Mixing
Why aren't there any widebody propliners?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Jetliners come in both narrowbody (one aisle) and widebody (two or more aisles) versions, but all propliners, to the best of my knowledge, are narrowbody aircraft.
Now, granted, one of the big reasons for having widebody airliners is to have an aircraft big enough to cross oceans with a profitable passenger load, and transoceanic routes are (at least in civil aviation) exclusively the province of jets, because speed.
However, in places with lots and lots of huge, densely-populated cities packed fairly closely together, such as much of East Asia, passenger numbers are so high as to require the use of large widebodies even on very short-haul routes - and, on short-haul flights, propliners hold a considerable advantage over jets (jets are horribly inefficient in the dense air at low altitudes, and short-haul flights aren't long enough for an airplane to have time to climb to long-haul cruising altitudes, whereas propeller aircraft, with their lower speeds, and, thus, lower drag, do just fine going low, and short-haul flights are short enough that slower aircraft aren't a major disadvantage). A widebody propliner would be perfectly-suited for these sorts of jam-packed short-haul markets.
So why aren't there any?
airliner
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Jetliners come in both narrowbody (one aisle) and widebody (two or more aisles) versions, but all propliners, to the best of my knowledge, are narrowbody aircraft.
Now, granted, one of the big reasons for having widebody airliners is to have an aircraft big enough to cross oceans with a profitable passenger load, and transoceanic routes are (at least in civil aviation) exclusively the province of jets, because speed.
However, in places with lots and lots of huge, densely-populated cities packed fairly closely together, such as much of East Asia, passenger numbers are so high as to require the use of large widebodies even on very short-haul routes - and, on short-haul flights, propliners hold a considerable advantage over jets (jets are horribly inefficient in the dense air at low altitudes, and short-haul flights aren't long enough for an airplane to have time to climb to long-haul cruising altitudes, whereas propeller aircraft, with their lower speeds, and, thus, lower drag, do just fine going low, and short-haul flights are short enough that slower aircraft aren't a major disadvantage). A widebody propliner would be perfectly-suited for these sorts of jam-packed short-haul markets.
So why aren't there any?
airliner
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
Why would it even be efficient to use airplanes for such short-haul routes?
– jamesqf
4 hours ago
@jamesqf - An example I can think of is when road networks are hard to build, due to e.g., terrain, such as in Brazil.
– ymb1
4 hours ago
I'm confident that if it were more efficient economically to have widebody propeller driven airplanes on any particular route instead of widebody jets, that would be the choice for air carriers. Of course making money is why airlines are in business and after 90 years of commercial aviation there is much expertise available to ensure operational efficiency is maximized.
– 757toga
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Jetliners come in both narrowbody (one aisle) and widebody (two or more aisles) versions, but all propliners, to the best of my knowledge, are narrowbody aircraft.
Now, granted, one of the big reasons for having widebody airliners is to have an aircraft big enough to cross oceans with a profitable passenger load, and transoceanic routes are (at least in civil aviation) exclusively the province of jets, because speed.
However, in places with lots and lots of huge, densely-populated cities packed fairly closely together, such as much of East Asia, passenger numbers are so high as to require the use of large widebodies even on very short-haul routes - and, on short-haul flights, propliners hold a considerable advantage over jets (jets are horribly inefficient in the dense air at low altitudes, and short-haul flights aren't long enough for an airplane to have time to climb to long-haul cruising altitudes, whereas propeller aircraft, with their lower speeds, and, thus, lower drag, do just fine going low, and short-haul flights are short enough that slower aircraft aren't a major disadvantage). A widebody propliner would be perfectly-suited for these sorts of jam-packed short-haul markets.
So why aren't there any?
airliner
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
Jetliners come in both narrowbody (one aisle) and widebody (two or more aisles) versions, but all propliners, to the best of my knowledge, are narrowbody aircraft.
Now, granted, one of the big reasons for having widebody airliners is to have an aircraft big enough to cross oceans with a profitable passenger load, and transoceanic routes are (at least in civil aviation) exclusively the province of jets, because speed.
However, in places with lots and lots of huge, densely-populated cities packed fairly closely together, such as much of East Asia, passenger numbers are so high as to require the use of large widebodies even on very short-haul routes - and, on short-haul flights, propliners hold a considerable advantage over jets (jets are horribly inefficient in the dense air at low altitudes, and short-haul flights aren't long enough for an airplane to have time to climb to long-haul cruising altitudes, whereas propeller aircraft, with their lower speeds, and, thus, lower drag, do just fine going low, and short-haul flights are short enough that slower aircraft aren't a major disadvantage). A widebody propliner would be perfectly-suited for these sorts of jam-packed short-haul markets.
So why aren't there any?
airliner
airliner
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
asked 4 hours ago
Sean
2,80221548
2,80221548
Why would it even be efficient to use airplanes for such short-haul routes?
– jamesqf
4 hours ago
@jamesqf - An example I can think of is when road networks are hard to build, due to e.g., terrain, such as in Brazil.
– ymb1
4 hours ago
I'm confident that if it were more efficient economically to have widebody propeller driven airplanes on any particular route instead of widebody jets, that would be the choice for air carriers. Of course making money is why airlines are in business and after 90 years of commercial aviation there is much expertise available to ensure operational efficiency is maximized.
– 757toga
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Why would it even be efficient to use airplanes for such short-haul routes?
– jamesqf
4 hours ago
@jamesqf - An example I can think of is when road networks are hard to build, due to e.g., terrain, such as in Brazil.
– ymb1
4 hours ago
I'm confident that if it were more efficient economically to have widebody propeller driven airplanes on any particular route instead of widebody jets, that would be the choice for air carriers. Of course making money is why airlines are in business and after 90 years of commercial aviation there is much expertise available to ensure operational efficiency is maximized.
– 757toga
3 hours ago
Why would it even be efficient to use airplanes for such short-haul routes?
– jamesqf
4 hours ago
Why would it even be efficient to use airplanes for such short-haul routes?
– jamesqf
4 hours ago
@jamesqf - An example I can think of is when road networks are hard to build, due to e.g., terrain, such as in Brazil.
– ymb1
4 hours ago
@jamesqf - An example I can think of is when road networks are hard to build, due to e.g., terrain, such as in Brazil.
– ymb1
4 hours ago
I'm confident that if it were more efficient economically to have widebody propeller driven airplanes on any particular route instead of widebody jets, that would be the choice for air carriers. Of course making money is why airlines are in business and after 90 years of commercial aviation there is much expertise available to ensure operational efficiency is maximized.
– 757toga
3 hours ago
I'm confident that if it were more efficient economically to have widebody propeller driven airplanes on any particular route instead of widebody jets, that would be the choice for air carriers. Of course making money is why airlines are in business and after 90 years of commercial aviation there is much expertise available to ensure operational efficiency is maximized.
– 757toga
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
This is a great question. I wonder if the author touting turbofans would care to list fuel consumption per kW of a prop vs turbofan, even though the fans are a great improvement over the first generation of jets whose time from full to empty was measured in minutes.
Let's go one better, how about (instead of a 225 foot wingspan) a biplane configuration using the prop/engines from a V22 Osprey. Short haul routes need not be flown at 600mph. Big fuel savings.
My concern would be that slower aircraft would give air traffic controllers issues.
However, in terms of efficiency, and with a potential market, it might be worth a look.
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
To quote this relevant comment: [The] most "efficient" propeller is probably a one-bladed propeller - but efficiency doesn't propel aircraft, thrust does.
– ymb1
2 hours ago
1
This is not an answer, but a comment.
– GdD
51 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Not enough thrust
Taking the lightest wide-body, the Airbus A310, its MTOW is 4.5 times that of a Boeing 737.
The 737 equivalent in MTOW in the prop world is the C-130, and it needs 4 propellers.
Simply, there wouldn't be enough space to put the required number of propellers, even when flying slower. The other route is to go as big as the Hughes H-4 Hercules, and even then the A310's MTOW is heavier.
If you are interested in MTOW and T/W ratio sizing, see this chapter on Preliminary Sizing.
The A400M was suggested in a comment as a plane that makes it possible, it doesn't. Its MTOW minus OEW minus Fuel is 15 tonnes, or 115 pax + luggage and no cargo. Also note it's only 4 m wide internally, narrower than the narrowest wide-body, the 767 at 4.72 m, with a max troop capacity of 116.
The other suggested plane, the Antonov An-10, can only carry 100 passengers.
I highly recommend the post, 'How does a fan differ from a propeller?', where Peter Kämpf compares the disc loading of propellers and fans.
- Propellers on a C-130 Hercules: 259.25 kW/m²
- Turbofans on a small BAe 146: 4254.35 kW/m²
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
1
That’s not accurate. You can design a propeller driven airplane with enough power. For example the Russian AN-10 transport powered by 4 15,000SHP engines or the Airbus A-400, both of which have fuselages on size with a wide body airliner.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
The A400 can carry a 60,000 lb payload. If you figure 220 lbs per passenger and their baggage, that’s over 270 paying passengers, typical of a 767 loadout. I just don’t see a design limitation in turboprops which would prevent this. Add an educated guess, I would say it’s more of a matter of mission profile that has dictated the use of jet engines an extremely large aircraft.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
Answer there: don’t carry that much gas. The airplane can carry a 60,000 lb payload with a range of about 3200 NM - greater ranges being possible. Also troops are not going to be comparable with the figures I quoted since a single “troop†may be modeled at around 300-320 lbs (200 lb man + 100 or so lbs of equipment), so those numbers are going to be comparable with a passenger counterpart. This makes an A400 still similar to the long haul capability of a 767.
– Carlo Felicione
35 mins ago
@CarloFelicione - Not enough fuel, then not enough range, and still not a wide-body. Also see update about An-10.
– ymb1
34 mins ago
But the A400 and 767 are roughly comparable. And Airbus close range of around 3200 miles with the 60,000 pound payload aboard that airplane. I guess I’m still not seeing what kind of performance limitation exist to prevent building a large aircraft powered by propellers.
– Carlo Felicione
27 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
Noise and insufficient demand
Prop driven aircraft have much louder cabins than turbofan driven aircraft. The A400m, offered as an example of a large prop aircraft, requires noise deadening treatment to even get to safe industrial levels of sound, let alone something that a passenger would be willing to endure. The AN10 is beyond ridiculously loud. Turboprop aircraft are aimed at short haul as passengers won't put up with the noise for more than a hour or two.
Any aircraft developed for long haul use needs to be quiet, and this is where widebodies aim. In the few situations where it is economical to use widebody aircraft for short haul routes (ie. Japan's 747D) a quiet widebody can be used with modest incremental cost. Conversely, a prop powered widebody could not be used on long haul with any conceivable current technology; passengers could not tolerate it.
Market demand does not justify the billions in development cost to create a short haul only widebody, especially given the ready availability of a substitute that passengers overwhelmingly prefer.
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
One of the oldest and first turboprops, was hailed for its low cabin noise and external noise. "It became known as "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet exterior noise and smooth flying, although the passenger interior remained less tranquil." The last bit is due to flying low in the weather.
– ymb1
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
This is a great question. I wonder if the author touting turbofans would care to list fuel consumption per kW of a prop vs turbofan, even though the fans are a great improvement over the first generation of jets whose time from full to empty was measured in minutes.
Let's go one better, how about (instead of a 225 foot wingspan) a biplane configuration using the prop/engines from a V22 Osprey. Short haul routes need not be flown at 600mph. Big fuel savings.
My concern would be that slower aircraft would give air traffic controllers issues.
However, in terms of efficiency, and with a potential market, it might be worth a look.
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
To quote this relevant comment: [The] most "efficient" propeller is probably a one-bladed propeller - but efficiency doesn't propel aircraft, thrust does.
– ymb1
2 hours ago
1
This is not an answer, but a comment.
– GdD
51 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
This is a great question. I wonder if the author touting turbofans would care to list fuel consumption per kW of a prop vs turbofan, even though the fans are a great improvement over the first generation of jets whose time from full to empty was measured in minutes.
Let's go one better, how about (instead of a 225 foot wingspan) a biplane configuration using the prop/engines from a V22 Osprey. Short haul routes need not be flown at 600mph. Big fuel savings.
My concern would be that slower aircraft would give air traffic controllers issues.
However, in terms of efficiency, and with a potential market, it might be worth a look.
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
To quote this relevant comment: [The] most "efficient" propeller is probably a one-bladed propeller - but efficiency doesn't propel aircraft, thrust does.
– ymb1
2 hours ago
1
This is not an answer, but a comment.
– GdD
51 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This is a great question. I wonder if the author touting turbofans would care to list fuel consumption per kW of a prop vs turbofan, even though the fans are a great improvement over the first generation of jets whose time from full to empty was measured in minutes.
Let's go one better, how about (instead of a 225 foot wingspan) a biplane configuration using the prop/engines from a V22 Osprey. Short haul routes need not be flown at 600mph. Big fuel savings.
My concern would be that slower aircraft would give air traffic controllers issues.
However, in terms of efficiency, and with a potential market, it might be worth a look.
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
This is a great question. I wonder if the author touting turbofans would care to list fuel consumption per kW of a prop vs turbofan, even though the fans are a great improvement over the first generation of jets whose time from full to empty was measured in minutes.
Let's go one better, how about (instead of a 225 foot wingspan) a biplane configuration using the prop/engines from a V22 Osprey. Short haul routes need not be flown at 600mph. Big fuel savings.
My concern would be that slower aircraft would give air traffic controllers issues.
However, in terms of efficiency, and with a potential market, it might be worth a look.
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
answered 3 hours ago
Robert DiGiovanni
37226
37226
To quote this relevant comment: [The] most "efficient" propeller is probably a one-bladed propeller - but efficiency doesn't propel aircraft, thrust does.
– ymb1
2 hours ago
1
This is not an answer, but a comment.
– GdD
51 mins ago
add a comment |Â
To quote this relevant comment: [The] most "efficient" propeller is probably a one-bladed propeller - but efficiency doesn't propel aircraft, thrust does.
– ymb1
2 hours ago
1
This is not an answer, but a comment.
– GdD
51 mins ago
To quote this relevant comment: [The] most "efficient" propeller is probably a one-bladed propeller - but efficiency doesn't propel aircraft, thrust does.
– ymb1
2 hours ago
To quote this relevant comment: [The] most "efficient" propeller is probably a one-bladed propeller - but efficiency doesn't propel aircraft, thrust does.
– ymb1
2 hours ago
1
1
This is not an answer, but a comment.
– GdD
51 mins ago
This is not an answer, but a comment.
– GdD
51 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Not enough thrust
Taking the lightest wide-body, the Airbus A310, its MTOW is 4.5 times that of a Boeing 737.
The 737 equivalent in MTOW in the prop world is the C-130, and it needs 4 propellers.
Simply, there wouldn't be enough space to put the required number of propellers, even when flying slower. The other route is to go as big as the Hughes H-4 Hercules, and even then the A310's MTOW is heavier.
If you are interested in MTOW and T/W ratio sizing, see this chapter on Preliminary Sizing.
The A400M was suggested in a comment as a plane that makes it possible, it doesn't. Its MTOW minus OEW minus Fuel is 15 tonnes, or 115 pax + luggage and no cargo. Also note it's only 4 m wide internally, narrower than the narrowest wide-body, the 767 at 4.72 m, with a max troop capacity of 116.
The other suggested plane, the Antonov An-10, can only carry 100 passengers.
I highly recommend the post, 'How does a fan differ from a propeller?', where Peter Kämpf compares the disc loading of propellers and fans.
- Propellers on a C-130 Hercules: 259.25 kW/m²
- Turbofans on a small BAe 146: 4254.35 kW/m²
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
1
That’s not accurate. You can design a propeller driven airplane with enough power. For example the Russian AN-10 transport powered by 4 15,000SHP engines or the Airbus A-400, both of which have fuselages on size with a wide body airliner.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
The A400 can carry a 60,000 lb payload. If you figure 220 lbs per passenger and their baggage, that’s over 270 paying passengers, typical of a 767 loadout. I just don’t see a design limitation in turboprops which would prevent this. Add an educated guess, I would say it’s more of a matter of mission profile that has dictated the use of jet engines an extremely large aircraft.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
Answer there: don’t carry that much gas. The airplane can carry a 60,000 lb payload with a range of about 3200 NM - greater ranges being possible. Also troops are not going to be comparable with the figures I quoted since a single “troop†may be modeled at around 300-320 lbs (200 lb man + 100 or so lbs of equipment), so those numbers are going to be comparable with a passenger counterpart. This makes an A400 still similar to the long haul capability of a 767.
– Carlo Felicione
35 mins ago
@CarloFelicione - Not enough fuel, then not enough range, and still not a wide-body. Also see update about An-10.
– ymb1
34 mins ago
But the A400 and 767 are roughly comparable. And Airbus close range of around 3200 miles with the 60,000 pound payload aboard that airplane. I guess I’m still not seeing what kind of performance limitation exist to prevent building a large aircraft powered by propellers.
– Carlo Felicione
27 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
Not enough thrust
Taking the lightest wide-body, the Airbus A310, its MTOW is 4.5 times that of a Boeing 737.
The 737 equivalent in MTOW in the prop world is the C-130, and it needs 4 propellers.
Simply, there wouldn't be enough space to put the required number of propellers, even when flying slower. The other route is to go as big as the Hughes H-4 Hercules, and even then the A310's MTOW is heavier.
If you are interested in MTOW and T/W ratio sizing, see this chapter on Preliminary Sizing.
The A400M was suggested in a comment as a plane that makes it possible, it doesn't. Its MTOW minus OEW minus Fuel is 15 tonnes, or 115 pax + luggage and no cargo. Also note it's only 4 m wide internally, narrower than the narrowest wide-body, the 767 at 4.72 m, with a max troop capacity of 116.
The other suggested plane, the Antonov An-10, can only carry 100 passengers.
I highly recommend the post, 'How does a fan differ from a propeller?', where Peter Kämpf compares the disc loading of propellers and fans.
- Propellers on a C-130 Hercules: 259.25 kW/m²
- Turbofans on a small BAe 146: 4254.35 kW/m²
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
1
That’s not accurate. You can design a propeller driven airplane with enough power. For example the Russian AN-10 transport powered by 4 15,000SHP engines or the Airbus A-400, both of which have fuselages on size with a wide body airliner.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
The A400 can carry a 60,000 lb payload. If you figure 220 lbs per passenger and their baggage, that’s over 270 paying passengers, typical of a 767 loadout. I just don’t see a design limitation in turboprops which would prevent this. Add an educated guess, I would say it’s more of a matter of mission profile that has dictated the use of jet engines an extremely large aircraft.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
Answer there: don’t carry that much gas. The airplane can carry a 60,000 lb payload with a range of about 3200 NM - greater ranges being possible. Also troops are not going to be comparable with the figures I quoted since a single “troop†may be modeled at around 300-320 lbs (200 lb man + 100 or so lbs of equipment), so those numbers are going to be comparable with a passenger counterpart. This makes an A400 still similar to the long haul capability of a 767.
– Carlo Felicione
35 mins ago
@CarloFelicione - Not enough fuel, then not enough range, and still not a wide-body. Also see update about An-10.
– ymb1
34 mins ago
But the A400 and 767 are roughly comparable. And Airbus close range of around 3200 miles with the 60,000 pound payload aboard that airplane. I guess I’m still not seeing what kind of performance limitation exist to prevent building a large aircraft powered by propellers.
– Carlo Felicione
27 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Not enough thrust
Taking the lightest wide-body, the Airbus A310, its MTOW is 4.5 times that of a Boeing 737.
The 737 equivalent in MTOW in the prop world is the C-130, and it needs 4 propellers.
Simply, there wouldn't be enough space to put the required number of propellers, even when flying slower. The other route is to go as big as the Hughes H-4 Hercules, and even then the A310's MTOW is heavier.
If you are interested in MTOW and T/W ratio sizing, see this chapter on Preliminary Sizing.
The A400M was suggested in a comment as a plane that makes it possible, it doesn't. Its MTOW minus OEW minus Fuel is 15 tonnes, or 115 pax + luggage and no cargo. Also note it's only 4 m wide internally, narrower than the narrowest wide-body, the 767 at 4.72 m, with a max troop capacity of 116.
The other suggested plane, the Antonov An-10, can only carry 100 passengers.
I highly recommend the post, 'How does a fan differ from a propeller?', where Peter Kämpf compares the disc loading of propellers and fans.
- Propellers on a C-130 Hercules: 259.25 kW/m²
- Turbofans on a small BAe 146: 4254.35 kW/m²
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
Not enough thrust
Taking the lightest wide-body, the Airbus A310, its MTOW is 4.5 times that of a Boeing 737.
The 737 equivalent in MTOW in the prop world is the C-130, and it needs 4 propellers.
Simply, there wouldn't be enough space to put the required number of propellers, even when flying slower. The other route is to go as big as the Hughes H-4 Hercules, and even then the A310's MTOW is heavier.
If you are interested in MTOW and T/W ratio sizing, see this chapter on Preliminary Sizing.
The A400M was suggested in a comment as a plane that makes it possible, it doesn't. Its MTOW minus OEW minus Fuel is 15 tonnes, or 115 pax + luggage and no cargo. Also note it's only 4 m wide internally, narrower than the narrowest wide-body, the 767 at 4.72 m, with a max troop capacity of 116.
The other suggested plane, the Antonov An-10, can only carry 100 passengers.
I highly recommend the post, 'How does a fan differ from a propeller?', where Peter Kämpf compares the disc loading of propellers and fans.
- Propellers on a C-130 Hercules: 259.25 kW/m²
- Turbofans on a small BAe 146: 4254.35 kW/m²
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
edited 36 mins ago
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
answered 4 hours ago
ymb1
61.7k6193322
61.7k6193322
1
That’s not accurate. You can design a propeller driven airplane with enough power. For example the Russian AN-10 transport powered by 4 15,000SHP engines or the Airbus A-400, both of which have fuselages on size with a wide body airliner.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
The A400 can carry a 60,000 lb payload. If you figure 220 lbs per passenger and their baggage, that’s over 270 paying passengers, typical of a 767 loadout. I just don’t see a design limitation in turboprops which would prevent this. Add an educated guess, I would say it’s more of a matter of mission profile that has dictated the use of jet engines an extremely large aircraft.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
Answer there: don’t carry that much gas. The airplane can carry a 60,000 lb payload with a range of about 3200 NM - greater ranges being possible. Also troops are not going to be comparable with the figures I quoted since a single “troop†may be modeled at around 300-320 lbs (200 lb man + 100 or so lbs of equipment), so those numbers are going to be comparable with a passenger counterpart. This makes an A400 still similar to the long haul capability of a 767.
– Carlo Felicione
35 mins ago
@CarloFelicione - Not enough fuel, then not enough range, and still not a wide-body. Also see update about An-10.
– ymb1
34 mins ago
But the A400 and 767 are roughly comparable. And Airbus close range of around 3200 miles with the 60,000 pound payload aboard that airplane. I guess I’m still not seeing what kind of performance limitation exist to prevent building a large aircraft powered by propellers.
– Carlo Felicione
27 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
That’s not accurate. You can design a propeller driven airplane with enough power. For example the Russian AN-10 transport powered by 4 15,000SHP engines or the Airbus A-400, both of which have fuselages on size with a wide body airliner.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
The A400 can carry a 60,000 lb payload. If you figure 220 lbs per passenger and their baggage, that’s over 270 paying passengers, typical of a 767 loadout. I just don’t see a design limitation in turboprops which would prevent this. Add an educated guess, I would say it’s more of a matter of mission profile that has dictated the use of jet engines an extremely large aircraft.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
Answer there: don’t carry that much gas. The airplane can carry a 60,000 lb payload with a range of about 3200 NM - greater ranges being possible. Also troops are not going to be comparable with the figures I quoted since a single “troop†may be modeled at around 300-320 lbs (200 lb man + 100 or so lbs of equipment), so those numbers are going to be comparable with a passenger counterpart. This makes an A400 still similar to the long haul capability of a 767.
– Carlo Felicione
35 mins ago
@CarloFelicione - Not enough fuel, then not enough range, and still not a wide-body. Also see update about An-10.
– ymb1
34 mins ago
But the A400 and 767 are roughly comparable. And Airbus close range of around 3200 miles with the 60,000 pound payload aboard that airplane. I guess I’m still not seeing what kind of performance limitation exist to prevent building a large aircraft powered by propellers.
– Carlo Felicione
27 mins ago
1
1
That’s not accurate. You can design a propeller driven airplane with enough power. For example the Russian AN-10 transport powered by 4 15,000SHP engines or the Airbus A-400, both of which have fuselages on size with a wide body airliner.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
That’s not accurate. You can design a propeller driven airplane with enough power. For example the Russian AN-10 transport powered by 4 15,000SHP engines or the Airbus A-400, both of which have fuselages on size with a wide body airliner.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
The A400 can carry a 60,000 lb payload. If you figure 220 lbs per passenger and their baggage, that’s over 270 paying passengers, typical of a 767 loadout. I just don’t see a design limitation in turboprops which would prevent this. Add an educated guess, I would say it’s more of a matter of mission profile that has dictated the use of jet engines an extremely large aircraft.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
The A400 can carry a 60,000 lb payload. If you figure 220 lbs per passenger and their baggage, that’s over 270 paying passengers, typical of a 767 loadout. I just don’t see a design limitation in turboprops which would prevent this. Add an educated guess, I would say it’s more of a matter of mission profile that has dictated the use of jet engines an extremely large aircraft.
– Carlo Felicione
1 hour ago
Answer there: don’t carry that much gas. The airplane can carry a 60,000 lb payload with a range of about 3200 NM - greater ranges being possible. Also troops are not going to be comparable with the figures I quoted since a single “troop†may be modeled at around 300-320 lbs (200 lb man + 100 or so lbs of equipment), so those numbers are going to be comparable with a passenger counterpart. This makes an A400 still similar to the long haul capability of a 767.
– Carlo Felicione
35 mins ago
Answer there: don’t carry that much gas. The airplane can carry a 60,000 lb payload with a range of about 3200 NM - greater ranges being possible. Also troops are not going to be comparable with the figures I quoted since a single “troop†may be modeled at around 300-320 lbs (200 lb man + 100 or so lbs of equipment), so those numbers are going to be comparable with a passenger counterpart. This makes an A400 still similar to the long haul capability of a 767.
– Carlo Felicione
35 mins ago
@CarloFelicione - Not enough fuel, then not enough range, and still not a wide-body. Also see update about An-10.
– ymb1
34 mins ago
@CarloFelicione - Not enough fuel, then not enough range, and still not a wide-body. Also see update about An-10.
– ymb1
34 mins ago
But the A400 and 767 are roughly comparable. And Airbus close range of around 3200 miles with the 60,000 pound payload aboard that airplane. I guess I’m still not seeing what kind of performance limitation exist to prevent building a large aircraft powered by propellers.
– Carlo Felicione
27 mins ago
But the A400 and 767 are roughly comparable. And Airbus close range of around 3200 miles with the 60,000 pound payload aboard that airplane. I guess I’m still not seeing what kind of performance limitation exist to prevent building a large aircraft powered by propellers.
– Carlo Felicione
27 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
Noise and insufficient demand
Prop driven aircraft have much louder cabins than turbofan driven aircraft. The A400m, offered as an example of a large prop aircraft, requires noise deadening treatment to even get to safe industrial levels of sound, let alone something that a passenger would be willing to endure. The AN10 is beyond ridiculously loud. Turboprop aircraft are aimed at short haul as passengers won't put up with the noise for more than a hour or two.
Any aircraft developed for long haul use needs to be quiet, and this is where widebodies aim. In the few situations where it is economical to use widebody aircraft for short haul routes (ie. Japan's 747D) a quiet widebody can be used with modest incremental cost. Conversely, a prop powered widebody could not be used on long haul with any conceivable current technology; passengers could not tolerate it.
Market demand does not justify the billions in development cost to create a short haul only widebody, especially given the ready availability of a substitute that passengers overwhelmingly prefer.
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
One of the oldest and first turboprops, was hailed for its low cabin noise and external noise. "It became known as "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet exterior noise and smooth flying, although the passenger interior remained less tranquil." The last bit is due to flying low in the weather.
– ymb1
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Noise and insufficient demand
Prop driven aircraft have much louder cabins than turbofan driven aircraft. The A400m, offered as an example of a large prop aircraft, requires noise deadening treatment to even get to safe industrial levels of sound, let alone something that a passenger would be willing to endure. The AN10 is beyond ridiculously loud. Turboprop aircraft are aimed at short haul as passengers won't put up with the noise for more than a hour or two.
Any aircraft developed for long haul use needs to be quiet, and this is where widebodies aim. In the few situations where it is economical to use widebody aircraft for short haul routes (ie. Japan's 747D) a quiet widebody can be used with modest incremental cost. Conversely, a prop powered widebody could not be used on long haul with any conceivable current technology; passengers could not tolerate it.
Market demand does not justify the billions in development cost to create a short haul only widebody, especially given the ready availability of a substitute that passengers overwhelmingly prefer.
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
One of the oldest and first turboprops, was hailed for its low cabin noise and external noise. "It became known as "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet exterior noise and smooth flying, although the passenger interior remained less tranquil." The last bit is due to flying low in the weather.
– ymb1
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Noise and insufficient demand
Prop driven aircraft have much louder cabins than turbofan driven aircraft. The A400m, offered as an example of a large prop aircraft, requires noise deadening treatment to even get to safe industrial levels of sound, let alone something that a passenger would be willing to endure. The AN10 is beyond ridiculously loud. Turboprop aircraft are aimed at short haul as passengers won't put up with the noise for more than a hour or two.
Any aircraft developed for long haul use needs to be quiet, and this is where widebodies aim. In the few situations where it is economical to use widebody aircraft for short haul routes (ie. Japan's 747D) a quiet widebody can be used with modest incremental cost. Conversely, a prop powered widebody could not be used on long haul with any conceivable current technology; passengers could not tolerate it.
Market demand does not justify the billions in development cost to create a short haul only widebody, especially given the ready availability of a substitute that passengers overwhelmingly prefer.
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
Noise and insufficient demand
Prop driven aircraft have much louder cabins than turbofan driven aircraft. The A400m, offered as an example of a large prop aircraft, requires noise deadening treatment to even get to safe industrial levels of sound, let alone something that a passenger would be willing to endure. The AN10 is beyond ridiculously loud. Turboprop aircraft are aimed at short haul as passengers won't put up with the noise for more than a hour or two.
Any aircraft developed for long haul use needs to be quiet, and this is where widebodies aim. In the few situations where it is economical to use widebody aircraft for short haul routes (ie. Japan's 747D) a quiet widebody can be used with modest incremental cost. Conversely, a prop powered widebody could not be used on long haul with any conceivable current technology; passengers could not tolerate it.
Market demand does not justify the billions in development cost to create a short haul only widebody, especially given the ready availability of a substitute that passengers overwhelmingly prefer.
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
answered 15 mins ago
Pilothead
8,24322255
8,24322255
One of the oldest and first turboprops, was hailed for its low cabin noise and external noise. "It became known as "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet exterior noise and smooth flying, although the passenger interior remained less tranquil." The last bit is due to flying low in the weather.
– ymb1
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
One of the oldest and first turboprops, was hailed for its low cabin noise and external noise. "It became known as "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet exterior noise and smooth flying, although the passenger interior remained less tranquil." The last bit is due to flying low in the weather.
– ymb1
1 min ago
One of the oldest and first turboprops, was hailed for its low cabin noise and external noise. "It became known as "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet exterior noise and smooth flying, although the passenger interior remained less tranquil." The last bit is due to flying low in the weather.
– ymb1
1 min ago
One of the oldest and first turboprops, was hailed for its low cabin noise and external noise. "It became known as "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet exterior noise and smooth flying, although the passenger interior remained less tranquil." The last bit is due to flying low in the weather.
– ymb1
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55690%2fwhy-arent-there-any-widebody-propliners%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Why would it even be efficient to use airplanes for such short-haul routes?
– jamesqf
4 hours ago
@jamesqf - An example I can think of is when road networks are hard to build, due to e.g., terrain, such as in Brazil.
– ymb1
4 hours ago
I'm confident that if it were more efficient economically to have widebody propeller driven airplanes on any particular route instead of widebody jets, that would be the choice for air carriers. Of course making money is why airlines are in business and after 90 years of commercial aviation there is much expertise available to ensure operational efficiency is maximized.
– 757toga
3 hours ago