Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Admiral Beez said:
Turboprops are jet engines, only with a propellor shaft connected to the turbine compressor. The nozzle at the back of the Q400's engines isn't just the exhaust, but also serves to provide a degree of jet thrust.
Click to expand...

On what basis do you even make this point?

Turboprop vs Turbofan

While some of the mechanics are the same the two are not similar. A prop produces thrust by accelerating air rearwards through the rotation of its propeller. A jet produces thrust by exhausting hot gas out the rear of the engine and through newtons laws of motion pushes the aircraft forward.

Any additional thrust provided by the exhaust of a turboprop is negligible or non existent.
 
They're both jets. They both have compressors and driving fans. On a turboprop the jet compressor drives an external fan or prop. On a turbofan the jet compressor drives an internal fan.

On a turboprop the exhaust contributes to about 5% of the total thrust http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/329385

My point is, we already have jets at the airport, in both the Q400 and for that matter nearly every helicopter there. I therefore suggest we need a better characterization of what we don't want at the island. It's not NO JETS but no LOUD JETS or BIG JETS or perhaps JETS THAT NEED A LONGER RUNWAY? In the end, I think this is all about the runway and NIMBY.
 
TOareaFan said:
In the past I have said (and I still feel) that regulating noise has nothing to do with technology.......I always meant that in a general sense .

I don't know much about aircraft noise profiles so I really mean that we should set a noise level we accept and accept any planes that can operate below that level and ban any planes that are above that level. I fully expected, and accepted, that this would allow more props than jets...and may, in fact, not allow any jets.

A friend sent me this link the other day. It is about a totally different airport and I have no idea on the accuracy of the comparisons they show (around page 6) but it is the sort of analysis we should do. If this writer is correct, we are allowing a lot of non-jets to land that are actually noisier than a lot of jets that are banned.

It really makes no sense to me.

http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/home/noise_comparison.pdf
Click to expand...

I would like to see the nojetsto group respond to this report since 1/3 of their argument is potentially debunked.
 
I understand the argument of not wanting to add more flights to the airport. At the same time, why not seize the opportunity to attract more business opportunity and tourism to the city as well with the direct flights to the south and western US?

If the jets are quieter and then the Q400 planes, why not let them use it.

The questions should be
-Is there a prototype that can function on the current landing strip?
If yes, Porter should pursue those planes if they are indeed quieter or seek to find planes that can be both quiet and use the current infrastructure.

What about making Porter pitch in for a major infrastructure revamp like a streetcar loop at the Airport to ease traffic at the airport.

Just throwing ideas
 
the problem is...many of the people who argue based on noise have never heard the C-100 take off or land compared to the q-400.
They did a low flyby a couple months ago and nobody in the waterfront even realized that it was there unless they saw it.
 
At the end of the day, the debate is dead, at least until Trudeau is out of power, likely not until about 2027. So Deluce and the Porter gang had better sort out their affairs with what they've got.
 
Admiral Beez said:
They're both jets. They both have compressors and driving fans. On a turboprop the jet compressor drives an external fan or prop. On a turbofan the jet compressor drives an internal fan.

On a turboprop the exhaust contributes to about 5% of the total thrust http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/329385

My point is, we already have jets at the airport, in both the Q400 and for that matter nearly every helicopter there. I therefore suggest we need a better characterization of what we don't want at the island. It's not NO JETS but no LOUD JETS or BIG JETS or perhaps JETS THAT NEED A LONGER RUNWAY? In the end, I think this is all about the runway and NIMBY.
Click to expand...

No need to raise your voice. International Air Regulations differentiate between props and jets, so there is obviously a distinction between the two.

However since you want to make the claim that nearly all aircraft are jets at this point (based on your comments) than it's clear that the tripartite agreement is not about noise or pollution or anything else. It's a technology choice that's about restricting use of the airport. If they banned aircraft simply based on noise, some of the helicoptors, and personal prop aircraft (think flight training schools) would not be able to use the airport. In the end I think the goal was to either restrict use to small personal aircraft and preventing the use of the airport for commercial flights, or to close it completely. It would be interesting if someone bright lawyer could turn the whole agreement into a house of cards based on the notion that the result of the agreement (i.e. barring jet aircraft as defined by being non propeller driven aircraft) does not achieve the stated purpose of the agreement, (i.e. protecting the waterfront from excessive noise and pollution from the airport) based on the following:

1: Nearly all aircraft being used today have some form of jet engine, therefore using the term "jet" in the restriction is imprecise, and too wide ranging.
2: The selection of barring "jet" aircraft excludes aircraft that might be quieter and/or less polluting than a prop aircraft

Therefore the tripartite agreement as a tool for managing the island airport and it's use/growth is ineffective and therefore should be cancelled.
 
TOareaFan said:
Is that link supposed to show that they are asking for 50 more slots.....because it doesn't. Is there any evidence that they are asking for more slots as part of this runway expansion and jets, within certain noise parameters, being allowed?
Click to expand...

Fourth paragraph from the bottom of the linked article:

"Porter has said the terminal at Billy Bishop would need to be expanded to accommodate the CSeries and that it would need an additional 50 landing slots at the airport for the first 12 CSeries when they arrive in 2016 and 2017." (emphasis mine). What does this mean, then, if not that they are looking for 50 more slots?
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Fourth paragraph from the bottom of the linked article:

"Porter has said the terminal at Billy Bishop would need to be expanded to accommodate the CSeries and that it would need an additional 50 landing slots at the airport for the first 12 CSeries when they arrive in 2016 and 2017." (emphasis mine). What does this mean, then, if not that they are looking for 50 more slots?
Click to expand...
It really means two things:

  1. Sunday nights my reading comprehension is way down and I should not rely on just two reads of an article before I assume I have got it right; and
  2. I owe you an apology....consider this an apology!
 
FWIW, I'm interested by the number of 'but the new jets are quieter' arguments from BB expansion supporters. Has noise really been the major point of debate all this time? Since I don't live on the harbour, anything short of a daily Toronto Air Show level of noise seems like a bit of a straw man argument.

For me, being against the expansion is about the, well, expansion. As in, much longer runway, bigger terminal, bigger planes, more slots, more traffic as the passengers get to the airport, etc. I don't think we need a regional airport in downtown Toronto, but I understand that others like it a lot so I'm not advocating we do a Chicago and draw an X across the runway with a tractor. But I really don't get the idea of taking prime waterfront and making it into a much bigger airport. There are so many other, more lucrative as well as more 'socially' valuable uses for Toronto's main connection with Lake Ontario.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
FWIW, I'm interested by the number of 'but the new jets are quieter' arguments from BB expansion supporters. Has noise really been the major point of debate all this time? Since I don't live on the harbour, anything short of a daily Toronto Air Show level of noise seems like a bit of a straw man argument.
Click to expand...

Can only speak for myself on this....but I am not necessarily pro or anti airport expansion.......but more in favour of this (all?) decision being made based on science and fact. Yes, noise is one of the complaints and I have just been long in favour of using the science we have to measure noise rather than legislating technology.

Riverdale Rink Rat said:
For me, being against the expansion is about the, well, expansion. As in, much longer runway, bigger terminal, bigger planes, more slots, more traffic as the passengers get to the airport, etc. I don't think we need a regional airport in downtown Toronto, but I understand that others like it a lot so I'm not advocating we do a Chicago and draw an X across the runway with a tractor. But I really don't get the idea of taking prime waterfront and making it into a much bigger airport. There are so many other, more lucrative as well as more 'socially' valuable uses for Toronto's main connection with Lake Ontario.
Click to expand...

Again, I think you can deal with those things in a more thoughtful agreement and in a more "scientific" manner. Is it a "much" longer runway? (taking into account the legilslated safety lengthening that is going to happen anyway). If so, how does it impact other users and can that be managed....if not say no...but "no jets" does not do that. Bigger terminal? As far as I know, there is no plan to enlarge the terminal...that has been done. Bigger planes? Again, "no jets" does not do that...if BBD came up with a Q800 that carried 2X as many passengers as the Q400 but could still land on the runways at YTZ....how has "no jets" helped there? More landing slots....surely you could approve the C Series jets and still say "but you have to fit those in with your current number of slots"....etc etc.
 
If Bombardier want to have C-Series land at YTZ they need to rig a CS100 for medevac. Job done.

The westward extension isn't as problematic as the eastern one, since the boats have more room to manoeuvre at that end. I would definitely like to see an engineered materials arresting surface at the ends of 08/26.
 
TOareaFan said:
Can only speak for myself on this....but I am not necessarily pro or anti airport expansion.......but more in favour of this (all?) decision being made based on science and fact. Yes, noise is one of the complaints and I have just been long in favour of using the science we have to measure noise rather than legislating technology.

Again, I think you can deal with those things in a more thoughtful agreement and in a more "scientific" manner. Is it a "much" longer runway? (taking into account the legilslated safety lengthening that is going to happen anyway). If so, how does it impact other users and can that be managed....if not say no...but "no jets" does not do that. Bigger terminal? As far as I know, there is no plan to enlarge the terminal...that has been done. Bigger planes? Again, "no jets" does not do that...if BBD came up with a Q800 that carried 2X as many passengers as the Q400 but could still land on the runways at YTZ....how has "no jets" helped there? More landing slots....surely you could approve the C Series jets and still say "but you have to fit those in with your current number of slots"....etc etc.
Click to expand...

Again, with due respect, 'The Truth is Out There":

http://www.thestar.com/business/tec...s-of-high-costs-for-jets-at-billy-bishop.html

Even if you trust Porter's figures rather than Air Canada's claims, the runway is being expanded by 36% (1216m to 1658m). Yes, IMHO, that is a "much" longer runway. If you take AC's claims at face value, it's a "much much" longer runway.

The first article I linked above quoted Deluce as saying the CSeries will need an expanded terminal. In the same sentence as the slots comment you overlooked the first time. I'm starting to think that you're only pretending to be reasonable and are actually trolling.

Sure, take the catchy 'NoJets' phrase off the table. How 'bout "NoAsphaltInMyHarbour"?
 
If Porter got off this crazy notion of transcontinental flights, requiring heavy takeoff weights, maybe they wouldn't need so much extra runway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top