Levg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1004 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7974 times:
I was just wondering, having never flown in a turboprop, how is it different from a jet? Besides the fact that it's smaller, is it a lot less comfortable? I've heard that everyone on board gets sick all the time, but was wondering how true is that. One of the last times I flew, I had a choice of booking a jet flight, or a turboprop. Not to take any chances, I flew on a jet. Did I make the right decision? What do you guys think?
A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
Beltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7941 times:
Turboprops are noisier and in my experience tend to fly at lower altitudes. Smaller plane at lower altitudes generally means more exposure to turbulence. The fact that they have props rather than jets does not have any effect on turbulence.
Ntspelich From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7912 times:
Without a doubt jets have their advantages. However, I enjoy taking a couple of turboprop trips or segments each year. There's just something about the noise of the engines, the smallness of the cabin (at over 6'3" I don't know why I like the smallness of it) and the experience of walking out onto the apron to get to the aircraft. I've also found that typically you get to interact with your fellow pax on these flights due to the smallness of the cabin. It's also a good way to put the massiveness of other aircraft into perspective. There's nothing like taxiing along in IAD and going pass the big birds.
Call it nostalgia, but if time's not an issue and you don't mind a bit extra noise, I'd go for it next time.
United 717 heavy, you're facing the wrong way. Any chance you can powerback to get off of my deice pad?
Cchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1775 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7831 times:
The ATR72-500s are good and reasonably large (sits around 66 - is that the largest passenger turboprop?). With a good airline, the interior is not much different to a jet.
Your experience will depend on which type of aircraft you're on. The smaller ones can be sometimes quite scary. Generally speaking, turboprops are not as comfortable as a jet, but getting on a short-haul turboprop flight is a good experience.
Personally, I don't really like single aisle jets. I would prefer a twin-prop for short haul domestic and a twin (aisle and engine) jet for anything more than 2 hours.
TWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7805 times:
You made a fine decision to fly on a jet, but if you get the chance, check out a turboprop. I just had my first turboprop ride this summer. It was on an ATR-72-200. I have to say though, it was a bit noisier than a jet, but overall it was a good experience. Also on the ATR there is a lot of room in the cabin. Haha, and nobody, myself included, got sick on that flight!
Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
BCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7786 times:
My main concern when faced with flying a turboprop, is the potential for turbulance. I made the mistake of flying a Skywest Embraer 120 from IDA (Idaho Falls) to SLC, and I have never been so sick in my life. But I also flew US Airways Express Dash-8 from AVP (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre) to PIT, and it was a great flight.
So, my advice: definitely go for a jet when there are significant mountains inbetween the two points. Otherwise, it's a toss-up. Jets and props both have their advantages and I like both, as long as I'm not tossing my chunks up over the Great Salt Lake.
CLEspotter From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7770 times:
I was on Shuttle America flight something from CLE to PIT and I got sick but we then borded the Dash 8 and let me say thats a heck of a nice, sturdy aircraft. I will always take up a chance to fly on the Dash 8 if you can.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7681 times:
I have flown on several Saab340s and EMB-120s, and I have to say that despite the noise and bumps, they are fine planes. It feels more like "flying" to me; something about it makes you feel the gravity trying to bring the plane down (but not in a scary way). Of the two props, I prefer the EMB-120; it seems to have a slightly smoother ride.
Nevertheless, I am glad that RJs are replacing turboprops on many smaller-city routes. For the vast majority of the flying public, turboprops suck, and more jets means more customers.
MD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1024 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7594 times:
I've flown on quite a few turboprops, from the Fokker F27 and Convair 640 to both sizes of the ATR, Saab 340 (my favorite) and the Dash 8. Turboprops tend to be a rougher ride due to the fact they fly at lower altitudes than jets and noisier as well, as other posters have pointed out. I wouldn't want to fly one for more than an hour or two, but I must admit most of my turboprop flights were good.
The roughest flight I've ever had was on a Dornier 228 from Grand Rapids, Michigan to Chicago's Midway airport during a snowstorm. I also flew on a Saab 340 out of Buffalo, NY to JFK through a snowstorm yet the flight wasn't very rough. I was very impressed with the 340's ride through a very intense storm!
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7501 times:
Well, the modern turboprops like Saab 2000, Do-328, Dash-8-Q400 are in now way comparable to the older models like the Fokker 27. A Saab 2000 for example can cruise at FL290 and has an active noise reduction system, making it very quiet and vibration-free inside. Considering e.g. Swiss International, their Saab 2000's even offer more legroom and space than their Embraer 145 counterparts.
ARGinMIA From Argentina, joined Nov 2001, 487 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (11 years 12 months 8 hours ago) and read 7359 times:
I Recently bought some noise canceling headphones.. I tried them on a 10hr 767 flight and they work wonders.. Now.. Do they work on turboprops? I'm going to fly on the Saab 340 and I want to know if they will do any good...
Okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3534 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (11 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 7297 times:
Turboprop=Low, Slow, Noisey
Not bad on a short flight. The only time I really enjoy them if there is some topography in which I would like to see. Most do not seem to land very well with any cross wind componet mostly due to their size in relation to slow speed I would guess.
ATR prop brake is interesting when sitting on the tarmac and taxiing.
CitationX From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 7263 times:
I've flown on Metroliners, SF340s, EMB-110s and EMB-120s. The SF340 and EMB-120 flights are as smooth and quiet as flying on an older 737-200 or DC-9-10. The cabins are comfortable and the block times on the routes I took them on (MRY-LAX, BUR-SJC) were only a few minutes longer than comparable jet flights.
The Metroliner was a fun plane to fly on. I'm 5'9" and still had to bend at the waist to get to my seat. It was a noisy little dude but fun to fly on. The narrow wingspan made me feel nearly every burble of air in the seat of my pants, but since I like to fly even small planes, that was okay.
The EMB-110 (a.k.a. "The Bandit") might have been the noisiest plane I have flown on since taking a nostalgia ride on a Island Airlines Ford Tri-Motor from ORL back in the early 1980s (which was something akin to flying inside a motorized, metal garbage can). The 3-across seating was snug, and it lacked pressurization ("POP" goes the ears!). Still the leather seats and rugged construction impressed me. Yep, I thought it was a fun ride, too.
About the only turboprop I would try to avoid is the Beech/Raytheon 1900/2900. My uncle is a corporate pilot for a Georgia law firm, who has thousands of hours in turboprop planes such as the Piper Cheyenne, Rockwell Turbo Commander and Beech Super King Air, tells me that the 1900/2900 are generally underpowered and especially dangerous in engine-out situations. He also says they are not rugged enough for consistent high-cycle, heavy load commuter airline use - after all, the basic airframe was intended for lower-cycle corporate use.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6759 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (11 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 7117 times:
The Dash8-Q400 is quite an aircraft. Pax capacity is up to 78. Cruise speed is 360 knots (over 410 mph) only some 30 knots slower than the 328Jet RJ. As stated earlier, aisle headroom is 6'5" - more than the CRJ. And with the Noise and Vibration Suppression system, together with the six bladed slower turning props, the interior sound levels are almost equal to the CRJ's. Cruise altitude is up to 27,000 feet.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Saab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1621 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (11 years 12 months ago) and read 7106 times:
I fly a Saab 2000 for a living. When the pax board sometimes I stand and greet them and I am tired of the cynical comments about props and puddlejumpers and low-tech and slow and blah, blah, blah....
Most prop flights are short (very few are more than 90 minutes and most of ours are about 50-60 minutes) and frankly, a so-called "regional jet" would only be 2-3 minutes faster over those segments. I once dead-headed on an Avro in the cockpit for one of the segments we would normally fly and it was, if anything, slower than the Saab 2000. The speeds I saw indicated were not 1 knot faster than we fly.
Now, admittedly, the Saab 2000 is not the same as the 340. We are much faster. But the fact is that on short segments the few knots difference does not change the block to block time very much.
Our cabin is more spacious than an Embraer 145.
There are 3 places where I see an advantage for a small jet:
1. No vibrations. Even though the Saab has a low vibration level for a prop plane it is still more than a jet. As a pilot, it creates a higher level of fatigue.
2. Over longer segments they are faster, though not as much as some people think, since a large portion of the block-block time is spent rolling on the ground. The actual time in the air is not as different as most people think, especially on short flights.
3. But the real advantage is that they can fly higher. Our Saab is certified to FL310 and we used to fly that high but now with RVSM in place in Europe our company did not certify us for that and we are limited to FL280. This is not bad at all except that occasionally we are a bit closer to the "weather". The Embraers in our fleet can fly to FL370 and this 9000 extra feet does get them above more clouds.
Other than these three things I find no real advantage of a jet over a prop. And we have some real advantages, like the ability to operate in and out of some fields the jets can only dream about...
: No idea if my noise canceling headphones will work or not on a turboprop?