As you’ll read in this issue, there are still many compelling reasons for regional aircraft operators to continue operating tuboprops. Lower operating costs, the ability to use short take-off and landing runways and lighter engines with fewer moving parts than an equivalent jet all make a sound business case for continuing to use the technology. Unfortunately, customers think otherwise.
There’s something about propellers that sends passengers into a rosary-bead-counting frenzy. Is it because they (incorrectly)/ associate anything with open-air fans with the ancient piston engines of pre-war aircraft? Or is it the added noise and vibration in the cabin? Perhaps it’s just that propellers are a visible sign of how an aircraft stays in the air.
Safran and GE’s RISE project (Which we examine elsewhere in the issue) shows that there is a real-world need for a modern open rotor design. Designed on the worlds largest supercomputer, the new engine looks like it will give double-figure percentage savings on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. As one CFM executive quipped, “That’s the kind of money we can’t just leave on the table.”
Whatever the reason i’d suggest it is time that customer-facing propeller Pas are made to explain that props are safe, efficient for shorter trips.
On the other side modern jet engines give LCCs the option to fly further for longer. Consider Wizz Air’s announcement that it will fly from London or Milan to destinations across the Middle East for a third of the cost of the existing carriers. Moving people over this kind of distance separates what a low cost carrier is and does, when compared with a regional airline…. Although whether passengers will put up with Wizz’s famously fixed bolt-upright seats for an eight-hour flight, only time will tell.