Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1565 posts, RR: 24 Posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1455 times:
I have witnessed more than one occasion that people feel more safe if they fly with a jet engined aircraft rather than a turboprop airplane.When you have to fly short haul and if you had a chance to choose(lets say there is a flight departing now with a turboprop airplane and another one in one hour with a jet to your destination)which one would you prefer?
CMK10 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 513 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1416 times:
In my experiance with short haul transports (Saab-340, Shorts-360, ATR-42 ERJ-140, ERJ-145). Ill take the Saab. But this is not indicitive of me always taking props, Ive just had the best experiances with the Saab.
"Traveling light is the only way to fly" - Eric Clapton
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Given that most regional jets and props have the same level of comfort, it doesn't matter to me at all. I think the props are more fun to fly in - they give that "old world" feel of lots of noise on start-up, taxy and take-off. I wouldn't want to deal with that for more than about 30 minutes, though.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1347 times:
The staement "that people feel more safe if they fly with a jet engined aircraft rather than a turboprop airplane" is really quite funny. Not that your statement was funny Wing, I've seen it also. My laugh comes from pointing out that the only real difference is that on one the fan is enclosed.
Now for my preference. Do.328-300 over Saab 340, DHC-8 over CRJ/ERJ, F.27 over anything. I will always choose high wing and don't care if the fan is shrouded or not.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1329 times:
Can't really say because i've never flown on a turboprop before. But given a choice of say a CRJ or a Saab 340 i'd take the CRJ. Jets are faster, fly higher, quieter and smoother to fly in. Having said that i would like to fly on a turboprop just for the experience.
AApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
I'll take the prop! Especially if its leaving now. I've flown in both regional jets and turbo props and to be honest, my most comfortable experience of them all was in an ASA, ATR-72. There was more leg room and cabin space in that aircraft than the CRJ or ERJ. My CRJ flights were horrible (my greatest dislike being the window at elbow level. I've read that Bombardier fixed this issue with the CRJ, but so far my times in those aircraft were not very pleaseant at all.
Strickerje From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 723 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1315 times:
I'd take the prop just for variety since I see and fly on RJ's often (namely CRJ's). I was on a turboprop for the first time in over 10 years just a few weeks ago - American Eagle Saab 340, SAN-LAX. My first flight ever, back in 1992, included a leg on a Comair Saab 340, CVG-YYZ, and I wanted to fly on one again - and I even made sure I got the same seat!
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1565 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
Actually while I was writing this post I was also thinking that this is not quite right place to ask such question.Because in a.net forums people are knowledgable or eager to learn something about aviation so they can think better than average people on the steet.Taking the a.netters a side most people doesn't have a clue about the difference between turbopropeller and piston propeller.I 've witnessed people in the waiting lounges talking about the plane's paint was old and would that be an unsafe situation.Or more interestingly even some of my friends who know I am an airline pilot asks me "we flew 3 times with A Airline it was not a bumpy flight but last week we flew B Airline and it was a turbulant flight why is it? Does A airlines has better pilots than B airline?"So I guess its normal that non enthusiasts can make such comments and its also normal that people who doesn't fly often can be stressed little more than frequent flyers.
ERJ135 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1285 times:
Safety is not really an issue for me when selecting a flight unless it's with an airline with a really poor record.
If the jet was an ERJ I'd go with that, but otherwise I'd take the most convenient option or earliest arrival.