Fokker turboprop based on F100 cross section

[Taxi]

All the stuff with Rekkof is nice and dandy, but with current and future fuel prices wouldn't a turbopropped 5-abreast fuselage have a much more distinct and lucrative niche?

This plane would have a fuselage based on the F100 cross section, also using it's nose/cockpit, T-tail and some of it's systems. Obviously there would need to be a newly designed high wing mid section (or low wing engine top mounted) with a new CFRP wing. In this configuration I could image an FP80, FP100 and FP130. Engines could range from the AE2100, the PW100, GE38 and TP400-D6.

I know it's just silly speculation, but obviously I don't mind that. Any opinions on this?

Below is a very rough example of what the FP80, FP100 and FP130 may look like:



I'm not in anyway affiliated to Lila Design, just used a graphic from an airliners.net thread (hope that is okay).

[regi]

Rekkof will never fly.
We have gone through that subject numerous times and it is utterly useless to even come back on the subject.
Why would they try to re-engine an old design when the ATR and Bombardier Q400 are doing fine?

Fokker is dead, gone, buried.

It is a wrong believe that because somebody claims he has a company called Rekkof that still owns some of the manufacturing toolings and moulds, that the manufacturing of the jet can restart easely.

The most serious bid in those days came from the Malayians. And they could have done a good job there with the regional market of Airasia and Tiger Airways etcetera. ( well, if we look at the "succes" of the Proton car, I might have to reconsider that line )
But it didn't happen because the Dutch wanted to have too much for it and the Malayians thought they could get it for "free".
Result: a loose -loose situation.

Only Stork aviation is doing fine , earning a lot of money on spare parts.

Don't forget that the Indonesians also tried to make their own turbo prop plane based on a Fokker design. The plane actually took off the ground, but the entire project was abandoned because it costed too much to make the planes themselves than buy it from abroad.
A wrong decision, if we see the succes of Embraer.
But the economical , social and political situation in those days was much to instable in Indonesia.

[Taxi]

Rekkof will never fly.
We have gone through that subject numerous times and it is utterly useless to even come back on the subject.

I'm not talking about Rekkof, I'm talking about the fact that with current and future fuel prices turboprops are probably becoming sensible in 5 and even 6-abreast configurations. You can design such a plane from scratch, but my question was if it would make sense from a technical and production point of view to use an existing 5-abreast layout so you can use the cross section, cockpit, tail and possibly other systems. Perhaps that would make it cheaper than a clean sheet design.

Why would they try to re-engine an old design when the ATR and Bombardier Q400 are doing fine?

Because the ATR and the Q400 can't grow into sizes a 5-abreast design could.

Fokker is dead, gone, buried.

It is a wrong believe that because somebody claims he has a company called Rekkof that still owns some of the manufacturing toolings and moulds, that the manufacturing of the jet can restart easely.

See above.

Don't forget that the Indonesians also tried to make their own turbo prop plane based on a Fokker design. The plane actually took off the ground, but the entire project was abandoned because it costed too much to make the planes themselves than buy it from abroad.
A wrong decision, if we see the succes of Embraer.
But the economical , social and political situation in those days was much to instable in Indonesia.

Ok, thanks for the info.

[earthman]

Rekkof will never fly.
We have gone through that subject numerous times and it is utterly useless to even come back on the subject.

I'm not talking about Rekkof, I'm talking about the fact that with current and future fuel prices turboprops are probably becoming sensible in 5 and even 6-abreast configurations. You can design such a plane from scratch, but my question was if it would make sense from a technical and production point of view to use an existing 5-abreast layout so you can use the cross section, cockpit, tail and possibly other systems. Perhaps that would make it cheaper than a clean sheet design.

Why would they try to re-engine an old design when the ATR and Bombardier Q400 are doing fine?

Because the ATR and the Q400 can't grow into sizes a 5-abreast design could.

That is almost what the Chinese did with that new regional jet of theirs. They had all that MD-80 tooling lying around. Except it's still a jet. But I guess you might as well make a turboprop MD-80 clone then, if you want a 5-abreast layout.

[Taxi]

That is almost what the Chinese did with that new regional jet of theirs. They had all that MD-80 tooling lying around. Except it's still a jet. But I guess you might as well make a turboprop MD-80 clone then, if you want a 5-abreast layout.

Except AFAIK the MD-80 (and related designs) are also relatively a much heavier 5-abreast design than the F100 was, therefore possibly not really the most suitable for a 5-abreast turboprop.