know?

What RPM is the Dash 8 guys? ATR is 1200 I believe.

where are you guys getting the info on the Q400X i have heard rumors that it might be in the works but no specifics

As for the EMB, when you fly from LAX to PSP and they bring you over the top of that 12K-ish peak (can’t remember its name) to the southwest of the city, jets have to continue out to the east and then swing back around in order to land. In the EMB you just duty yourself up; gear, props max, flaps and you can obtain a decent rate around 6K+ with a ground speed of only 145ish all while easy making the left base to the airport. We do the same thing going into MFR and several other airports.

They often bring us in very close to the airport in an attempt to squeeze us in between a/c. Yes this may sound familiar but, after flying both the CR2/7/9 and the EMB-120, they will literally bring you into a very close downwind which is much closer and lower than jets fly. An example is when they bring us in at 3000’ for left hand traffic and swing you inside the bridge in SFO for RWY 28 when all RJ’s will stay high and continue 4+ miles outside the bridge for sequencing.

My favorite approach is the Bay Visual in SFO where they bring you down the bay at 11K and clear you for a short approach, you’re told to stay inside the bridge. It basically becomes a right hand power off 180 from 11K to sea level, all within about 4 miles of the airport. Jets are just too slick for approaches like this. Plus we hand fly a lot with VFR climbs that include low altitude tours of the SFO Bay, Mount St. Helens, Mount Rainier and several other amazing sites.

It's been over a year since I've flown the EMB-120 so I'm not exactly sure about the number but I know it's more than 1300 RPM's when set to max.

I believe you're referring to Mt. San Jacinto.

And you can make said approach in the jet. Maybe not as tight as the Brasilia, but with gear, flaps 30, and full spoilers, it'll come down like a manhole cover. It's somewhat uncomfortable with 15 degrees nose down, and you're flying close to stall speed in what is usually pretty turbulent air, but it can be done.

Props are fun to fly..period.

Not that I did this ;) but if you want fun fly a Saab 250 kts till 4.8 miles out on a visual and land in the TD zone.

I have always said a prop plane is like a fat girl. She just wants to be loved so she will take the rough treatment.

I think what makes it more fun is what we, as tprops get asked to do. I have only been flying the tprop for a couple months but several times I have been asked to do things the jets just couldn't do. The other day I was asked to perform S-turns for spacing then maintain 190 till 5 mile final. On the next approach, I was asked to slow to approach speed as soon as possible to facilitate additional departures. So I slowed to about 110 (ref in the Dash-8 100 is normally around 95). It is just a versatile aircraft. Another story had me set up for a straight in approach and around 4-500ft was asked if I could accept a circle. No problem in the dash. I still had plenty of time to plan my circle.



Another thing I love about the dash is I still fly instruments, not glass. I figure I will spend the later years in my career flying glass so I might as well create a great foundation on steam gauges. I normally look at my charts every flight where my friends on the CRJ just opened his low/high enroute charts for the first time yesterday and he has been there for almost a year. I still have to figure out how to hold cause the plane doesn't do it for me. Its fun for me. Other people laugh at you and say you aren't real pilots and the flying public, including many pilots, think they are unsafe and you can't change that. But, after they paid out the money and have no other option to get to their destination, they will still get on the airplane. As oil goes up, I just keep thinking job security...job security.

Oh, and max rpm on the dash-8 100/300 is 1212. Climb is 1050, and cruise is 900.

I like that the public thinks T-Props are dangerous. That makes us Prop Pilots crazy risk takers. And remember, chicks dig risk takers.