Greener Aircraft, Innovative Design Topic

didn't find much when searched this topic...so to start a thread on an interesting topic, and it certainly is bound to evolve further, quickly i think too

i have been reading up on a number of interesting industry initiatives ....some of the bigger dollar ones is like the NASA challenge $, and airbus, etc

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/news/news115990.html

http://www.greenlaunches.com/transport/airbus-designs-clean-and-green-aircraft-with-revolutionary-designing.php

these initiatives apply really to the larger aircraft, and of course the small/exp/home-built aircraft are more so by design...i'm intersted also in the mid-size aircraft market too, like 20 passenger size ....is the mid-size market a growth one?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/future_airplanes.html

the british easyjet program is interesting ....short haul narrow body craft

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1181861871.html

the air-taxi segment is interesting, for regular domestic flyers to use the charter ports, y-passing the long wait main ports ...is this a growth segment?

...not wanting to bring up the eclipse air debate, but light-weight jets seems still a viable market too

certainly there are many goals, better efficiency, less fuel use, noise, etc ....of interest to me are the technical innovations, new materials, new construction methods and design ideas ....civilian market, more so then military ...and then of course there are the newly opening markets, china, asia, etc

this crowd are in the industry, so i'm sure is a lot more insight on things then just what is reported publically ...and make for some intersting discussion

 

What could be greener than wood and grade A cotton construction and an engine that uses Castor oil?

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Flying will never exactly be green... but having said that I've wondered for several years why the Piaggio p180 Avanti II is not more popular.

I sorta expected the Hollyweird types to embrace it, but maybe they don't want to draw attention to the fact they jet around whereas they love to be seen in their Prius. And forgetting the green part, they are bigger and cheaper to operate than most mid sized biz jets. And the speed is basically comparable and the range is good too.

Maybe someone with more experience in that sized craft can tell me why we don't see more hotrod turbo props... To me this is more viable product that the personal jets (VLJs) the industry is so in love with. But maybe someone can disabuse me.

If I were buying a frac tomorrow, I'd be hard pressed not to go with Avantair.

 

You don't see Piaggios because they cost double what a comparably sized jet costs. It's like buying a Ferrari as a daily driver. Piaggio is still a very, very expensive plane to operate.

My plane gets better mileage than my car. Load it up with people and bags, give her a tail wind and it's about the cheapest and fastest mode of transportation available on the planet.

Airplanes have become much more efficient in the last 10 years. You can see this in the used airplane market. Many older jets can't be given away because they burn too much gas and converting them costs more than they are worth.

Just like cars, gas prices are dictating new designs. I just filled up my plane for $7.10 a gallon. Ouch.

 

Because of their much better fuel efficiency, turboprops have a lot of advantages over VLJ's. Range, payload, runway length, (both landing and taking off) in addition to operating costs all favor the turboprops. I am a big believer in them, but have a vested interst so perhaps I am not as objective as a typical buyer.

Problem is they are not going to be as quiet, not fly quite as high, not quite as fast and won't be any less expensive to buy. The cost of a gearbox and prop is higher than a fan stage, so you will spend a bit more to go a little bit slower, but burn a lot less fuel. If JetA is over 7 bucks a gallon that's probably somewhere near the tipping point. When it was less than 4 bucks a gallon everybody was buying VLJ's. The though was if you could afford a jet you could affort to fuel it. As fuel costs go up that may no longer be the case. The longer fuel prices stay up the more incentive to develop new turboprops.

 

the aircraft industry in general has been reflective of the "cheap fuel" economy we've been living in ....like the way US sells danish cookies to denmark, they import the same to the US?? ...transportation is costly and fuel use is extreme in volume, so even seemingly moderate changes that reduce are effective

for medium size domestic flights i like the developing diesel powered prop aircraft yet to come out ....lightweight yet cost effective construction methods are needed

the piaggio is an amazing looking machine, fast to, at $7 million a piece, high price for that size of craft, luxury/exec focused ....it sure fits the short-hop bill, from state-to-state or europe country-to-country meetings

not including the large passenger jets (a380, etc) .....what is the segment that needs changes/improvement most?

 

HUH? A P180 costs $7 million. A Lear 40 will set you back almost 10.

Yeah the Lear 40 is a bit faster and that particular jet blows away the P180 in range. But you get a bigger cabin for half the hourly cost with the 180.

Here's a chart Avantair sent me a while back as part of a proposal.

I'm not saying it blows all light or mid-sized jets out the water... What I am saying is that as the world grows greener and more efficient, I'm surprised big turbos have not poached more of the biz jet market.

There may be a good reason they have not taken off (no pun intended) but I'm not buying acquisition cost. Also note the fuel surcharge.. that's back when fuel was $3.50 a gallon. You can basically double that number now.

.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

"comprably sized jets".

The Piaggio is a little plane. Compare it's size to a Beech Premier. They're the same.

A Lear 40 is in a different league.

Turboprops are more popular. Just not twin turboprops. Pilatus PC12NG is where it's at. Bigger than a Piaggio. Slower but with a lot more range. Doesn't matter if it's slower if you don't have to stop for gas.

 

Um... No.
http://www.avantair.com/avantair-p.180-cabin.html

Do you know anything about this aircraft?

I've researched this quite a bit. with the P180 you get (in general terms) the speed and range of a light jet with cabin of a mid-jet and the price of a light. (generally speaking of course) That's a very tempting package for many.

Piaggio and Avantair are doing fine, but my point was I'm surprised they pretty much have this segment of the market to themselves. I understand it in one regard, Beech is the most likely to be successful in this space and they don't want to poach their own sales.... Ditto Cessna... But I would have thought Piper or someone else would challenge them in this market.

 

I'm not talking about cabin height and width. I'm talking useful load. Yes, I know the Avanti.

You don't need to sell me on Turboprop. I own one.

I didn't say Piaggio isn't doing well. They, like most manufacturers right now are building to order. But the reason you don't see more is $$$. The Beech Premier or Citation is a lot more bang for the buck if you need that jet speed. You also have to take the used market into account right now. I'm a pilot and speaking from a pilots perspective which is "I fly the airplane and pay all the bills". I'm not speaking from a fractional perspective.

Beech and Cessna are much larger manufacturers than Piper or Avanti. Beech built the Starship which is what the Piaggio is designed off of. Hawker/Beech builds a lot of different planes as does Cessna. The Piaggio is an "exotic" design and it's a bad ass plane. I'm not knocking it. I'm just telling you why you don't see many. For the money, I'll buy a Beech Premier.

I can get a 2007 Premier with 1500 hours for under $3 million. The same P180 will cost over $5 million. So, $2 million buys a lot of gas. Plus, I don't know where you get a P180 serviced or how available parts are.

 

I'm going to skip all the fancy quotes and use old school >

>The Beech Premier or Citation is a lot more bang for the buck if you need that jet speed.

I guess that's part of my point. Who -really- needs that speed? I forget max cruise on the Avanti but I know it is about 370kn... that's pretty darn quick. IIRC, that's only about 50 kn less than a Premier and for most of the missions these planes fly, that is not really significant. And you trade that little speed for a bigger cabin... it's not like you're not getting something in return. (also you can land it basically anywhere, it only needs like 4000 feet)

> I'm a pilot and speaking from a pilots perspective which is "I fly the airplane and pay all the bills". I'm not speaking from a fractional perspective.

Well fair enough but if we're talking twins and over 6 pax you're pretty much talking corporate of some flavor... Few owner operators at this level. (esp. jets)

>I can get a 2007 Premier with 1500 hours for under $3 million. The same P180 will cost over $5 million.

THIS is very true. But Piper et al don't sell used crafts.. Look, I'm nowhere near qualified to tell the CEO of Piper (or whoever) how to run an airplane business... But as someone VERY interested in this marketplace who has watched it for years., I sit and wonder why they are leaving Piaggio alone in the space.

The fact a P180 used is fetching 2 million more than a Premier tells you the demand is higher for the 180. And avantair is apparently still buying planes even in the recession.. so I guess the demand is pretty good, I'm just not sure why all their competitors are leaving them alone. Seems like a growth market to me.

My suspicion is that many folks at this level don't want to fly around in a prop job. As someone with more of an aviation background props don't other me... trading a bit of speed for a bigger cabin and (in some cases) nearly half the per/hour cost, the decision is a no brainer... but probably for some, real planes don't use propellers.

I'm not really a betting man, but I'd put money that a dozen years from now there is a bigger markert for super-sized turbos than VLJs.

 

speaking to the idea of the avanti in a growth area of the market, here is an article of thier planned expansion, along that same line of thought i guess!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/30/354920/avantair-plots-global-expansion-with-avanti.html

interestingly that particular design was started back in the late '70's, languished through the '80's until investors came solid in 1998 ...talk about a late bloomer!

i can understand saying those people/business' that can afford a plane at the $5-7 mil range prefer the "jet" over a prop driven plane ...the inage or style of a jet over prop craft?


if this is a demand are of the market, what's out there for prospective new aircraft for that segment?

does anyone know of a diesel (so i guess must be piston driven) bigger then the 200 shp size craft??

 

I don't need the extra speed. I own neither a Premier or an Avanti. I think they're both a big waste of money. I'm just saying if had to choose either/or in the same size and capability, I'd take the Premier.

The Premier sells for less on the used market because it's less when it's new by about $3million. Once again.... That's why I see Premiers everywhere when I fly and I see a P180 maybe once a month.

I'm a turbprop man. I do not like jets. Jets exist for 1 reason and that's sex appeal. If you want to look pimp, buy a jet. And that works. A lot of people do it. I have friends with jets that use them to routinely fly 250nm and they would never consider a turboprop because it has propeller. I think that's nuts but that's how they are.

I can fly the PC12 from Las Vegas to Atlanta in 5.5 hours (no wind) non stop with 9 people on board on half the gas of the P180 and 1/3rd the gas of the Premier. You can't do that mission in a P180 or a Premier. You can't get greener than that.

The P180 is awesome. If I was buying a fractional and someone else was flying it and I was sitting in the back with that large cabin I'd want it too. But the cockpit on the PC12 is larger than that of the P180. If fly it so I buy what's most comfortable for me. Everyone else is getting a free ride so they can stay home if they don't like my plane. Hasn't happened yet though.

 

Don't get me wrong... I'm not knocking the PC12... if I were buying today, that would be on my short list. (Although I'd love a Maule but I'm funny that way ;-)
-----

But back to the topic of the post, (making greenier planes) Lemme rephrase my original comment... First, (in my book) there is not much low hanging fruit in the single engine prop or the airliner world... there might be some revolutionary tech coming down the pike one day but those segments are pretty optimized.

To me the segment of the market that has the most potential for greenification is the small jet world. And to me one of the best ways to do it is twin turboprops.

I'm just surprised with all the 'green stress' corporations are under and the economy in general that the market has not moved this way any faster. I see it as inevitable, I'm just surprised how long it is taking.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you see it as inevitable?

 

I'm no expert on turbine engines but I know a lot of people who are.

The story I get is that there're up against a wall when it comes to turbine development. They have pushed physics to the limit. Turbine engines are what they are and they need a lot of fuel to work properly.

 

so they can't develop them further with existing materials...i've heard that as well ....they can just make them smaller now

for medium range service, i'm really wonder why diesel prop driven 'dash' size aircraft haven't been developed ....it seems to me that would be a great economic advantage to a charter firm, or a even main airline too

 

how does fuel consumption compare of same size (pass capacity) medium aircraft, if powered by either jet or turbo-prop?

i'm guessing that the jet has better speed (less travel time) and higher service ceiling, but the T-prop better fuel consumption, but much slower, possibly better range though?


i can understand this part of the air industry slow to develop/evolve this, as it seems there are so many existing (used) aircraft out there, still with 10-15-20 years service life, and at a significantly lower purchase price...
...am i right?

what do you guys (in the know) think on things to come?

 

LOL yes...you're not using "green wood" though are you?

(edit: oops, that statment sounded vulger somehow)

 

I've heard the smaller they get the less efficient they get. The latest is the Rolls Royce 500. I love this engine but can't find where it's being used at all.

I'm not familiar with diesel prop. What is this? Are you referring to diesel engines used for airplanes? If so, so far nobody has been able to make them work properly. Lot's of cooling issues.

Like I said, I'm just regurgitating info. I'm no expert. But I read about the subject a lot.

 

gotcha, yes smaller = less efficient ...i only know from reading, but they have done a few lately for the VLJ type crafts (proposed) , but to me it's still a jet engine, and being less efficient, would make the VLJ rather thirsty i would think? IMO

yes, i'm very curious about diesel powered aircraft ....coming from the oil patch and canadian north, diesel powers almost everything

....i hadn't heard that about diesel engine, cooling issues in aircraft ....why would that be i wonder? i mean what is the particular issue of that?

edit
here is one i found: 500hp, v12 TT, 705 lbs (wow, heavy)
http://www.dieselair.com/2010/11/introducing-raikhlin-red-a03-500hp-aero.html
successfully completed a full-scale flight test of the most powerful modern diesel piston engine designed for General Aviation. Initial flight test on a modified Yak 52 is the beginning of the exploration of defined parameters for RED A03 engine installation within which the engine may operate – from normal to extreme conditions. It is a water & oil-cooled double OHC, V12, common-rail direct injection engine. The propeller is gear-driven (single-stage, 1/1.67 ratio). Compression is 16.5. It is the product of RED Aircraft GmbH in Adenau, Germany. Testing location was limited by the range of the telemetry equipment on the ground. The engine generates 370 kW (500HP) take off power in basic specification, at around 3,900 rpm, showing a specific (JETA/diesel) fuel consumption of 210-220 gr/kWh. Full spec. engine weight at the moment is 320 kg (705 Lbs.),- two alternators, starter, engine/gearbox oil heat exchanger, prop governor. Initial test data showed the engine performance met all expectations

 

No, I was not saying that turbines could be considerably more efficient than they are today...

My theory is that since turboprops are 'greenier' (even if marginally) and cheaper (even if marginally) and they can perform competitively in the the biz jet space that green and market pressures will make them considerably more popular in that market space than they are today.

If you'll allow an analogy, the hybrid car a widely adopted (supposed) green technology because at the end of the day, it's not much of a downgrade in capability. (as a pure battery/electric car would be) Same with a P180 class turbo aircraft...

Or put another way, if forced to nix the jet, execs will fly with a prop long before they'll fly commercial.

 

Well there ya go. 750lbs ain't gonna cut it. An 1100hp Pratt and Whitney is about 350lbs.

VLJ's are silly. They don't work. A single engine jet would be a real winner IMHO. In case you can't tell, I think twins are silly.

Jet's have to be big to work properly because they have to be able to carry a lot of fuel. G5's work great. HondaJet doesn't.

 

I think you're buying into the marketing a little too much. Yes, turboprops are more efficient than jets. But most companies will buy a King Air 350 before they buy a P180. In fact, you could probably buy a couple KA350's for the price of a P180. The numbers quoted by manufacturers are always fluffed up a lot.

Pilots are a hearty bunch. It's all I hang with. I don't know any of them that would drive a Prius or buy into the idea that the planet is running out of oil or anything green. "Green" is B.S.

Environmentalists want all planes grounded.

 

The RR500 doesn't have a home and it probably won't find one. This engine is actualy a new compressor fitted to a C20 (that had an axi-centrifugal compressor). The new compressor is a single stage machine, so it is a good bit less expensive to make when compared to the older compressor. Unfortunately the new compressor makes a bit less pressure ratio than the old one, so the power is down a bit compared to the C20, but the cost is less. The fuel consumption is high because the engine doesn't have much pressure ratio, and that's the reason the fuel consumption isn't any better than the C20.

The problem with this engine is that it doesn't have much power at altitude. It can make 500 hp at sea level, but up at 25k it probably won't make 280 hp.

Turboprops need to be sized for your altitude cruise point. After that, you derate it to what the aircraft can handle at low altitudes. You don't want to put a bigger rating on the engine than the airplane can handle because that increases the weight of the gearbox and shafting. For example on the Meridian, the PT6-42 is rated a lot lower than the 1040 hp it would make a sea level.

The RR500 is an orphan because it is really a helicopter engine with a prop box on it. It really isn't big enough for something like a Bonanza or a Cirrus that are using a 300 hp turbo Continental. At altitude the turbo recip will go right on by. If you are going to pay 3x as much for an engine it should at least perform as well as the pistion engine it replaces.

 

I guess that's the problem, we're talking about too different worlds... you're talking about a world were the pilots own their own planes. I'm talking about a world where the pilots are employees.