ATR chief executive Christian Scherer sees “no urgency” to decide about the turboprop family’s future development, despite Embraer’s evaluations about a potential return to the turboprop segment.

In 2017, Embraer indicated that it was exploring the possibility of returning to the turboprop market with a new aircraft. In September the Brazilian airframer held an initial customer advisory panel with more than 20 international operators to hear their views on the turboprop segment.

Noting Embraer’s E-Jet E2 development effort – the first model, the E190-E2, is scheduled to enter service in April – Scherer shows confidence that ATR will not be pushed by the competitor into a new aircraft programme. “If I was an Embraer shareholder… I would be very, very nervous to go and stick my neck out and launch a regional turboprop programme before I know what the leader in the field, namely… ATR, is going to do,” he says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ef-445165/

What a gentleman. He is worried for the Embraer shareholders.
Someone is quite nervous. Lol

r2rho wrote:

Yes the E2 is "too much aircraft" compared to the ATR, but the GTF powered RJ's (even more so the MRJ) will dramatically reduce the fuel efficiency gap versus the ATR.

Embraer E-175 - 1650 kg/h
ATR 72-500 - 660 kg/h
ATR 72-600 - 700 kg/h
See, even when the E2 cuts fuel burn by 15%, it still burns roughly ~ 1400 kg/h compared to the <= 700 kg/h on the ATR.

KarelXWB wrote:

r2rho wrote:

Yes the E2 is "too much aircraft" compared to the ATR, but the GTF powered RJ's (even more so the MRJ) will dramatically reduce the fuel efficiency gap versus the ATR.

The difference will still be huge.

Taking Fuel consumption table as reference, we get the following figures:

Embraer E-175 - 1650 kg/h
ATR 72-500 - 660 kg/h
ATR 72-600 - 700 kg/h

See, even when the E2 cuts fuel burn by 15%, it still burns roughly ~ 1400 kg/h compared to the <= 700 kg/h on the ATR.

LPSHobby wrote:

I think the new Cessna prop replaces the 20 seater no?

Flying-Tiger wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

ATR was designed in the 80's after which there has not been very much development, 212 being launched in the 90's. DHC-8 has even longer history, though Q400 was introduced in 2000. A regional jet of comparable age includes BAe 146 which is quite uncomfortable.

Not quite true. The next ATR development was the -500 series, and more recently the -600 series, which has advanced quite a bit in terms of efficency, speed, payload and noise compared to the -200 series. It´s not that they´ve been standing still.

YIMBY wrote:

A cleansheet turboprop with today's technology and requirement would be comfortable enough compared with any RJ that passengers would not pay the difference.
They would be more fuel-efficient which is very important as passengers will be more and more environmentally conscious. And a turboprop will emit less noise which is important for airport surroundings and may allow to keep airports in the centres.

There is a saying in the market that any re-engining (!!) of the ATR series with either a new P&WC engine or a GE38 derivate needs to be about 15 % more efficient in fuel-burn and another 20-25% cheaper in maintenance. If this is already said for a re-engineing on a well known frame with limited development costs associated, how much more efficient do you need to have a cleen-sheet design to make it commercially worthwhile? And: have you ever flown the ATR? Not much of a difference compared to a regional jet... or a B737 or A320 for that matter. Cabins no more differ, really.

[quote="YIMBY]Unlike US, in Europe and Asia there are lots of short routes, optimal for turboprops, flown by RJs up to 747's. For 20 - 50 min flight times the speed difference in rather negligible, and the landing speeds of turboprops should be increased anyway to keep them in pace with jets. There is definitely demand for a new RJ sized turboprop (though I cannot say if it is worth the huge development costs - that also depends on the existing portfolio of the manufacturer).[/quote]

Yes and no. In Europe the number of turboprop operations is going down except for niche markets, not so much for regional jets but more for LCCs and rail plus road transport getting more competitive over time. Plus small-(plane)-scale operations simply getting more expensive. 19-seaters are principally completely out of the market, 30-seaters fight for their living with limited success except for niches, 50-seat turboprops try to soldier on, but again, the market is getting limited. 70 seat turboprops have a future left, but even they have to fight. Take a look on KLM´s network out of Amsterdam, which would be prime example for a turboprop on routes such as London, Norwich, Bremen etc, all barely 200 nm stage length, if at all. Still flown by Embraer 175/190 as the fleet flexibility is larger.

Whilest I would love to see a new 30/50/70 seat family I doubt that there is any commercial sense really left in it. In my opinion the only way forward would be a re-working of existing frames of either the Q100/200 or SF340 fleet, kind of "extreme plane makeover", but even then I´ve doubts that there is commercial sense in it.

In my opinion this is a market segment which will - long-term - mostly disappear in major markets except for niches. Little sense in developing anything new.[/quote][/quote]

iceberg210 wrote:

Sounds like regardless of what Embraer does it'll be smaller than the E2's, although a new piece to the puzzle is it might be a jet instead of a turboprop it's sounding like.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ly-446355/

Interestingly enough there's also an article on Flight Global about Wideroe talking to Embraer about turboprops, unfortunately it's behind the paywall, if someone has a summary however that they could post that'd be very interesting.

Maybe it's just my silly idea but the fact that the largest variant of the 20% more efficient GE Advanced Turboprop is exactly the size you'd need to reengine the 120 I just keep coming back to. If you do slot a family under the E2, a 3 across cross section with tubroprops and maybe a 2 or three length family from 35 55 and or 60 (maybe with the 55 down to 50 to replace 50 seater RJ's) seats starts to look like it fits pretty well underneath the E2's.

william wrote:

So reuse the cabin sizes from the ERJs which is a reuse of the EMB 120 cabin size. Makes sense and should cut down costs. Not sure what EMB could do to take weight out of the cabin unless they go expensive CF in which case thats a whole new airplane.

The turboprops could go on the wing ala the 120 or rear mounted like the 123. Either way, not sure what or how much engineering other than lighter subsystems would need to be done.

iceberg210 wrote:

william wrote:

So reuse the cabin sizes from the ERJs which is a reuse of the EMB 120 cabin size. Makes sense and should cut down costs. Not sure what EMB could do to take weight out of the cabin unless they go expensive CF in which case thats a whole new airplane.

The turboprops could go on the wing ala the 120 or rear mounted like the 123. Either way, not sure what or how much engineering other than lighter subsystems would need to be done.

I think you just keep the old metal construction, (the smaller the plane the less CF helps you in weight) and as you say lighten the subsystems.

What I wonder is if they could dust this thing off
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... =erj%20145
The original 145 was going to be a stretched 120 (like the 145 that was built) however with a enlarged 120 wing and jets on top of the wing. I've always wondered how much it would take to throw props on that exact plane, they got fairly far into the engineering on it is my understanding and a two member family off the bat with the 120 E2, and I guess you call it the 145E2T or something, if it really wouldn't take much work on the back end of updating the designs might just pencil. I don't think there's any hope of cleansheets in the market lower than the E2, so seems to me Embraer will have to dust off something if they want to make something pencil in that market.

Noshow wrote:

It has been a big mistake by the industry to not actively market turboprops as the truly green, quiet and efficient planes they are. Instead most average passengers consider them to be "old propeller aircraft".

seahawk wrote:

With the coming pilot shortage, those routes will die. 2 pilots for 30-40 passenger seats will not make economic sense in most western countries in a few years.

lightsaber wrote:

seahawk wrote:

With the coming pilot shortage, those routes will die. 2 pilots for 30-40 passenger seats will not make economic sense in most western countries in a few years.

Agreed, which is why I see a compromise on copilot ATPs. Otherwise small airports loise service which invites political help... This is a political problem with a political cure.

Lightsaber

Nean1 wrote:

I see the future possibility of a modernization of the EMB-120 line, perhaps with an extended version optimized for small distances. Perhaps Embraer has the possibility to lead this trend given its broad capacity in flight systems.