PDA

View Full Version : Props to make a BIG comeback!?



ZappaTime
10-20-2008, 04:36 PM
See this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/20/trave...transport-rollsroyce (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/20/travelandtransport-rollsroyce)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WTE_Galway
10-20-2008, 05:04 PM
There are numerous small regional routes today where airlines fly jets even though turboprops are more economical.

The big problem with innovations like this is the general public simply prefer jets. I am not sure if the perception is that jets are more "modern" and hence safer or it is simply a hang over from the 1960's "jetset" syndrome.

Whatever the reasoning, if a turboprop flight and a jet flight are ever available on the same route with the same flight times and the same onflight amenities the general public will generally choose the jet.

M_Gunz
10-20-2008, 09:33 PM
The racket from beat frequency in prop multi's is unpleasant to outright torture for one.
My first flight in a twin prop shuttle from Dallas-Ft. Worth to Lawton... not only the noise
but the wings freaking vibrated like high speed flapping, it was not reassuring at all but
somehow we made it safely.

I like Ron White's description of flying in a shuttle drunk when the guy next to him was about
to flip out. "Hey man, if an engine quits how far will the plane take us?" "All the way to
the scene of the crash."

redhornet07
10-20-2008, 09:43 PM
I've flown in turbo prop planes and i don't like it at all. They tend to fly at lower altitudes and are more suseptable to weather conditions (aka turbulence) because they can't get above it. Not to mention they're slower. I don't think props will ever be on mainstream airliners again.

Lastly the entire airline industry infrastructure is based on jets, to go back to props would cost billions, something the industry can't afford to change.

Hatter_RAF
10-20-2008, 10:02 PM
One of the worst flights I can remember was flying over the Blue Ridge Mountains with a raging hangover in a turboprop. I almost used the bag.

WTE_Galway
10-20-2008, 10:31 PM
Not baby commuter props ...

turbo prop versions of planes like this ...


http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/21.jsp

Kocur_
10-20-2008, 11:33 PM
As much as I have obvious sentiment towards props, I prefer a jet liner by far, mostly due to considerably higher nosie level in turboprop.
I guess it would take using Caravelle-like engine configuration in turboprops, not necessarily canard configuration like in Piaggio Avanti.

K_Freddie
10-21-2008, 02:48 AM
I can fly all day at treetop level... and enjoy the view at slower speeds.
There's just no rush.
I am 'pro-parachutes' for passengers on all airlines - just think of the excitement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

josephs1959
10-21-2008, 06:22 AM
Don't forget the constant resonant DRONE of the prop engines, it get into your head after a while. Wearing ear plugs are a must! Even after I got off the plane and walked on the tarmac, that drone was still in my head all the way into the taxi home.
One thing I've noticed about movies vs. real life is the volume, Being in an enclosed plane. The interior prop sounds even with the modern sound deadening properties of today's planes, you had to raise your voice to speak. Imagine what it was like in an open B-17 after hours and hours of flying?
Although this is a minor thing in the game I noticed, is when I went sky diving, the deafening roar of the wind as you freefall.In the game it's complete silence. HA!

general_kalle
10-21-2008, 07:14 AM
well obviusly jets are more pleasant to fly...but sometims i think we have to put aside pleasure and comfort for preserving our planet

Friendly_flyer
10-21-2008, 07:17 AM
I have flown a flown in a few turbo-prop airplanes the last couple of years (small scale aerial personnel transport is primarily with turboprops here in Scandinavia). Sitting in such a plane is neither very noisy nor unpleasant. Granted, it's a bit noisier than in a commercial jet, but as a plane enthusiast I enjoy the more "direct" experience of the propeller plane to the bland, almost non-experience of a jet. I also enjoy flying a bit lower, the view from a jet it fairly boring.

BigC208
10-21-2008, 07:21 AM
The reason commuter turbo props fly low is because of ATC routing. They can operate all dag long in the mid twenties. Most of you have bad experiences because the planes you flew where small. If you put 2 3000hp turboprops on a 60000lbs plane and fly it the same way as jet you will have a smooth ride most of the time. Todays single engine TP's are the future. Low fuel burn and engine maintainance overhead. It's only a matter of time and they will built a 20 seat plus commuter single TP. When the Cessna Caravan came out the consensus was that knobody would buy it because it was single engine. Now 25 years later they built over 1500 and there are several other companies building very succesfull single engine TP's. So if you're unhappy flying in a Twin TP now it'l be a blast seeing your face when these new designs show up on a ramp near you. By the way most airline marketers now that joe sixpack rather flies in a jet but it's all about the bottom line. In the USA the airlines have been competing eachother to death flying inefficient aircraft on thinly populated routes. They can't do that any longer. They cut flights and abandon revenue losing segments. For the people in those areas there are only a few choices. Drive your self, Greyhound bus or a very efficient single engine TP like a Pilatus PC12 or Cessna Caravan. It's up to the consumer. If the public refuse to get into these planes it will be the end of airservice to a lot of remote locations in the near future.

joeap
10-21-2008, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I have flown a flown in a few turbo-prop airplanes the last couple of years (small scale aerial personnel transport is primarily with turboprops here in Scandinavia). Sitting in such a plane is neither very noisy nor unpleasant. Granted, it's a bit noisier than in a commercial jet, but as a plane enthusiast I enjoy the more "direct" experience of the propeller plane to the bland, almost non-experience of a jet. I also enjoy flying a bit lower, the view from a jet it fairly boring.

I agree, the only glitch is indeed more tubulence lower down, but the flight is a lot more fun! Compare flying the Slovakia map in the Gladiator or I-153 to one of the rocket planes like the Me-163 or Bi-1!

FlatSpinMan
10-21-2008, 07:41 AM
I'm quite surprised at the dislike of smaller turboprop planes on THIS forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . I have used them a few times in NZ and love it. Much more like 'flying' and you can see so much from the window.

rnzoli
10-21-2008, 08:46 AM
I'm quite surprised at the dislike of smaller turboprop planes on THIS forum
It's a big difference when you sit in the cockpit ahead, or in the fuselage just in between the engines. Oh, that vibration... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ronbo3
10-21-2008, 08:47 AM
BigC208 hit the nail on the head. Jets are just faster and can haul more. I work on PC12 after retirement from USAF and flew from florida to New Mexico this summer. It was very pleasant with only a little turbulance in clouds as to be expected.
Most flights will be short, so the thermals and other weather closer to ground will naturally affect the aircraft more, hence the bad experiences by some.
Seems strange that those interested in 2000hp warbirds complain of the noise and vibes of a small turboprop. TP are much smoother than most warbirds!
Im also used to multi engine like the C130, but we arent in it for commuting as getting the mission done.
I have a thing for props, from c130 to pc12 to ww1-2 and my models...

Yippee.
10-21-2008, 09:11 AM
Flew on a twin Saab jobbie from Love field to east Texas for a short hop. Poor girl ahead of me hurled the whole way. I liked it just fine, but the average Jane Doe, no.

M_Gunz
10-21-2008, 10:35 AM
Single prop won't make the beat frequency, where sound from two or more reinforce and cancel
each other but then single engine is nothing to go long distances between safe landing spots
with.

I'm sure that there's plenty of cargo haulers that don't need to worry what Joe or Jane want.

PhantomKira
10-23-2008, 12:05 PM
M_Gunz has a point, sort of. Yes, cargo doesn't care (whereas self-loading baggage does), but you also have to take into account why it is that air transport of goods is taking place in the first place. Usually, it's because speed is required. Air transport is exceedingly expensive, and if you don't need the goods right now, from a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense to transport by air. Send a truck, or, to keep costs lowest, buy in bulk, and send a train or a ship.

DuxCorvan
10-23-2008, 12:46 PM
Turboprops are noisy, slow and shaky, and I don't like them at all -and I've flown a lot in them.


Originally posted by general_kalle:
Sometimes I think we have to put aside pleasure and comfort for preserving our planet

F*ck the planet, I have no children. It only has to stand fifty years or so till I die, and then let it burst.

Those who have children, take the prop if you want. Just leave the jets for the blessed egotists.

Bremspropeller
10-23-2008, 12:49 PM
A turboprop is technically still half a jet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DuxCorvan
10-23-2008, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A turboprop is technically still half a jet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Exactly. That contraption is a technological eunuch.

M_Gunz
10-23-2008, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
M_Gunz has a point, sort of. Yes, cargo doesn't care (whereas self-loading baggage does), but you also have to take into account why it is that air transport of goods is taking place in the first place. Usually, it's because speed is required. Air transport is exceedingly expensive, and if you don't need the goods right now, from a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense to transport by air. Send a truck, or, to keep costs lowest, buy in bulk, and send a train or a ship.

Somehow I don't think that a couple hours or even 12 hours makes a huge difference when the
other alternative is days to weeks by truck, train or ship. I get papaya that is certainly
air-transorted from Puerto Rico and around there and would never come in near full size on
ships. I've seen what they used to send on ships, about the size of apples they were so green
and nothing like good. Yet still you can't get sweet ripe bananas except at the source, sigh.
Same goes for kiwi fruit and many other exotics that are pretty much common. Beer is another
example, taken up to alt it gets and stays cold. Treated right after unloading it's good,
OTOH a lot of distributors just park the stuff warm and what was the best ends up like Bud
or worse... your average US beer guzzler doesn't know the difference anyway.

TX-EcoDragon
10-23-2008, 01:56 PM
Turboprops are often unjustly blamed for the ride quality passengers experience - the missions that call for a turboprop are often shorter, low altitude flights, or in mountainous area with shorter takeoff and landing areas. Low altitude flight is generally more turbulence prone, as is flying over mountains.

Yes, the harmonics of multiple props can be annoying to some folks, and in some planes, I guess there's not much to be done there.

M_Gunz
10-23-2008, 02:37 PM
Noise-cancelling headphones would have been a blessing in the Aztec.
It was over 11 hours one-way on some trips. You get sort of numb to it after a while.
Compared to sitting in a car or bus for the same distance, I'd rather fly!

WTE_Galway
10-23-2008, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by BigC208:
The reason commuter turbo props fly low is because of ATC routing. They can operate all dag long in the mid twenties. Most of you have bad experiences because the planes you flew where small. If you put 2 3000hp turboprops on a 60000lbs plane and fly it the same way as jet you will have a smooth ride most of the time. Todays single engine TP's are the future. Low fuel burn and engine maintainance overhead. It's only a matter of time and they will built a 20 seat plus commuter single TP. When the Cessna Caravan came out the consensus was that knobody would buy it because it was single engine. Now 25 years later they built over 1500 and there are several other companies building very succesfull single engine TP's. So if you're unhappy flying in a Twin TP now it'l be a blast seeing your face when these new designs show up on a ramp near you. By the way most airline marketers now that joe sixpack rather flies in a jet but it's all about the bottom line. In the USA the airlines have been competing eachother to death flying inefficient aircraft on thinly populated routes. They can't do that any longer. They cut flights and abandon revenue losing segments. For the people in those areas there are only a few choices. Drive your self, Greyhound bus or a very efficient single engine TP like a Pilatus PC12 or Cessna Caravan. It's up to the consumer. If the public refuse to get into these planes it will be the end of airservice to a lot of remote locations in the near future.

Single engined turbo props statistically are far safer than petrol engined twins.

An engine failure on a loaded petrol twin just means you crash slower http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The chances of engine failure in one of a pair of petrol twins is vastly greater than that of failure of a single turbo prop. the engines are less reliable and there are two of them to fail.

The low engine maintenance overhead is partly due to engine overhaul in many jurisdictions being based around starts rather than hours. This is the reason jets and turboprops are often left running on the tarmac.


As far as the loss of shorter routes goes it is partially political. There are limited slots into major airports (especially ones with limited hours due to noise restrictions) and airlines prefer to use those slots for larger regional and international flights.

Viper2005_
10-23-2008, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by ZappaTime:
See this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/20/trave...transport-rollsroyce (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/20/travelandtransport-rollsroyce)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

From which we may collect that the Guardian's correspondent reads Flight International's website...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/15/317313/...ception-of-open.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/15/317313/r-r-undertakes-secret-studies-into-public-perception-of-open.html)

Sturm_Williger
10-24-2008, 03:43 AM
I've flown on a turboprop a couple of times and I must say I didn't really notice the noise levels. Prop drone vs Jet whine, they're both audible...

But the fact that you could see more was a big plus for me, and the lower flight altitude was for me the clincher ( I suffer from equalisation issues and have in fact burst an eardrum landing in a jet - rather painful, actually. ) The lower alt means less pressure change which is much more tolerable.