Fokker F90 and F120

[Taxi]

I know it's just helpless dreaming, but just imagine a Fokker F90 and F120 fitted with the PW1200G GTF for the Mitsubishi regional jet, the thrust matches perfectly. The F90 1.54m shorter than the F100 would stay just under the 100 seats, while the F120, 4.62m longer than the F90, would seat close to 130. The fuel consumption and noise would be spectacularly low on those plains.

[NCB]

The segment is getting overcrowded. We saw this in the 1980/early 90's already, with a race for RJ's by Russia, Europe, U.S., U.K., Brazil.
Resulting products were CRJ, ERJ, Avro RJ, F-100, Yak-42.

A similar race took place in the 1960's when the DC-9, Yak-40, Caravelle, Tu-134 were born.

The competitors are now:
-Embraer E-170/190, Embraer hinting at possible reengine soon
-Bombardier Cseries, EIS estim. 2013
-Mitsubishi RJ, EIS estim. 2013
-Sukhoi Superjet, EIS estim. 2009/2010
-Antonov 148/158, potential reengining program
-ARJ21, EIS 2010
-TU-334 could technically be reengined with PW1000

Fokker used to make really good planes, it's a shame that they didn't get the attention they deserved.
Notice that the 3 main European RJ manufacturers, Bae, Dornier and Fokker had a huge potential but were left to die unsupported. If only these companies had been given more attention at that time...

I believe Fokker Services, the only little part of Fokker that is still left alive today provides engineering and manufacturing resources for Airbus and Boeing. From there to see them build a new Fokker is a big step...

[Taxi]

Looking purely from a technical viewpoint (excluding other factors, like credibility, production infrastructure etc.) do you reckon this airframe would be competitive with those engines, otherwise made up to date and the mentioned (or other) capacities?

EDIT: If any one has a source for the weight of the PW1200G engines I would be interested.

[regi]

And no Rekkof dreams please.

http://www.rekkof.nl

I told you years ago that the Fokker program will never be revived again.
The concept of the airplanes is 30 years old. ( the Rekkof website shows now nice winglets, good photo shopping... )
Boeing doesn't make the B717 anymore as well.

I have followed the Fokker saga almost daily on the Dutch television ( pre internet era...)

There was 1 possebility: to sell the entire production line to the Malaysians.
The Dutch asked too much money for it. And the customer redrew. Quite sad for the Malaysians because of the need for these airplanes with the succes of Airasia. But good for Airbus ! Maybe it was a blessing for Airasia that Fokker didn't exist anymore, because the passenger load in their B737 and A320 is much higher than what the Fokkers could offer.

Indonesia also redrew from its own program to make a Fokker copy .

If we talk about jobs: many jobs were lost with the Fokker closure. But many were re-created in the Stork group. And the Netherlands is quite strong now as a supplier of civilian+military components for aircrafts.

[teddybAIR]

That Rekkof site looks suprisingly like a hoax to me...just compare it to the websites of other manufacturers: it gives very little detail appart from some nice looking graphics, no company information whatsoever. For instance the page on investor relations: that's a joke right? Apart from a fancy graph (which doesn't state its source, by the way) there's really no content!

And what have they done so far? We know they haven't sold a single frame, but have they even tried? Is there really a product to sell? I ask these - seemingly stupid - questions because I haven't been following their status and the website is really a joke!

Regards,
bAIR

[regi]

short answer: The guy behind Rekkof bought the old tools and rigs for the Fokker planes for the price of scrap.
But that doesn't make an aeroplane yet.
Those ( incomplete ) tools are based on old tool technology. ( without modern measuring systems by laser for example )
I suppose he has the rights of the F-100 as well. But again, once the manufacturing line has been closed and dismantled, it is very difficult and costly to start it up again - certainly so long after the closure. In similar cases I have seen in the industry, it is better and even cheaper to build a new manufacturing line, than use an old line.
See the Renault 12 changing into a Dacia in Roumania and becoming one of the worst cars ever known in history.
Or the Morris Oxford production line being transferred to India in 1957 and haunting India's roads till this day by pumping out completely useless cars called Ambassador. ( trust me, they are lethal. The cars are filled with gas , not at the back, but the intake valve is next to the engine. I made pictures of it when my taxi driver at Bombay took gas and opened the front bonnet instead of the back )
I have seen this year the chinese copy of the Rover 75 and all I can say is that it looks...not right. ( most of the toolings were transferred, some Brittish engineers shipped over to put it back together ) We do all remember the failure of the "folding" Brilliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliance_China_Auto

Airbus understood this and made a new production line for the A320 series made in China.

About the website:
this latest Rekkof website is in fact the best one. The previous website was done so poorly I made the remark here that his teenage son probably did the job with a free drawing-program.

[Taxi]

That's all nice and dandy but my question was: Looking purely from a technical viewpoint (excluding other factors, like credibility, production infrastructure etc.) do you reckon this airframe would be competitive with those engines, otherwise made up to date and the mentioned (or other) capacities?

[regi]

NO

[Taxi]

NO

Nice to see this post is as comprehensively argumented as the previous one.

[euroflyer]

NO

Nice to see this post is as comprehensively argumented as the previous one.

Well, I think you may answer your questions as well yourself. Just imagine you are about to buy a new car. There are several models on offer. One has first been developed about, lets say, 20 years ago or so. Some updates have been made to the model of course, new engine, new interior (seats and lights), a new spoiler at the back, but the rest pretty much looks and behaves like 20 years ago. Some other models have been developed only 5 or 10 years ago, they come with latest technology everywhere and some other models are just in development right now and will be available from,lets say next year. So if there is no real very, very huge difference in the price, will you opt for the first model? I think that is enough of an argument.

[Taxi]

Then again the design of the original 737 started in 1964.

[regi]

I first tried to give a decent answer. But that was called dandy. Thank you. So you repeated your question , which was posed in such a way that there is only one way to answer: yes or no.
So I chose my answer.

Now that it seems that other members also refer to the old design, you come up with the B737.

It is not a real open discussion. You raised the Fokker to be revived and you got your answers. Sad for you that there are no more other supporters. But live with it. The Dutch have accept the downfall.

[Taxi]

I first tried to give a decent answer. But that was called dandy. Thank you.

It's an expression, if you take offence to a not lightly intended remark then so be it.

So you repeated your question , which was posed in such a way that there is only one way to answer: yes or no.
So I chose my answer.

I don't feel it was posed that way at all, quite the opposite in fact, I was and still am interested in how a modernized F90 and F120 with those engines would perform operationally. That's an question that asks for substantiated analyses. Perhaps people are not able or willing to analyse the technical side of it and therefore point to the other stuff which I specifically asked to leave out of the equation, I don't know.

Now that it seems that other members also refer to the old design, you come up with the B737.

And I still see that as a valid point, which you apparently for some reason don't feel like addressing.

It is not a real open discussion.

The problem is I asked for a technical/operational analyses and I get very general or for the question irrelevant answers. I still appreciate those, but I don't feel that again specifically pointing at the question asked is such an usual thing to do in such a situation.

[jan_olieslagers]

Taxi,
Your question / idea seems to relate to airliner design and technical performance. This is a subject little discussed here, indeed I think few participants are active in that particular domain. My self certainly am not! Most people here involve in the economics of airline operations, I think some even have good knowledge of this area. That is why you mostly got economical answers, which obviously have little interest for you.

[regi]

OK Taxi, I review my answer: YES.

Not as a joke, but as a answer to your original question.

Looking back at the original question: re engining , new avionics, I would say yes. There is a sustantial weight saving, energy saving ( not only fuel consumption to fly but also because of all the new systems which use less energy ), maintenance friendlier, fly by wire etcetera.

But my first negative response was made because I looked a bit further into the feasability.

To be realistic: there are very few recent programs in civil aviation where second hand airplanes were re-engined.
The turbo prop version of the DC-3
http://www.baslerturbo.com

The Fokker 50 was orginally delivered with RR Darts but later with P&W124. But that was on new bodies.

To avoid that you would think I have no clue about aviation harware - my customers - :
a new engine means a completely review of the power take off gearbox . That drives the hydraulic pump which has to be revised. That goes to the hydraulic valves, and the pipe works, and end up at all the actuators ( for the flaps for example )
If you want to do it modern, you can forget about hydraulics and go electrical. So the engine drives a generator and from there on you bring electricity by cables to the actuators which are powered by seperate electrical engines.

Technically, I think it is easier to convert existing turbo prop F-50 with new engines than the F-70+100.

[Taxi]

Ok thanks Regi, appreciate it.

I just wonder if they were going to re-engine at Rekkof (hypothetically) why stick with an engine that would be previous generation after GTF (BR-710) and not use that GTF right away? Perhaps because of their closer ties with RR and there was less to gain for P&W?

[regi]

you can re engine existing planes also with refurbished second hand engines. Price issue ?

[jan_olieslagers]

I should think that, if engines of a different type are fitted, the whole lengthy and expensive process of certification must be re-done, at least partially? Making it more than ever a hypothetical issue.

[regi]

Dear Jan,
this was a subject that I did not even dare to touch, out of fear to be called dandy .
Taxi avoided this issue by asking just about the real technical possebility , see his original question. I made the same kind of mistake by thinking further ( manufacturing, costs )
So that is why I changed my answer in "Yes, it is possible."

I would like to say "case closed" but Taxi asked additional questions for example about the weight of the engine .
It is not only weight, but also the entire combination of the weight balance of that engine, the drag, the diameter, the attachment points, fuel consumption, optimum altitude, the power take of ratio of the gear box, noise, vibration, and so many other details. ( is the engine servicable when it is mounted as the old engine without removing ? )
I am afraid for Taxi that putting another kind of engine on a Fokker is in reality more difficult than what the movie "Flight of the Phoenix" showed us.

http://users.telenet.be/thelist/details/26918.html