Efficient Modern Turboprop Aircraft are Making a Comeback
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 06. 6.08
The turboprop aircraft is making a comeback, with sales to one of the only remaining manufacturers quadrupling in 2007 and a continued upsurge expected. With high oil prices, concerns over climate change, and uncertain economic conditions keeping airlines nervous, the return cannot come a moment too soon. As our very own Lloyd Alter testified after his bike/turboprop trip from Toronto to NYC, turboprops are among the most efficient aircraft in the skies, using only 64% of fuel per seat compared to the average jet (we’ve gone into more detail about turboprops in our overview of Porter Airlines and we’ve watched how a UK low-cost carrier has been producing eco-labels to back up their efficiency claims). So it’s no surprise our ears pricked up when we heard a report on NPR’s Marketplace about the renewed interest in turboprops among major carriers.
Continental Adopting Turboprops
Continental Airlines is putting 74-seat turboprops on various short-haul routes out of Newark this year, and claims that per seat the airline is probably saving 30% as a result of fuel efficiency and higher seating capacity. And while other airlines say they are not currently considering turboprops, orders of the Bombardier Q400 model shot up from 24 in 2006 to nearly 4 times that number in 2007. Micheline Maynard, aviation correspondent for the New York Times, tells NPR that with high fuel prices continuing to effect profits, passengers should not be surprised to find themselves strapped into a turboprop in the near future:
“Jet fuel prices now are just under $4 a gallon and that's up almost double from what it was a year ago and if these prices stay high, I think you'll see a lot more airlines gravitate to orders for these new turboprop planes. With the airlines pulling down service to cities, eliminating cities altogether, if this is the only way they can get there, I think they'll be satisfied to fly them.”
Potential for Biofuel Planes?
Not mentioned in the report is the prospect that while Branson and others continue to explore biofuels for jets, we understand that turboprops can run on biodiesel relatively easily (probably blended to account for temperature issues). Of course with the current crisis over the cost of food, this may only make sense if recent moves to make algae biodiesel commercially viable pay off.
Alternatives to Flying
It probably goes without saying that, turboprop or not, flying is not likely to beat the efficiencies of electrified high-speed rail or intercity bus transit any time soon. With Eurostar, the UK to mainland Europe train operator, claiming carbon emissions 10-times lower than equivalent airline routes (and that was before they went carbon neutral), it’s no wonder that airlines are losing passengers to rail where real competition exists. That competition can only help drive a revival in turboprops among airlines as one of the means to reduce their impact and cut their costs.
More on TreeHugger about Turboprop Aircraft
Perhaps Flying Turboprop Isn’t Dying
Turboprops Get Ecolabel
More on Aviation and Biofuels
Virgin Experimenting with Biofuel for Jets
Biodiesel for Aircraft Q&A
Air New Zealand Biofuelling Through the High Skies
More on Airlines and High Oil Prices
British Airway’s Profits Squeezed by Eurostar and High Oil Prices
Are Eco-Loonies Damaging Ryanair’s Sales After All?
Airlines Cut Flights and Planes to Save Fuel
Airlines Save Gas By Slowing Down, Just Like Drivers
More on Alternatives to Flying
Seat 61: Get There Without Flying
Eurostar to Cut Emissions 25% and Offset the Rest
Spain’s New High-Speed Rail Challenging the Airlines
High-Speed Rail Comes to the Americas
CA High-Speed Rail Initiative: “If We Don’t Pass This, We Will Never Have High-Speed Trains in the US”
::NPR Marketplace::via site visit::
Yea, well, have you ever flown on some of the current fleet? I have, out west a lot. The cabin noise is beyond horrific. I'm talking OSHA violation for the flight staff kind of loud. They are also horribly cramped, much smaller seats/leg area than even the most crammed jet.
They're going to have to address these issues if they want the public to accept the perceived step back in technology.
I guess it's kind of like going from a Crown Victoria to a Yaris?
I hope rail developments catch on and people use trains more. The skies are overcrowded, like everyplace else.
vsk
Willy bio: I found the noise level on the Q400 to be no worse than any other plane I have been on. In fact, it was pretty quiet. I found this on a Bombardier press release:
"Bombardier's engineers have focused their efforts on both the internal and external environment. The Q400 aircraft features a revolutionary Active Noise and Vibration Suppression (ANVS) system that reduces the vibrations in the fuselage, stopping much of the noise and vibration from entering the cabin.
The low noise levels should be no surprise; after all, the "Q" in the Q400 stands for quiet."
However; the people living nearby Toronto's island airport say "The Q400 aircraft flying out of the Island airport generate unacceptable levels of noise."
I think switching back to turboprops would be a good move, not only are the more fuel efficient based off the info in the post, but they are simpler to make. No need to harvest nickel and turn it into fan blades that run at ridiculous speeds.
Remember, we switched to jets to make these trips faster, but I would be okay with a slightly slower treck (hell ever a 3 hour flight seems to kill a day no matter what), might as well extend the flight time and enjoy it a bit more.
@Rbecho
I think turboprops still need nickel. The "fan blades" on modern turbofans are the blades of the fan at the front of the engine. They are now being made of carbon composite. (GE90, GEnx, RR Trent, GP7200). Older engines used titanium.
The nickel is used in the turbine blades, which sit in the exhaust stream and harvest the work of combustion. The use of nickel (alloys) here is used to make withstand the heat. Thermodynamic Law says that the higher temps at the turbine blades work out to better efficiency for the engines. So here the you should be recouping the negative of the use of nickel and other exotic metals are with more efficient fuel use.
Noise level could be avoided with rentals of noise cancellation headphones, airline saves money on fuel and makes a bit of money renting headphones.
I would rather they hand them out for free, but realistically probably won't happen.
Hard to imagine, but the military is way ahead on this one. The most common transport aircraft in the US military is the C-130 Hercules which has been in service for over 50 years. The C-130 is powered by 4 turboprops. A civilian version, the L-100, was made in very limited numbers. The Hercules can land just about anywhere, including aircraft carriers, and can carry over 90 passengers. Of course like all military vehicles, passenger comfort isn't even taken into consideration.
Does Eurostar count the payback of the CO2 footprint produced by the construction of the Channel Tunnel?
I doubt it.
Sure trains are better on straight operational CO2 emission, but they require tremendous infrastructure, including fantastic quantities of steel and concrete.
Now that it's operating, it should of course be used. But I question the wisdom of this sort of mega project on a CO2 footprint basis.
@ Willy Bio,
It is possible that the tight quarters in the turbo props is a large contributor to fuel efficiency. In a conventional tube and wing plane, the size of the tube, which dictates the interior cross-section, is heavily contributing to the cross-sectional drag area. A larger tube mean more shoulder room, but it also means more fuel burn. The larger tube also means more structure and skin material and more mass, the killer of fuel efficiency.
The flying wing architecture, like the B2 Bomber, is much more efficient. I wonder how many people the B2 could carry if it traded its bombs for babes.
Wow!
1. This ends the High Speed Rail between LA and San Francisco prospects. The fare was expected to be about twice that of a jet fare. A comparison with turboprops will put the train ticket at more than twice the price of a flight in a turboprop.
2. Runways of about 5,000 ft. will be able to handle passengers as soon as they get an airline to bring turbos.
3. For very long flights the 787, A380, A350 and 747-8 will survive until Russia, China, Canada or Brazil bring out a large turboprop passenger airplane with 2 or 4 large turboprop engines of the type in the European A400M 4-turboprop cargo (first flight in October, 2008). This might be race.
4. When Europe begins to enforce their planned restrictions on Carbon and Nitrogen Emissions, that would be met by truboprops, the small and medium size passenger jets will fade away.