Military Aircraft And Turboprop — Military Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Military Aircraft And Turboprop

Danfearn77 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 1780 posts, RR: 9
Posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7125 times:

Hi Guys

Now i know absolutely nothing about military aviation so be kind!

But something has been bugging me for ages. For 3 years since i finished a physics project on turbofans. Its simple really. Why do a large number of military aircraft use turboprops? Like the new A400m. So why do they use turboprop over jet engines like turbofans?

Thanks for your feedback.

Eagles may soar high, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines!

6 replies: All unread, jump to last

SkyyKat From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7107 times:

My personal hypothesis.

-Ability to operate from unprepared runways.
--(Turbofans are susceptible to FOD)

-Better short and high altitude field performance.

-STOL Performance

-Efficiency for certain roles they are used for Turbofans cant match.

-Ruggedness

I am sure there are many more reasons.

2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6999 times:

AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Danfearn77 (Thread starter):
So why do they use turboprop over jet engines like turbofans?

A perfectly fair question. But if you're intrigued by engine choices, and if you'd like to tackle a more challenging question, see if you can figure out why this aircraft used a jet engine instead of a turboprop:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Mueller - Spotterteam Graz

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andras Kisgergely

2H4

Intentionally Left Blank

ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1923 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6841 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2):
A perfectly fair question. But if you're intrigued by engine choices, and if you'd like to tackle a more challenging question, see if you can figure out why this aircraft used a jet engine instead of a turboprop:

Would it have anything to do with the soviets having an abundance of the A-25 (I think this is the engine) engines in such things as the L-39 so it would have been easier to find replacements etc?

Keep the shinny side up!

2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6806 times:

AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):

Would it have anything to do with the soviets having an abundance of the A-25 (I think this is the engine) engines in such things as the L-39 so it would have been easier to find replacements etc?

Perhaps, although I personally think the abundance of vodka had a bit more to do with the development of this particular aircraft.

2H4

Intentionally Left Blank

EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6784 times:

Quoting SkyyKat (Reply 1):
My personal hypothesis.

-Ability to operate from unprepared runways.
--(Turbofans are susceptible to FOD)

-Better short and high altitude field performance.

-STOL Performance

-Efficiency for certain roles they are used for Turbofans cant match.

-Ruggedness

I am sure there are many more reasons.

Where performance is concerned, don't turboprops accelerate the airplane a lot faster during takeoff? Makes for shorter takeoff runs, something perhaps even a high performance turbofan can't match.

Dare to dream; dream big!

Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6773 times:

Turboprops also pu a lot of the wing in the propwash, generating some additional lift as well. Very few jets do this, save the AN 72/74 in servicem and the prototype YC-14.

Just look at the AN-32. The larger props and higher mounted engines throw a lot of wash over that wing compared to the AN-24/26.

Another fun one is the P-3, where there is barely any wing that is NOT behind props.

The last of the famous international playboys

Top Of Page

Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Military Aircraft And Turboprop

Username:	No username? Sign up now!
Password:	Forgot Password? Be reminded. Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)

Military aviation related posts only!
Not military related? Use the other forums
No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
No hostile language or criticizing of others.
Do not post copyright protected material.
Use relevant and describing topics.
Check if your post already been discussed.
Check your spelling!
DETAILED RULES

Check Spelling

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics: