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

robmausser said:
This is a turboPROP that Embraer is building out of the E-195-E2 frame.

It has the same seating as an E-195-E2, can travel nearly as far and nearly as fast, and has a planned minimum runway takeoff just slightly larger than the existing Island runway. Only minimal expansions would be needed.
Click to expand...

What I've seen is 70-100 seats:

simpleflying.com

Embraer Wants To Launch Its Turboprop Plane Next Year

simpleflying.com simpleflying.com

Also, if they keep the same skinny wing and tail mount the engines, field performance will be terrible. No way they will be able to operate without a runway extension.

Maybe it's what Porter wants. But aside from the technical issues, I can't see the business case. The Q400 fleet is only half way through its life. Getting a new fleet would be expensive. And not very necessary now that they are opening up multiple new hubs (Pearson, Ottawa, etc) that bypass the Island.
 
kEiThZ said:
Also, if they keep the same skinny wing and tail mount the engines, field performance will be terrible.
Click to expand...

Yes it has a max of 100 seats. Sorry its roughly the same as the a200-100 and Embraer e-190. The 195 will never operate from the island, its bigger than the a200-100 that they previously wanted.

LOL at the wing comment. Turboprops require a skinnier wing than jets due to how they move air differently than jet engines. A large wing while creating more lift actually creates more drag than a skinny one as well, but its simply a necessity with a jet engine. You actually want the skinniest wing possible while you have the same amount of lift.
 
robmausser said:
Sorry its roughly the same as the a200-100 and Embraer e-190.
Click to expand...

The max seating for an A220-100 is 135. Swiss, for example, uses 125 seats with some designated as Eurobusiness. Delta fits 109 with a full North American business cabin. The A221 is substantially larger than an E190 sized aircraft and only a touch smaller than an E195 sized aircraft. Using the seat pitches from the E195, a Porter configuration of the A221 would be in the 110-120 range.

robmausser said:
LOL at the wing comment. Turboprops require a skinnier wing than jets due to how they move air differently than jet engines. A large wing while creating more lift actually creates more drag than a skinny one as well, but its simply a necessity with a jet engine. You actually want the skinniest wing possible while you have the same amount of lift.
Click to expand...

I have some vague recollection on how aspect ratio applies from the aerodynamics classes I took in grad school and flight school....

In this particular case, the wing loading will be the problem. A higher wing loading results in a higher rotation speed and a longer balanced field length. The reason why turboprops can usually have shorter field performance is because their props blow air over the wings, augmenting lift. This doesn't work if you tail mount the engines as Embraer it's suggesting in some proposals. So the combination a smaller lift area and possibly reduced lift augmentation would mean higher runway requirements than a similarly sized conventional turboprop. Embraer isn't trying to sell an airplane with better field performance. What they are trying to sell is a turboprop that is faster and highly efficient. Their proposed aircraft would be highly competitive against a Q400 in many areas. Field performance is not likely one of those areas.
 
kEiThZ said:
The max seating for an A220-100 is 135. Swiss, for example, uses 125 seats with some designated as Eurobusiness. Delta fits 109 with a full North American business cabin. The A221 is substantially larger than an E190 sized aircraft and only a touch smaller than an E195 sized aircraft. Using the seat pitches from the E195, a Porter configuration of the A221 would be in the 110-120 range.



I have some vague recollection on how aspect ratio applies from the aerodynamics classes I took in grad school and flight school....

In this particular case, the wing loading will be the problem. A higher wing loading results in a higher rotation speed and a longer balanced field length. The reason why turboprops can usually have shorter field performance is because their props blow air over the wings, augmenting lift. This doesn't work if you tail mount the engines as Embraer it's suggesting in some proposals. So the combination a smaller lift area and possibly reduced lift augmentation would mean higher runway requirements than a similarly sized conventional turboprop. Embraer isn't trying to sell an airplane with better field performance. What they are trying to sell is a turboprop that is faster and highly efficient. Their proposed aircraft would be highly competitive against a Q400 in many areas. Field performance is not likely one of those areas.
Click to expand...

The information I received was that to meet the minimum runway length proposed for the A220, the seat configuration would have to be that of the 108 setup. Just like how (until recently) Porter could only use 70 seats on their Q400's, not the 78 that can actually be fit.

As far as the Embraer turboprop, those that I spoke to claimed that the design was to allow for 100 seat plane that performed like a jet but with the existing runways that turboprops use.

Simply thats the information I have been told.
 
CapitalSeven said:
I have wondered for years and years why this thread is still named after the pedestrian tunnel.
Click to expand...
Because for the last few years moderation has become less and less apparent and things are getting more and more messy. We have threads for building projects in Hamilton, Guelph, Oshawa, Niagara Falls and more in the Buildings forum despite there being separate forums for Vaughan and Mississauga that should act as a model for having forums for Hamilton, Niagara Region, etc. There are threads for the Crosstown in Buildings and also in Transportation and Infrastructure that just result in not knowing either where to post stuff or where to find stuff.
 
Because it's a new year, one of those things I've always wondered about but never really raised anywhere. I do land at Billy Bishop from time to time, and taking the Bathurst car north is always convenient -- except that the slight hike between the airport and the closest Bathurst streetcar stop always feels slightly ridiculous. The airport is federal, etc., fine. And perhaps these are "small problems" compared to so many others. But could we ever have a mini-hub right at Billy Bishop to make it easy to connect to the two relevant streetcar/LRT lines without dragging baggage across a couple of city blocks?
 
Disparishun said:
Because it's a new year, one of those things I've always wondered about but never really raised anywhere. I do land at Billy Bishop from time to time, and taking the Bathurst car north is always convenient -- except that the slight hike between the airport and the closest Bathurst streetcar stop always feels slightly ridiculous. The airport is federal, etc., fine. And perhaps these are "small problems" compared to so many others. But could we ever have a mini-hub right at Billy Bishop to make it easy to connect to the two relevant streetcar/LRT lines without dragging baggage across a couple of city blocks?
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone would pay for some sort of 'airport diversion' track and not sure why the vast majority of streetcar passengers should have a longer trip just to make it a bit easier for a relatively very small number of airport users.
 
robmausser said:
Speculation on my part, but this could be why Porter has gone all-in with Embraer, besides getting a good deal on the jets.

simpleflying.com

Embraer Releases Video Of New Turboprop In Development

Embraer has put out another little teaser on its proposed new-generation truboprop, keeping the interest bubbling along and building expectations.
simpleflying.com simpleflying.com

They are building a turboprop with jet-like capacity, speed and range.

Perhaps Porter will order these as a way to still get what they wished out of Billy Bishop with the A-220.
Click to expand...
FWIW, Embraer recently announced they were suspending the new turboprop project.
simpleflying.com

Embraer Confirms Postponement Of Supplier Decision On Turboprop Project

Embraer's hotly anticipated next-gen turboprop might not happen at all.
simpleflying.com simpleflying.com
 
Disparishun said:
Because it's a new year, one of those things I've always wondered about but never really raised anywhere. I do land at Billy Bishop from time to time, and taking the Bathurst car north is always convenient -- except that the slight hike between the airport and the closest Bathurst streetcar stop always feels slightly ridiculous. The airport is federal, etc., fine. And perhaps these are "small problems" compared to so many others. But could we ever have a mini-hub right at Billy Bishop to make it easy to connect to the two relevant streetcar/LRT lines without dragging baggage across a couple of city blocks?
Click to expand...
*chuckles in David Miller and Adam Vaughan*

whatever chance there was when Porter seemed all in on the island and 15 more years on the Agreement, absent a renewal/extension of the Agreement for a few decades and a sense that the YTZ demand market won’t crater in the coming years (the way Blue 22 was supposed to make it) there won’t be much if any change.
 
Disparishun said:
Because it's a new year, one of those things I've always wondered about but never really raised anywhere. I do land at Billy Bishop from time to time, and taking the Bathurst car north is always convenient -- except that the slight hike between the airport and the closest Bathurst streetcar stop always feels slightly ridiculous. The airport is federal, etc., fine. And perhaps these are "small problems" compared to so many others. But could we ever have a mini-hub right at Billy Bishop to make it easy to connect to the two relevant streetcar/LRT lines without dragging baggage across a couple of city blocks?
Click to expand...
*whisper* Monorail...monorail...monorail...
 
Disparishun said:
Because it's a new year, one of those things I've always wondered about but never really raised anywhere. I do land at Billy Bishop from time to time, and taking the Bathurst car north is always convenient -- except that the slight hike between the airport and the closest Bathurst streetcar stop always feels slightly ridiculous. The airport is federal, etc., fine. And perhaps these are "small problems" compared to so many others. But could we ever have a mini-hub right at Billy Bishop to make it easy to connect to the two relevant streetcar/LRT lines without dragging baggage across a couple of city blocks?
Click to expand...

They could just extend the tunnel to the intersection with a moving walkway. Expensive but probably the cheapest option if done with cut and cover.
 
robmausser said:
They could just extend the tunnel to the intersection with a moving walkway. Expensive but probably the cheapest option if done with cut and cover.
Click to expand...
Of course someone COULD do this though why anyone would think it was a good use of funds is really beyond me. If you can afford to fly and can't walk 200 metres to transit you can probably afford to take a taxi all the way home or even use the (free) shuttle all the way to Union. Many things COULD be done but I have no doubt there are MANY with a FAR higher priority than this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top