Hi Everyone,

According to the fuel consumption table from another thread and the Lease Pricing thread (thanks LAXINTL) we got the following for a 68/75 Pax aircrafts :

Props :
Bombardier Dash 8-Q400NextGen — 860 kg/h // $55-75,000/month
ATR 72-500 — 660 kg/h // $60-180,000/month

Jets
Embraer E-170 — 1530 kg/h // $115-235,000/month
Bombardier CRJ 700 — 1450 kg/h // $90-200,000/month

Obviously Jets are flying faster than Props, but the fuel consumption on short flight is better on the Props side.

My question is, until what distance it's more interesting to fly a Prop instead of a Jet? I Would say 300NM max but I would like to have your opinions guys?

Many thanks,

A380MSN004 wrote:

interesting

Any distance. A prop will always be more interesting than a jet, if only due to the lower cruise altitude. It's also more efficient at all distances.

The problem is the flight time difference that become more noticeable the longer the cruise section of a flight is. And to some extent passenger comfort, although I find the Q400 and the latest ATR 72-600 quite comfortable. The former seems to have a tipping point around 300 - 400 nm with current fuel prices. The latter just happens to coincide with that at around 1:00 to 1:30 h flight time. Depends a bit on how much passengers will pay for the jet "premium". US passengers, quite a lot, Indonesians, not so much.

I would take a prop any day, but not sure about the others. It is not only fuel consumption but having lower emissions is much more important. I could even cross Atlantic with a long range turboprop if there were any modern ones (well, I would even try Tupolev Bear for fun but that's another impossibility).

In practice many props are quite uncomfortable as they are designed to be used for <30 mins trips only. Many regional jets are also quite cramped and cheap inside, not only some CRJ's, but also 3+3 in 146.

A modern prop, with a jet-like cabin, and boarding by propbridge, marketed as ecoplane, might be very attractive for shorter and longer flights. Cannot say what would be the tipping point, probably 1-2 h. The economy limit depends so much on many local factors (scheduling, salaries, lease/interest rate etc) that I cannot even guess more exactly. Anyway, there are quite many <1 h flights in Europe only.

YIMBY wrote:

A modern prop, with a jet-like cabin, and boarding by propbridge, .

I doubt if "propbridges" would make the slightest difference to passenger opinions outside North America. In the rest of the world passengers are used to a proportion of flights involving A320/738 sized planes and even larger being boarded using stairs. Doesn't mean they insist only only using widebodied jets...

A380MSN004 wrote:

Bombardier Dash 8-Q400NextGen — 860 kg/h

This can vary significantly with flight regime. If you want to use the Q's full potential - speed - with a full cabin, you'll easily see figures in the 1,000-1,100 kg/h range.

As much as I like props (and I agree with YIMBY that it would be great to have a long range eco-prop) some types are really way too uncomfortable.
Dash-8, Saab 340, Brasilia, they all rattle and shake really bad. Q400 is still too noisy, and the cabin is not very nice. The ATR is the only I really truly enjoy from a comfort perspective, and I wouldn't mind a 3+ hr sector on it.

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

Last year I flew again on a DC6 with long haul interior and I can say the noise and vibration is not significant during the flight. In fact all my rides were very smooth.

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

I used to fly DFW-ICT twice a week (sometimes more) when AA had Fokkers, Saabs, ATRs, and later RJs on that 300+ mile route. The time difference between the jets and the props was not too bad, generally 20-25 minutes at most. However, when tornado alley fired up during spring the difference in flight times would push 45 minutes or more. Flights would mostly be routed to the west to ABI, north up the western edge of Oklahoma to the panhandle, and then turn east toward ICT. There were usually a few minor jolts when in the jets but the props reminded me of a scene in the movie “The Hunt for Red October” when the COD was landing on the aircraft carrier. There were plenty of times when the FA would come through the cabin with a towel and wipe off the overhead bins because that is where people’s drinks ended up.

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

Last year I flew again on a DC6 with long haul interior and I can say the noise and vibration is not significant during the flight. In fact all my rides were very smooth.

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

Jets are more efficient long haul than props. Props may burn less fuel/hour, but at long distances jet efficiency surpasses that of a prop because it is cruising much faster and spending less time in the air, negating the jet’s fuel burn/hr disadvantage.

It is shorter distances, where the jet’s speed advantage can’t really come into play, where props are more efficient.

tsra wrote:

I used to fly DFW-ICT twice a week (sometimes more) when AA had Fokkers, Saabs, ATRs, and later RJs on that 300+ mile route. The time difference between the jets and the props was not too bad, generally 20-25 minutes at most. However, when tornado alley fired up during spring the difference in flight times would push 45 minutes or more. Flights would mostly be routed to the west to ABI, north up the western edge of Oklahoma to the panhandle, and then turn east toward ICT. There were usually a few minor jolts when in the jets but the props reminded me of a scene in the movie “The Hunt for Red October” when the COD was landing on the aircraft carrier. There were plenty of times when the FA would come through the cabin with a towel and wipe off the overhead bins because that is where people’s drinks ended up.

Great movie!

Polot wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

Last year I flew again on a DC6 with long haul interior and I can say the noise and vibration is not significant during the flight. In fact all my rides were very smooth.

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

Jets are more efficient long haul than props. Props may burn less fuel/hour, but at long distances jet efficiency surpasses that of a prop because it is cruising much faster and spending less time in the air, negating the jet’s fuel burn/hr disadvantage.

It is shorter distances, where the jet’s speed advantage can’t really come into play, where props are more efficient.

Not true. I've done ATR flights from Europe to Asia and back because we could do it much cheaper, the inevitable hotel accomodations included. If the cargo isn't in a hurry, some props are much cheaper, even over long distances.

The jets win over longer distances because time is money - customers dont want to spend 5 days flying to Singapore or 5 hours to Ibiza.

I can tell you from my personal experience, albeit years ago, that if you're comparing Turboprops like the Dash 8-Q400 and the ATR42/72 with older and larger turboprops, today's are much quieter (at least the Dash 8 with its noise canceling software) than the older planes like the Vickers Viscount and Lockheed 188 Electra. I've flown in all of them and, although the older planes were a lot roomier, and quite capable of flying 3-4 hour legs, the Q400 is quieter. Personally, I don't like the ATRs, but the Dash 8's tend to be almost as fast as the jets. On a typical flight, there's very little time difference (which is why airlines like Porter in Canada fly the Q400 from Toronto to places like Myrtle Beach and points in Florida). The problem in North America, in particular, is that unsophisticated passengers see propellers and assume the plane is very old and obsolete, therefore unsafe.

The situation in Europe is largely different, in that distances are shorter. That's why airlines like Flybe in the UK (or whatever Virgin is going to rebrand it as) are using more Dash 8's and reducing their jets (in the case of that airline, E-jets). Most people flying one hour legs on a Dash 8 don't have a problem if the time difference if on a jet is ten minutes.

I can tell you from my personal experience, albeit years ago, that if you're comparing Turboprops like the Dash 8-Q400 and the ATR42/72 with older and larger turboprops, today's are much quieter (at least the Dash 8 with its noise canceling software) than the older planes like the Vickers Viscount and Lockheed 188 Electra. I've flown in all of them and, although the older planes were a lot roomier, and quite capable of flying 3-4 hour legs, the Q400 is quieter. Personally, I don't like the ATRs, but the Dash 8's tend to be almost as fast as the jets. On a typical flight, there's very little time difference (which is why airlines like Porter in Canada fly the Q400 from Toronto to places like Myrtle Beach and points in Florida). The problem in North America, in particular, is that unsophisticated passengers see propellers and assume the plane is very old and obsolete, therefore unsafe.

The situation in Europe is largely different, in that distances are shorter. That's why airlines like Flybe in the UK (or whatever Virgin is going to rebrand it as) are using more Dash 8's and reducing their jets (in the case of that airline, E-jets). Most people flying one hour legs on a Dash 8 don't have a problem if the time difference if on a jet is ten minutes.

superjeff wrote:

[...]The problem in North America, in particular, is that unsophisticated passengers see propellers and assume the plane is very old and obsolete, therefore unsafe.[...]

Even in this thread turboprops got mixed up with piston engines more than once.

The American flying public is opposed to the "puddle jumper". The same American flying public who in smaller towns wishes they had more frequency. In the 90s in my town and towns like many others, we had nearly hourly flights to the hubs on 19-30 seat turboprops (J31s, BE1s, SWM, SF3, EM2, 328 etc) , however people felt unsafe on the "rubber band" powered "Cessnas" (which , when looking at fleets like TW and NW in the mid 2000s, the turboprops of that era were 20 years newer than most of the jets they would connect on at the hub). So the majors and regionals started operating RJ flights more and more. I remember when AA went exclusively to RJs at ORD we lost AA service all together as they were competing with UA , who eventually went to the CRJ but flew the 328 for about a year afterwards.
So these cities who had all this frequency on perfectly safe and efficient aircraft, now had the sexy jet service they always wanted, but now were down to a fraction of the number of flights they once had, so instead of an hour connection at the hub, one might sit for 3 hours waiting for their connection now.

FLYSPI wrote:

The American flying public is opposed to the "puddle jumper". The same American flying public who in smaller towns wishes they had more frequency. In the 90s in my town and towns like many others, we had nearly hourly flights to the hubs on 19-30 seat turboprops (J31s, BE1s, SWM, SF3, EM2, 328 etc) , however people felt unsafe on the "rubber band" powered "Cessnas" (which , when looking at fleets like TW and NW in the mid 2000s, the turboprops of that era were 20 years newer than most of the jets they would connect on at the hub). So the majors and regionals started operating RJ flights more and more. I remember when AA went exclusively to RJs at ORD we lost AA service all together as they were competing with UA , who eventually went to the CRJ but flew the 328 for about a year afterwards.
So these cities who had all this frequency on perfectly safe and efficient aircraft, now had the sexy jet service they always wanted, but now were down to a fraction of the number of flights they once had, so instead of an hour connection at the hub, one might sit for 3 hours waiting for their connection now.

This...often times in smaller communities, once turboprops are eliminated from the express fleet ( e.g. UA Express today), small cities lose service entirely. Unless the majors sign code share agreements with small carriers like Boutique Air.Cape Air, Southern Air etc., the transition to "all jet fleets" usually ends up with a complete loss of air service from the US3 in small cites and towns.

Polot wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

Last year I flew again on a DC6 with long haul interior and I can say the noise and vibration is not significant during the flight. In fact all my rides were very smooth.

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

Jets are more efficient long haul than props. Props may burn less fuel/hour, but at long distances jet efficiency surpasses that of a prop because it is cruising much faster and spending less time in the air, negating the jet’s fuel burn/hr disadvantage.

It is shorter distances, where the jet’s speed advantage can’t really come into play, where props are more efficient.

Thanks for your feedback. And Do you know what is the limit of efficiency in terme of distance for the Turboprops? (350NM? More? Less?)

Thanks

A380MSN004 wrote:

Polot wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

Last year I flew again on a DC6 with long haul interior and I can say the noise and vibration is not significant during the flight. In fact all my rides were very smooth.

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

Jets are more efficient long haul than props. Props may burn less fuel/hour, but at long distances jet efficiency surpasses that of a prop because it is cruising much faster and spending less time in the air, negating the jet’s fuel burn/hr disadvantage.

It is shorter distances, where the jet’s speed advantage can’t really come into play, where props are more efficient.

Thanks for your feedback. And Do you know what is the limit of efficiency in terme of distance for the Turboprops? (350NM? More? Less?)

Thanks

It depends on the turboprop. The Q can cruise much faster than the ATR (can go over 350 kn for the Q400, albeit at a fuel economy penalty vs 275 kn for the ATR). Normal CRJ cruise is around 425 (but max cruise speed is higher), and normal ERJ cruise is a tad slower than that. But it's not quite that simple, as how long you'll be in cruise depends on climb and descent profiles, and the speed/efficiency tradeoff includes fuel prices, which vary constantly. It's a math problem, but the answer changes every day.

I still wish Turbo Prop Aircraft like the Q400 had counter - rotating propellers.

Bombardier Q400s are fairly ubiquitous in Canada, so many of us have taken plenty of flights on them. In my opinion, bearing in mind that I've not taken an ATR turboprop, the Q400 is comparable to Bombardier CRJs regional jets. The Embraer EJets are a step up from the Q400, with quieter operation, but otherwise there's little difference in cabin experience. All of these aircraft feel cramped compared to mainline 737s and A320-family aircraft. Across the board, cabin noise is highly dependent on where one sits in the plane, but the turboprop engine noise of Q400s just isn't a big deal. I feel perfectly safe on the Q400, and honestly, safer on them than the smallest CRJ family members. My knowledge of the huge amount of power in the Q400 engines gives me confidence when I'm crossing the mountains of BC and the Rockies into Alberta. All things considered, I will happily take the greater frequency and route connectivity afforded by use of turboprops to the "privilege" of taking a (regional) jet.

dc10lover wrote:

I still wish Turbo Prop Aircraft like the Q400 had counter - rotating propellers.

WHAT?! SAY THAT AGAIN! I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE WHISPER QUIET COUNTER-ROTATING PROPS!

A380MSN004 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Jets are more efficient long haul than props. Props may burn less fuel/hour, but at long distances jet efficiency surpasses that of a prop because it is cruising much faster and spending less time in the air, negating the jet’s fuel burn/hr disadvantage.

It is shorter distances, where the jet’s speed advantage can’t really come into play, where props are more efficient.

Thanks for your feedback. And Do you know what is the limit of efficiency in terme of distance for the Turboprops? (350NM? More? Less?)

Thanks

Fuel efficiency is always going to be better for props (of comparable role and era). Just like going 80 km/h is always more efficient than going 100 km/h (in a car). They may be less able to use the jetstream, though, due to the lower cruise altitude.
For example, looking at this thread https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1412637, the CSeries is just slightly more efficient than the 65 year old DC-7C. Yes, the DC-7 has piston engines, not turboprops, but the fundamental aerodynamics don't change. As turbofan diameters increase, the gap to props shrinks.

The real economic problem is aircraft utilisation. For example, a jet can easily do two 9 h TATL flights per day but a prop can only do one-and-a-half 12 h flights. Or 4 return trips from central Europe to the meditteranean in a jet vs. 3 in a prop. The capital and crew costs are significantly higher for the prop.

Not to mention that turboprops need gears and those are not yet able to provide the power a widebody needs. The A400M has the most powerful (western) turboprops ever built and still needs 4 of them for an MTOW comparable to the Airbus A310. The RR UltraFan may be the first geared widebody propulsion.

dc10lover wrote:

I still wish Turbo Prop Aircraft like the Q400 had counter - rotating propellers.

Jetstream 41 did/does

I guess the ATR42/72-600 won the battle with Q400. There seems little incentive to build anything larger at this stage.


ECR-20 study, 7 abreast, kaktusdigital

Maybe ATR will do a slightly stretched upgraded version of their prop later on.

dc10lover wrote:

I still wish Turbo Prop Aircraft like the Q400 had counter - rotating propellers.

On the same shaft, like the Tu-95? Have you HEARD a Tu-95? Or a Shackleton?

Contraprops are excellent for transferring power into the air. They are absolutely diabolical in terms of sync and noise.

Now if you mean handed props, as in two normal props rotating in opposite directions, then that reduces torque for the pilots but doesn't do much for the passengers.

dc10lover wrote:

I still wish Turbo Prop Aircraft like the Q400 had counter - rotating propellers.

I assume you mean contra-rotating propellers, like those on the Tu-95 Bear bomber and its airliner derivative, the Tu-114?

Contra-rotating propellers are 2 propellers mounted one ahead of the other on the same shaft driven by the turboprop engine, rotating in opposing directions about the same axis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-ro ... propellers

On the other hand, counter-rotating propellers are propellers, each one mounted on a separate engine (on opposite sides of the fuselage of a twin prop plane), that rotate in opposite directions (i.e. the port propeller rotates clockwise whilst the starboard propeller rotates anticlockwise).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-r ... propellers

SmithAir747

Leslieville wrote:

The Embraer EJets are a step up from the Q400, with quieter operation, but otherwise there's little difference in cabin experience. All of these aircraft feel cramped compared to mainline 737s and A320-family aircraft.

This doesn't have much to do with the subject of the regional props vs. jets but I find your observation surprising. IMHO the Embraer jets offer the same ride experience as the B737/A320 series yet without the dreaded middle seat with more hand luggage space and shorter boarding times. Cost per passenger is another thing but given a choice I would take an Embraer jet over B737/A320 any time of the day.

Which type is better for airlines, economically-wise?

Why are props more efficient?

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

Last year I flew again on a DC6 with long haul interior and I can say the noise and vibration is not significant during the flight. In fact all my rides were very smooth.

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

Today is an eye opener for me (or perhaps I just fail to see these threads). People flying around on DC3s and DC6s ..amazing!

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

[...]

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

uhh... wasn't that, like, you know, one of the main reasons why long-haul props aren't a thing anymore? ._.

AntonioMartin wrote:

Which type is better for airlines, economically-wise?

It really depends on how far is destination and how thick(how many passengers) route has?
On shorter routes turbo-prop(atr-72) should be in theory be more efficient per cask-(cost per seat kilometer) then regional jet like CRJ900 but jets like a320 are more efficient then both turbo-prop or regional jet even in dense configuration. That is why ulcc are so successful and why they don’t fly regionals or turbo-props. Many European airlines are getting rid of q400(Austrian, Air Baltic) and instead are going to use regionals(e-195, a220’s) or jets(a320 family). This is more question for network planner than enthusiasts.

NameOmitted wrote:

Why are props more efficient?

Two basic reasons:

Propulsion is more efficient when a large amount of air is accelerated by just a little. So the larger your prop / fan diameter, and the more power you transfer from the core to the prop / fan, the more efficient the engine operates. Props don't need a heavy & draggy shroud and only require few blades, so can be built larger than a fan for the same weight & drag. The shroud does improve efficiency slightly, which is why shrouded props exist (but rare).

Drag is lower at slower speeds. (yes, induced drag increases but all other types decrease) This is a side effect of the prop not allowing transsonic speeds but it helps with fuel efficiency. The optimum speed is a function of bypass ratio and pressure ratio; the lower your bypass ratio, the faster the optimum speed for that powerplant.
Lower speeds also avoid the need for swept wings, which have their own drawbacks.

mxaxai wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Why are props more efficient?

Two basic reasons:

Propulsion is more efficient when a large amount of air is accelerated by just a little. So the larger your prop / fan diameter, and the more power you transfer from the core to the prop / fan, the more efficient the engine operates. Props don't need a heavy & draggy shroud and only require few blades, so can be built larger than a fan for the same weight & drag. The shroud does improve efficiency slightly, which is why shrouded props exist (but rare).

Drag is lower at slower speeds. (yes, induced drag increases but all other types decrease) This is a side effect of the prop not allowing transsonic speeds but it helps with fuel efficiency. The optimum speed is a function of bypass ratio and pressure ratio; the lower your bypass ratio, the faster the optimum speed for that powerplant.
Lower speeds also avoid the need for swept wings, which have their own drawbacks.

Thank you.

I note the diameter of the prop on the Q-400 at 13.5 feet exceeds the outside diameter of the GE9X, for a total area of just over 140^2. That is a gigantic column of air. It's also a column of fast air that would impact both sides of the wing, what effect does that have on the overall design?

LAXLHR wrote:

Today is an eye opener for me (or perhaps I just fail to see these threads). People flying around on DC3s and DC6s ..amazing!

Sometimes the job you are in brings fun stuff like this

emuwarveteran wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

[...]

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

uhh... wasn't that, like, you know, one of the main reasons why long-haul props aren't a thing anymore? ._.

Yes you are right. But as meteorological forecasts (including thunderstorm predictions and detection systems) are much better nowadays, the routes might be planned better. Furthermore, a new generation turboprop might reach as well quiet high cruising altitudes.

But I think this is all a bit theoretical, as I guess the chances that we have long haul prop traffic returning are close to zero, even though there might be a tiny niche market for low cost carriers (A400 pax version?).

eisenbach wrote:

But I think this is all a bit theoretical, as I guess the chances that we have long haul prop traffic returning are close to zero, even though there might be a tiny niche market for low cost carriers (A400 pax version?).

I think there would be a huge amount of people who could take the time penalty if they just get a cheaper ticket. So many people today take strange routing or board the most camped jet to save a cent. Ecology is also an increasing factor. Many passengers would take the most ecological alternative and many companies would even want to show to the customers how ecological they are by letting their executives to fly most ecologically (even if it were just green-wash).
(These are not necessarily premium-paying passengers so beans should be counted very accurately.)

What is the theoretical limit for a turboprop with today's technology?

What is a reasonable size?
Civilized Europrop engines might allow 320/321 sized propliners? PW would power 220 sizes?
A widebody may have to be a quad? Would that be feasible? Would ETOPS or safety images be different for props?

What is the reasonable range? Given the lower fuel consumption a prop can fly much longer with the same fuel than a jet.
What is the reasonable altitude? May depend on the speed i.e. fuel consumption also? (Old piston-engined props were limited by lack of pressurization.)
What is a reasonable speed? How many hours would you lose for a long haul trip? Many airlines run TATL flights with 24 h rotation, often not very effectively, and some could tolerate a few hours more, some not.

Andy33 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

A modern prop, with a jet-like cabin, and boarding by propbridge, .

I doubt if "propbridges" would make the slightest difference to passenger opinions outside North America. In the rest of the world passengers are used to a proportion of flights involving A320/738 sized planes and even larger being boarded using stairs. Doesn't mean they insist only only using widebodied jets...

Europeans usually board 320 and 737 by jetbridge, though stand arrivals are not rare. The gate arrival gives a scent of premium and people might not even notice the engine. In harsh climates jetbridges are a major comfort factor. In a good weather it may be even more comfortable to walk outside than inside the tube as long as you do not have to cramp in the bus.

The passengers opting for lowest prices would not care. They are many.

YIMBY wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

A modern prop, with a jet-like cabin, and boarding by propbridge, .

I doubt if "propbridges" would make the slightest difference to passenger opinions outside North America. In the rest of the world passengers are used to a proportion of flights involving A320/738 sized planes and even larger being boarded using stairs. Doesn't mean they insist only only using widebodied jets...

Europeans usually board 320 and 737 by jetbridge, though stand arrivals are not rare. The gate arrival gives a scent of premium and people might not even notice the engine. In harsh climates jetbridges are a major comfort factor. In a good weather it may be even more comfortable to walk outside than inside the tube as long as you do not have to cramp in the bus.

The passengers opting for lowest prices would not care. They are many.

I think if asked we could come up with a long list of European airports with A320/737 service that have no jetbridges at all, and many more where the number of jetbridges is way too low for the number of flights so the majority use stairs. Then there's Ryanair, the largest airline in Europe by number of passengers, who specify the factory fitted front airstairs on their 738s, because as a matter of policy they will not use jetbridges unless forced to, since they believe they slow turnrounds.
My last two A320 flights both boarded with stairs, one of which was from LGW, not exactly a backwoods airport, and that's with two different airlines. Not just a ULCC thing either - one was with British Airways. Come to that I've boarded BA widebodies using stairs at LHR.

konrad wrote:

Leslieville wrote:

The Embraer EJets are a step up from the Q400, with quieter operation, but otherwise there's little difference in cabin experience. All of these aircraft feel cramped compared to mainline 737s and A320-family aircraft.

This doesn't have much to do with the subject of the regional props vs. jets but I find your observation surprising. IMHO the Embraer jets offer the same ride experience as the B737/A320 series yet without the dreaded middle seat with more hand luggage space and shorter boarding times. Cost per passenger is another thing but given a choice I would take an Embraer jet over B737/A320 any time of the day.

Agreed. If I had to pick one aircraft to fly on the rest of my life, it would be the E175.

Easyjet won't use the airbridges at Edinburgh either, instead boarding at front and rear stairs (even when the gate has a airbridge), airstairs or bus boarding is the norm at secondary airports in Europe. Both my local airports (EXT and BRS) are stairs only for aircraft up to B789s.

Also my next trip involves an ATR72, connecting onto an A333 at Dublin, quite a size difference

Turboprops should be banned on anything longer than 1.5 hours.

Otherwise they are great, really love the ATR.

Polot wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

Maybe we should really consider long haul props? I would be definitely in favour!

Last year I flew again on a DC6 with long haul interior and I can say the noise and vibration is not significant during the flight. In fact all my rides were very smooth.

The only thing which might cause problems is the maximum cruising altitude. As you cannot reach 40.000 feet as a B787, long haul props might me more exposed to "weather" and turbulences.

Jets are more efficient long haul than props. Props may burn less fuel/hour, but at long distances jet efficiency surpasses that of a prop because it is cruising much faster and spending less time in the air, negating the jet’s fuel burn/hr disadvantage.

It is shorter distances, where the jet’s speed advantage can’t really come into play, where props are more efficient.

Regional props are not long range anyway. Long range turboprops exist and are more efficient than their jet counterparts.

Now if you consider other factors than fuel burn in the efficiency figure, that's another story, but fuel burn will always be less, at any distance.

FLYSPI wrote:

So these cities who had all this frequency on perfectly safe and efficient aircraft, now had the sexy jet service they always wanted, but now were down to a fraction of the number of flights they once had, so instead of an hour connection at the hub, one might sit for 3 hours waiting for their connection now.

That's probably as much a function of 'pilot shortage' - meaning low labor $ productivity from pilots flying small aircraft - as it is desire for jets.

The regular return to 'Why not props?' is implicitly asking why five of the six largest U.S. carriers are doing it all wrong.

The lower cruising height is one of the reasons why (in good weather) props are great on shorter journeys over land, as you get such a great view out!

I think pretty much everyone in this forum would jump on a turboprop in a hot minute. The public not so much. To many passengers, props are old, outdated and dangerous. It’s sad to see what is essentially the demise of efficiency. From an airline perspective, I once had an airline planner tell me that the RJs are expensive, but more flexible in terms of fleet uniformity. They don’t have to have a mixed fleet making equipment substitutions in canceled flights much simpler, spares and rotables are also more manageable, which adds enough cost savings to make the difference between a jet and a prop negligible. The benefit would be to a smaller carrier. A company like Midwest Express (I know, they’re gone, it’s just an example) would benefit from prop service feeding a small hub from close in small markets. A company like the big three, not so much.

I’m looking forward to the new SkyCourier twin from Cessna to see if some carriers pick them up for the small markets that have lost service in the absence of a new 19 seater. I think prop manufacturers would do a favor for operators and improve the confidence with passengers that fear them by using something like electro-thermal (think 787) vs boots for anti ice.

DL717 wrote:

I’m looking forward to the new SkyCourier twin from Cessna to see if some carriers pick them up for the small markets that have lost service in the absence of a new 19 seater.

Which isn't going to happen (at least in the US) because no one is going to fly a 19-seat airplane under FAR 121. If that weren't an obstacle, the Beech 1900 would still be in service.

MO11 wrote:

Which isn't going to happen (at least in the US) because no one is going to fly a 19-seat airplane under FAR 121. If that weren't an obstacle, the Beech 1900 would still be in service.

Ironically, I know a few routes in central Europe that were dropped by the legacy regionals - previously served by ATRs, CRJs & ERJs - and were picked up by tiny players with a Beech 1900 or Jetstream 31. Ticket cost >300 € oneway, but hey, corporate is willing to pay.

MIflyer12 wrote:

FLYSPI wrote:

So these cities who had all this frequency on perfectly safe and efficient aircraft, now had the sexy jet service they always wanted, but now....

That's probably as much a function of 'pilot shortage' - meaning low labor $ productivity from pilots flying small aircraft - as it is desire for jets.

The regular return to 'Why not props?' is implicitly asking why five of the six largest U.S. carriers are doing it all wrong.

The pilot shortage came along much later. The phase out of turboprops started in the early 2000s. It wasn't until the Colgan accident that the FAA began throwing around higher mins for pilots and thus the pilot shortage .

There is no doing it wrong or right.. a carrier could likely be successful or a failure either way... i for one think the loss of 19-30 seat turboprop service on short hauls to small communities is not good, and would love to see it come back.

YIMBY wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

But I think this is all a bit theoretical, as I guess the chances that we have long haul prop traffic returning are close to zero, even though there might be a tiny niche market for low cost carriers (A400 pax version?).

I think there would be a huge amount of people who could take the time penalty if they just get a cheaper ticket. So many people today take strange routing or board the most camped jet to save a cent. Ecology is also an increasing factor. Many passengers would take the most ecological alternative and many companies would even want to show to the customers how ecological they are by letting their executives to fly most ecologically (even if it were just green-wash).
(These are not necessarily premium-paying passengers so beans should be counted very accurately.)

What is the theoretical limit for a turboprop with today's technology?

What is a reasonable size?
Civilized Europrop engines might allow 320/321 sized propliners? PW would power 220 sizes?
A widebody may have to be a quad? Would that be feasible? Would ETOPS or safety images be different for props?

What is the reasonable range? Given the lower fuel consumption a prop can fly much longer with the same fuel than a jet.
What is the reasonable altitude? May depend on the speed i.e. fuel consumption also? (Old piston-engined props were limited by lack of pressurization.)
What is a reasonable speed? How many hours would you lose for a long haul trip? Many airlines run TATL flights with 24 h rotation, often not very effectively, and some could tolerate a few hours more, some not.

Good questions.

All of the main studies today involve 737/320 sized narrowbody airliners.

The range is 3,250 nautical miles, and the altitude is listed as 35,000 feet. At top of climb, the TSFC is 0.441 for a propfan vs. 0.502 for a GTF. At sea level, the propfan's advantage is even greater - 0.158 vs. 0.257. (Numbers from table 4 in https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_A ... 1/page/n15.)

The research says Mach 0.80 is the theoretical max cruise speed before the efficiency decline sets in (figure 17 in https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_A ... 91/page/n7). That compares to a typical cruise speed of M0.785 for the B737NG/MAX, M0.78 for the A220 & A320, M0.82 for the A330, M0.84 for the B777, and M0.85 for the B787 and A350.

We can debate all we want, passengers have a preference. Some is because of how bad prior generation turboprops were (cabin noise/vibration).

Someone should develop a new 50 seat, with a premium cabin, turboprop. As nice as the ATR is, where is the CFRP wing?

Andy33 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

A modern prop, with a jet-like cabin, and boarding by propbridge, .

I doubt if "propbridges" would make the slightest difference to passenger opinions outside North America. In the rest of the world passengers are used to a proportion of flights involving A320/738 sized planes and even larger being boarded using stairs. Doesn't mean they insist only only using widebodied jets...

The issue is the fraction of aircraft sold to North America. Passengers want to stay out of the weather there.

Economy of scale matters.

Lightsaber

Candid question of the day :
In terms of CASK, does an ATR72-600 (70 seats) is better than a typical A319 (150 seats) on a 350NM sector?