Why Embraer’s New Turboprop Has Its Engines At The Back
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2021
- In August, Embraer released its latest iteration of its highly anticipated new turboprop product. Set to be officially launched at some point next year (complete with a name), there is a targeted entry into service date of 2027.
Article link: simpleflying.com/embraer-turb...
Video sources:
ERJ American Eagle www.youtube.com/watch?v==kctJ...
ERJ145 • Untitled N286FM ERJ-14...
E195-E2 Air Peace • Empennage and wings jo...
E190-E2 embraer • Up and High on British...
Embraer E175 KLM • KLM Cityhopper first E...
Photos: Embraer
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.com/podcast/
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.com/simple-flyin...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.com/daily-digest/
Check out our second RUclips channel: / @longhaulbysimpleflying
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying
"This was clearly a deliberate decision"
Thanks for clearing that up. Otherwise, one might have thought that the engines decided on their own to reposition themselves.
Everyone wants to be a P180.
😂😂😂😂😂
Also, in an engine-out situation, the yaw component of the remaining powered engine is less as the turning moment arm is shorter since it's closer to the center-line.
And if the use counter-rotating props, there will be no critical engine.
This also matters in a loss of hydraulics situation, where pilots had to use the engines to land and steer.
@@reubenmorris487 counterrotating props are very noisy.
I really need to read the comments before posting... Apologies for cross posting you.
@@reubenmorris487 If by 'counter-rotating props' you mean a pair of props on each engine counter-rotating, then no. Such systems are very noisy and ridiculously inefficient. There are good reasons why they don't use them on helicopters...
Embraer just keeps coming out with awesome aircraft after awesome aircraft. I really, really wish they'd jump in and disrupt the market with a true 737/A320 competitor.
It would certainly be cool if Embraer were able to jump into Boeing’s and Airbus’ sandbox, but the 737 and A320 are so entrenched that designing an aircraft compelling enough for potential buyers to take on the expense of incorporating an entirely new type seems like an awfully tall order (I will neither confirm nor deny whether that pun was intended 😆). Maybe hydrogen power would be key to making the case, though I don’t know what the expectations are for the technology, or what the development timeline looks like. (Hmm...maybe a credible 757 replacement would pique some interest?)
Unfortunately Embraer doesn't have the same "governamental support" Boeing and Airbus do.
Bombardier tried that with their C series (now rebranded as the A220) and they were immediately locked out of the United States market. This would have been observed by all makers of smaller planes and now none of them would be brave enough to invest squillions of dollars to develop a similar plane if it would be (effectively) banned from such a key market.
@@Dave_Sisson Yeah, that did occur to me. It would be incredibly tough to do anyway, and virtually impossible for the reason you mentioned.
@@Dave_Sisson the US put tariffs on the C series plane built in Canada..... The Airbus A220 is now build in the US at least for the US market. It's a kind of understandable reaction.
Embraer makes great products. I flew the E175 for a now defunct regional in the US. I fly the A320 now and I still think the E175 was better.
Smaller plane has quicker response than a big one.
Fascinating to hear the view of a pilot. From my experience as a passenger, I would rather fly an E175 than a A319 or a B737 any day!
Yes, 2-2 is the best configuration to fly in economy and the new W2 family makes it better
Anything that makes turboprops less terrible to fly on is a good idea in my book. Good job, Embraer.
@@davidbutton3500 Never had a problem with turboprops either... thought I was weird.
@@davidbutton3500 That's because you are only thinking or have flown in a Dash 8 or some modern Saab.
@@davidbutton3500 i dont even find the noise different that much from a ATR 72/DASH to a 320.
@@davidbutton3500 I find it depends heavily on where you're sat... I've sat forward, aft, and right by the props, and I can tell you that forward is best, aft is next best, but beside the prop I find rather unpleasant on take off and climb in past experience.
@@davidbutton3500 nothing worse that a screaming brat on a long flight.
I am surprised that no one mentioned the big benefit of having an uncluttered wing which not only makes both design and manufacturing easier but offers performance benefits.
They also come with great maintenance benefits. Turn around times on wing related repairs are generally faster, wing pylon corrosion from exhaust gases are pretty much eliminated. Plus they are less susceptible to FOD due to higher positioning.
Climbing up to work on the engines is rather annoying, but on a low clearance plane i'd much rather the engines be aft mounted.
Of course an uncluttered wing does offer a cleaner air flow, but the incidences of wing flutter is higher. A wing with an engine load is tougher and flaps/flutters less.
@@upresins Not sure that stands up. Many airliners have had rear mounted engines and had no wing issues:
Caravelle, BAC-111, VC-10, Trident, 727 to name just a few.
@@1chish I had heard this many years ago in a program on the Boeing 777 (I think) on Discovery. The Boeing engineers had maintained that wings with engines loaded on them will not flap as much and will thus contribute to a smoother flight.
@@upresins yes but thats because of the huge wing span of the boeng 777, any torque aplied on those wings will affect its performance and make it wobble hundreds of times more than if it was on a smaller airplane such as the one in this video
That is interesting. T-tails with engines in the back are coming back into style!
Back into style?
I can't turn my head without seeing a CRJ, ERJ, MD-80, 717, or literally any business jet.
They're like blue jeans. They just never go out of style.
@@SanctuaryReintegrate MD-80s are very rare where I am.
@@virtuousvoice I see them more because I work at a small airport, and it's frequented more often by mid-sized planes. A lot of them are getting really old though, so they have been slowly getting less common.
I've been flying Diamonds for many years and I just love them. But they have the engines up front or on the wings. T-tails introduce the risk of a deep stall and in the case of turbofan or turboprop engines in the back, inlet fouling as well. If I remember correctly there were a few incidents in the MD-80s regarding deep stalls way back. Hopefully that risk doesn't get reintroduced.
@@irvhh143 Why do you think they would get grounded…?
I would assume that it also helps to have more laminar flow on the wings, reducing drag and fuel consumption.
Certainly
But then the prop has to deal with all that 'dirty air', both for the intake and the prop's thrust, which might reduce efficiency somewhat, although the benefit must outweigh the costs of they choose to mount it there.
@The Flying Farmer no, vortices come from every part of the wing. The wingtips have stronger ones though, but yeah the downwash will for the most part keep it in clean air (except during descent)
@The Flying Farmer the molecules from below the wing try to go to the top where the pressure is lower, but keep spiralling because the plane is moving forward. Most of it travels down to the wingtip and creates vortices, but the trailing edge of the wing from the root to tip has air flowing upwards and downwards, causing turbulence. This is the reason that small planes have to land closer to the end of the runway than big planes because the entire wing is creating wake turbulence
@@adamaviation6236 Im sorry, did you just say small planes have to land closer to the end of the runway? What are you talking about?
"This was clearly a deliberate decision by the design team..." Really? It didnt design itself?
Haha maybe they accidentally designed it that way😂
Yes, but why did the "Vector" disappear?
@@jimbokay5696 Are you referring to the Embraer CBA 123?
@@jimbokay5696 There were several factors.
The delay in launching the project was due to the difficulty and slowness of the Argentines in the part of the project they were responsible for.
With the financial difficulties that Embraer was facing, the Brazilian government decided to privatize it. During this transition, the ERJ family was also in development. With the scarcity of financial resources, they could not afford the development of both models and decided to prioritize the ERJ project, which would be more profitable.
In addition, another aggravating factor was the oil crisis of 1990, making the Vector's operation uncompetitive. These factors, combined with the regional aviation market's demand for higher-capacity aircraft with jet engines, made it impossible to continue the program.
Almost as good as "The previous version with the engines UNDER the wings". Apparently the vid makers are blind.
Very good Embraer idea
What a beautiful plane!
I like how innovative Embraer is being with this new aircraft
I'll definitely be excited to hear more about it
This configuration was tried many years ago. I think they experimented on MD 80s. Very efficient, quiet and reliable. Public hated it because they wanted jets. It was a jet but with props.
I am not sure that the configuration was quite the same on the MD 80 , as it was based around the UDF which did not come to fruition, mainly because of excessive cabin noise (compared to turbofans) and low fuel prices at the time.
Yes it was in the early 90s i think. There was a developpment of a new engine called "propfan" in order to improve fuel efficiency.Thogh it was sucessfully tested it came never really in production. Maybe in fear that the public would hate it, as you say. Cause they prefere jet-engines. But: the only way to improve fuel efficiency ist to make the bypass bigger, so we have today" jet"-engines looking almost like theese "propfans "with the exeption of a manteled rotor.
I believe at the same time of the MD80/DC9 tests there tests experiments done using the Boeing 727 as the test airframe but still had the problem of excessive cabin noise due to the prop design, it may require additional prop re-engineering to overcome that problem.
@@imano8265 mantled makes it silent and probably even more efficient ( like winglets ). Problem is that the angle of attack changes on the mantle. Would be cool to have variable geometry without weight. I don't know why man rated planes use EDF, though. Prop cannot be thaat loud at 200 km/h
It had nothing to do with the “public hating it”. It’s because fuel prices dropped and jet engines became more efficient. The public never experienced the one aircraft that was tested.
It also helps that Embraer developers the CBA 123 in the 80s, with turboprop in the back. This plane had 2 test models built,.so the knowledge is there.
You'd think so, but I believe the reality will be that most people who worked on it in the 80s have left the company and most of the documentation has outdated severely, or is difficult to access.
@@tiemen9095 That's true. But the aerodynamics data might be useful as a starting point.
Looks so cool tho
Embraer is a great company. Spent a week there once!
Amazing the turnaround from Embraer after the breakout with Boeing!
Amazing! Congratulations EMBRAER!!!
This has so much of the CBA 123 Vector on in. But bigger. The CBA 123 Vector was a Collaboration between Brazil and Argentina to develop and advance regional 19-seats turboprops in the 90's. It featured rear fuselage-mounted turboprop engines with 6-blades counter-rotating props in pusher config which placed them so far back that the plane was quieter than the 737 Classics of the time, advanced aerodynamics with supercritical airfoils, super advanced avionics and systems (for the time) including EFIS, AHRS, EICAS and FADEC, 300+ knots of cruise airspeed and a service ceiling of 35000 ft. Oh, and it had an amazingly sexy ramp appeal that made you shout "I want to fly in that". 3 prototypes were built, 1 was unfinished at 80%, 2 of them flew, one of them at the 1990 Farnborough Air Show. The project was a failure and a total loss for Argentina, For Brazil, however, it gave Embraer the maturity and experience in aircraft development, especially regarding advanced systems, that helped them succeed with the first generation of ERJ jets. And evidently they are still using the ideas and lessons learned today (and why wouldn't they).
I flew in an ATR once and loved the experience. The engine growled and the cabin was modest. Only one flight attendant who was having a ball.
All good points here by SF and viewers. Only downside of having any engines in the back is the risk of ice impact and ingestion from accumulation of ice peeling off the wings when flying in icing conditions.
from the looks i prefer to ride on those thing than the old ATR. Espesialy if its efficiency means cheaper ticket than regular jet
Eww 🤢 this isnt the best but is ok , I really love the ATR the sounds are so relaxing 😌 , but again it's your opinion
no efficiency means the airline makes more money not you paying less
@Salty Llama Until a low-cost airline offers cheaper tickets because now they can afford it. Airlines are highly competitive with small profit margins nowadays.
@@moteroargentino7944 Uh, except the "low-cost" airlines fly the exact same planes the big expensive airlines fly LOL.
@@alexmathis8505 Well most don't fly wide bodies or internationally. But in terms of narrow bodies and regional aircraft they fly the same planes.
I love flying on conventional turbo props they offer a more interesting flying experience. I realy like the high wing configurations because they give you a more unobstructed view of the ground and I also love the hum of the engines.
Nice, we may actually see something like the 7J7 enter production
I love turboprops. I fly on them whenever I get the chance, which is unfortunately becoming rarer and rarer.
Rarer? No, they are not. Where did you get this CLEARLY flawed statistic? Turboprops are the MOST efficient system for aviation powerplants.
@@edgewood99 probably by looking around the US and seeing almost every regional airline dumping their turboprop fleet, thus making it harder to get a ride on a turboprop? Rory never said it was not an efficient platform, just that they’re harder to come by.
@@FlyingFerris The "fleets" are in a mess right now...I am talking about in general. More and more turbo-props are being made all the time.
@@edgewood99 by whom and where are they being purchased? In the US the 3 major airlines do not have turboprop service anymore, and are basically down to code share flights with Silver and PennAero, probably the last prolific flier of turboprop aircraft in the US, Horizon, has a static at best turboprop fleet. Stop being delusional about the current state of turboprop airline flying in the west these days. It’s dead, probably for the worse to the consumer, but the consumer is what demanded this change so higher fares it is. Will the props make a return, maybe, but Embraer is playing it smart and not sinking a ton of R and D dollars into this new product as western airlines probably will not be major consumers of this new product.
@@FlyingFerris I am not talking about AIRLINES. There are things in the world other than AIRLINES.
it looks awesome, hope Wideroe/widerøe in Norway starts using them
Excellent video!
And exellent jump into the futur! Keep us updated!
I recall a proposal almost exactly like this back during the original oil crisis in the 1970s -- it was a pair of pusher turboprops essentially replacing the aft-mounted jet engines on a DC-9. The goal then was more fuel efficiency over the then-current jet engines, with the pusher configuration (and scimitar-shaped propellor blades) to get the noise as far aft of the cabin as possible.
It looks beautiful! that's reason enough for me
It does look smart (I've only flown on turboprop aircraft - not one of the 'Jet-Set'!).
Beautiful airplanes tends to be great handling airplanes.
Simply superb... thanks for sharing.. !!
Cool design 😎. Great vid👍
What a beautiful bird. Cant wait to see it fly
Embraer jets have always been impressive. This new model holds a promising future, more propulsion at the rear of the jet and in the event of a catastrophic actual loss of an engine will probably lessen the chance of further damage to the fuselage and possible spoiler and rudder impediment.
It looks awesome as an aircraft - love the future proof thinking of the design! Lead by engineers I’d say.
Wow I had no idea other Embraer planes were unreliable. Thanks for marketing to clear that up!
I hope this will workout for everyone concerned. Good going EMBRAER!
I LOVE that grinning shark mouth on the E2!
Very nice looking plane. Has great potential!
Can't wait to see them revolutionizing the regional connections in Brazil (big if's regarding to fuel prices and better regulation). It would be ideal for connecting directly some mediam sized cities that today are linked thru distant main airports. It also can integrate many of the small cities to existing mediam and big ones with greater convenience.
It looks beautiful
Do "the public" actually pick flights based on aircraft type for "very short haul"? I think not.
E2 interior on a Turbo is encouraging - the end of the Devils Chariot
Hydrogen adoption makes sense in terms of the engine location
Hope this works well for our friends in Brazil - great company.
I would say people don't pick the flights based on the plane, but they would associate the airline operating that same route with a good or bad experience. If you ride a crappy plane, you'll think of another airline for the next time (if you can afford).
Well, given people are refusing to fly on the Max after its issues, it might become a thing where people express plane preference going forward.
@@Kalvinjj sustainability concerns are here to stay. Check for London City airport where (seems to me that) um to 90% of flights are Embraer planes
It’s not so unusual for frequent travelers to consider the aircraft type in their flight planning. I certainly do, and many of my colleagues do the same - even for 1-2 hour short hops. I never liked turbos because of their noise, rough flight characteristics in bad weather due to their low altitude compared to jets, and their slow speed. It was a godsend when the majors here in the US retired them. If Emb can largely address these historical concerns, I could become a fan of them.
Actually yes, many do. In the past I've picked Ryanair (ugh) over Aer Lingus simply because on the same route the former used a jet while the latter used a turbo. Luckily this is no longer the case now :D
I like the design and the engine/props at the rear. Definitely will reduce engine noise and vibration.
Single engine failure should be a little less exciting due to the engines being closer to the center of thrust
probably allows for a smaller rudder as well, which could achieve significant drag reduction - probably one of their big reasons for doing so.
Less chance of someone walking into a prop as well.
And safer for ditching or belly landing..
And maybe more efficient cos it's not blowing air into the wing.
@@Justwantahover yes and no. Turboprops benefit with additional lift due to the air flowing over the wing.
So it’s a Rear-Wheel-Drive
Rear engined, rear wheel, & air cooled. It's a Volkswagen!
It's a gift from the Drifting Gods :)
@@warmstrong5612 😂 Good one!
@@totalrecone 😂😂😂
And terrible in the snow…😂😂
Couple things I’d be curious about is the issue of de-icing. Will it have boots or a hot wing? I’d be concerned that boots would cause ice to break off and the blades hitting the chunks and getting damaged. A hot wing though would solve that but either requires more bleed air than is generated by a turboprop OR addition electrical generation.
Embraer 175s have bleed air for the leading edge anti-ice, so i'm sure they will carry that forward, especially if it could damage props.
@@ChrisCullenRacing I know, I have about 2500 hours flying the 190 😉 I also have several thousand in a couple turboprops and they all had boots, not heated wings. Most turboprop engines have a much smaller compressor section meaning less bleed air is available to operate bleed air powered accessories. Maybe the engine they select will have the ability to offer more bleed air, not sure🤷♂️, however, the distance from the engine to the leading edges tells me it’s unlikely.
My bet would be boots or an electrically heated wing. That though creates issues with power generation. If you need extra generators to run a heated wing that is a load in the engine which than reduces fuel efficiency.
Again, it’ll be interesting to see how they overcome this. 🤔
@@ViewsfromtheHUD I'd bet on more future aircraft adopting all-electric/no-bleed-air systems based on the relative success of the 787 in this area. Bleed air systems are heavy and they do ultimately still draw their energy from the engines, which could otherwise be used for thrust, so they reduce fuel efficiency by potentially a greater degree than all-electric systems. Boeing certainly thought so when designing the 787, which is an extremely fuel efficient aircraft without a bleed air system.
true, and also this wing looks much thinner, which means it collects even more ice than a thicker wing, we'll have to see what they will do in regards to icing.
Given the abundance of hydrophobic coatings, I'm surprised that aircraft manufacturers don't use them to prevent ice buildup on aircraft. The right makeup of hydrophobic texture can entirely eliminate ice formation. It would also be a lot lighter than any active system as well.
It makes a lot of sense for all the reasons mentioned. The only thing one could envision (and hopefully is already part of the design) is when a catastrophic prop failure might occur, that adequate reinforcement on the fuselage near areas where debris might strike the fuselage is done to prevent damage to any control surface related cabling and/or anything else that might cause a failure of tail section components. That said, it looks like a fantastic aircraft with much to offer all involved parties. 👍
A pusher prop configuration would put them even farther away from the cabin to reduce that risk. It would reduce cabin noise, too. I'm wondering if that was considered.
After retro cruisers and motorbikes...it's now time for retro modern planes! Bravo
GE experimented with an Un-Ducted Fan engine decades ago. This looks like a variation of the theme.
The MD DC-9 and MD-80s offered rear engines. I hope it works for them.
Same with Boeing with its 7J7. Both failed to be viable due to high noise,vibration and minimal performance metrics I believe.
I was skeptical until I heard the reasons why they made that design. Now I can't wait to fly in one!
Love it. Including the livery design shown.
I can remember when GE was looking, a couple of decades ago, at a new plane with fixed-prop turboprops at the back. Beautiful plane--but then I loved the VC-10 and IL-62, not to mention Goldfinger's Lockheed Jetstar.
I like the concept, I have always liked Turbo Props.
If they want the engines in the back, I'm surprised they didn't choose a pusher configuration.
They may have been concerned about the possibility of a propeller striking the ground with takeoff & landing attitudes
Very good thinking Embraer!
It's a good decision - it allows for future fitting of unducted fan/propfan engines if and when the technology matures.
I love flying in turboprops. That gentle, varying, thrumming sound when the engines aren't quite synchronised...
Awesome Video!!!!
That 🦈 paint job is fantastic!
Beautiful , Truly Sweet Design! Congratulations!✈🌎🌍🌏
The paint schemes on those E2 jets are an absolute desire to behold.
Very interesting design.Could be a game changer.
Embraer New Turboprops looks Kool 100% I hope that Airline Commuters will take Interests in buying them including the Embraer E2 Family Jets too.
This might be a good replacement for older turboprops. Its modern design may change the future of turboprops.
They aren't trying to replace older turboprops, they're trying to re-start an entire market. Most of the US regional operators got rid of their turboprops ages ago, the thought is that US passengers don't want to go near anything that "old" and "unsafe" when they see a propeller. Their goal was to achieve the speed of a jet, with the efficiency of a turboprop (kinda like a Q400) with an image that passengers were comfortable with. The cleaner wing also reduces drag a LOT - the t-tail is a big heavier, but it's clearly worth it.
I'll be waiting for ATR's possible new plane. We still got 6 years before this Embraer turboprop enter the market. I would say that ATR would probably update the engines, wings and maybe work on the 100 seat stretch.
@@nntflow7058 I honestly don't think they care - certainly Airbus doesn't. The market is dead, and this plane would revive it slightly - I still don't think it's big enough for two players though.
They may just wait and see if it works out at all. It's not a matter of making a better plane, it's a matter of carriers actually buying turboprops in large numbers again (and the public wanting to fly in them).
That is a heck of an engineering idea!
I honestly prefer learning about small planes and prop planes compared to big jetliners
It's a lovely looking aircraft, quite a departure to put turbo props at the rear however, to my eye it looks great. Lower noise will be the main advantage.
Makes sense. The boundary layer back there gets a little thick, so the mechanical advantage is significant.
It will be interesting if the final version end up with and engine system like Embraer CBA-123 Vector project... it would be a quantum leap in the market.
They do make nice little planes! That is a sensible idea for all the reasons they outlined! Interesting!
VC10 was popular. Great plane. Similiar T tail + engine position.
Seems like a good proposition
This craft will most definitely be a success!
I love flying on the little old turboprops. The sound of the unsynchronized engines, cabin like a small bus, all seats have a window and an aisle. Get a front seat and you can chat with the pilot...
Good turboprop! This will rack up 250+ orders for sure!
In the 1960s I flew in BAC11s, which were rear engined jets. The most notable oddity was that the faster it went, the quieter it got
NAL Saras also made a 19 seater turboprop aircraft with the engines at the back like the one shown here.
Looking very nice.
You showed an image of an aircraft with engines above the wings then said "engines under the wings". That aside, it will be interesting to see how this works out. I wonder if it helps to reduce drag and improve fuel economy?
OK
I've ridden on a couple of regional "puddle jumper" turbo-props. It wasn't horribly noisy.
"...expected positions under the wings..."
Boeing: Oh don't worry. We get up and down confused all the time too.
VERY interesting! 👍
Was that Air Peace I saw there? Impressive 👍🏽.
i don't mind flying in a turboprop once a while!
Think this is the greatest improvement in flying.
The biggest issue is kicking up FOD into the props from the wheels.
But it should also reduce twin-prop noise on the ground as the fuselage will shield the noise better, one side to the other.
Looks rad.
The last turboprop I flew on was a SAAB 340. I'm 6'4" and I literally could not fit in the seat. I had to put my legs in the aisle. Hellish.
I personally delightful with the new design of the Embraer's new turboprop (my favourite was the ATR72). This mainly due that engines located at the rear are common back then, which i'm a fan of it, given most aircraft these days looks the same (twin jet engine that located under the wing). Although it's not as big as i hope for (something at the same size as the 737 and A320, just like the Maddog), at least it still exist (even though CRJ still exist).
First time I ever flew was in a turbo prop. My seat was right beside the prop. We got up in the air. The stewardess could tell I'd never flown before. That trip was fun. 3 legs to California regional to O'Hara then to LAX then regional to destination. On another carrier because of delays at O'Hara. Flying commercial. Just like Greyhound, clientele just smell better
Looking good
embraer makes great planes, i would be happy to fly on this machine.
It will no longer be possible to look out the window to see the engines. It would be a good idea to have cameras on the engines for the pilots to view at any time.
Good point!
Why? I fly the 175 and have never had a reason to see the engine nacelle in flight.
@@Guantar90 Never say never. If there is a fire indication or bad vibration, I want to eyeball the engine.
@@JamesCAsphalt8 you've got all the informations you need on the panels. No need for images, it would be nothing but a distraction
Yes. Absolutely no need to see an engine.
Looks good
Another possible advantage is less asymmetry of thrust on one engine out performance. Also, less pitch change with throttle variation.
Ta.
Beautiful planes
hell yes.this will be awesome
I actually like the noise of a turbo prop like the q400
Looks like a design straight out of popular mechanics circa 1970. If I remember correctly they imagined multi-blade props and they were of a "pusher" design.
I certainly hope this airline is totally a success, because I totally enjoy turboprop plane rides just as much as my Motorcycle 🏍 rides!😎🏍🛫🛫🏍🛫🏌️♀️🇱🇻👍🏍🛫
That's a beauty