Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Piston Vs. Turboprop Heavy Twins  
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7785 posts, RR: 16
Posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

A variety of heavy twins later saw life as turboprop twins. The two that I am most interested in are the Navajo/Cheiftain and Cheyenne and the C-421 and C-425/441 Conquest I/II.

What, if any, advantages was there to putting a turboprop on these aircraft? Were there any marked improvements in performance or dramatic reduction in operating costs? As far as I can tell from looking at aircraft.com and Trade-a-plane the Conquest I pulls a significant price advantage over Golden Eagle.

So was there really a big advantage to using the PT-6A/Garrett 331 over the big geared Continental 520 or the Lycoming 540?


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBuff From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5035 times:

1. Overhaul costs on turbines while more expensive are much further apart;

2. Fuel availability for turbines is far superior throughout the sparsely settled parts of the world;

3. Thrust to weight ratios are superior when discussing turbine engines;

4. Cold weather operations for a turbine is a non-event.

Four quick "off the top of my head" answers...

Best Regards,

Buff


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

To add to Buff's response, turbines are also much more reliable than pistons are.  Big thumbs up


09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5009 times:

Also, you need to add to what the other guys mentioned high power, comparative light weight and small size. I used to fly an MU2 Marquise that had Garrett TPE731-10 engines. They weren't much larger than a very big water melon, but they had thermodynamic ratings of over 1,000 HP! Although it's been alluded to, single-engine performance in these turbo-props is usually more than adequate. In most of the piston powered aircraft it can be abysmal. Couple this with what Ralpha said - turbines are much more reliable - and you've got the best of both worlds. The drawbacks to the turbines are few, when it comes to maintenance costs they can take your breath away and while they are typically much simplier to operate (no mixture controls to screw around with and very little to do with the propellor controls) they don't tolerate pilot mismanagement as well. Screwed up starts, over temping, and/or over torquing the engines can quickly become very expensive affairs. All in all, turbine engines are probably the best thing to ever happen to non-recreational aviation.

User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7785 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4986 times:

Thanks for your input guys. I figure since these planes are earning their keep by flying charter, air taxi, corporate transport... efficiencies and costs of turboprops are better than pistons.

Now, let me throw another one at you, if you will. There have also been several turboprop conversions for single-engine aircraft. There is a mod for the Cessna P210, and presumably the T210 as well to fit an Allison 250 in the nose, and the same engine has been put into A36 Bonanzas. Plus there is the turbine Malibu conversion that puts a PT6A-35 in the nose. And now there is the production Piper Meridian with a PT6A-42.

Now is there any advantage in these applications to the turboprop?



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineJT-8D From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 423 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4983 times:

Buff forgot to say how cool they sound too..JT

User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

I flew both the 404 Titan and the 441 Conquest II with my previous employer.They were 2 completely different planes,believe me!Speed,range and comfort was alot better with the 441.Our fleet of 404's counted 5 planes,and there were 20 unscheduled engine changes over a 3-year period.Trying to start the Continental engine during a Norwegian winter (-20 C or even colder) was an EVENT!


"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

In defense of the big pistons they do better down low then the turboprops do. They have to go high or else they are gulping fuel like mad. Pistons often mean that you can stay low, below the ceiling and make into non-approach equipted airports. A important consideration where I live.

Generally speaking too, you are less likely to pick up rocks with a piston then with a turboprop propellor. That is because you can vary the RPM a piston propellor is spinning at. Most turbine props only very their RPM over a much smaller range.

What I want to know is why when they develop a turboprop version of a piston aircraft, say going from a Navajo to a Cheyenne, do they keep the piston systems.

Look at the Cheyenne II. It has to PT-6 motors, which produce gobs of extra bleed air, that could be used for cabin heating or de-icing. But from what I have been told rather then do this a Chyenne still uses a Janitrol heater and de-ice boots pressurized by engine drivin vacume pumps.

Why the hell would you choose to keep these systems?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

They keep the same systems for usually just one reason - economics. They've already paid to certify the "piston" systems and why spend more money? It used to really bug me when I flew the Piper Cheyenne II that had a Janitrol heater in the nose when it had two perfectly good PT6s on the wings. I also was annoyed by the fact that they had to add two "55 gallon" drums on each wing tip so that the airplane could carry enough fuel to go somewhere. It was ugly as sin.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Piston Vs. Turboprop Heavy Twins
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops 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
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Piston Vs. Turbo Prop posted Mon Aug 12 2002 06:05:23 by Transactoid
Turboprop & Piston: Visual Differences Only posted Mon Sep 26 2005 22:49:15 by AmericanB763ER
Twin Engined Turboprops Vs Piston Engines posted Wed Oct 6 2004 12:17:52 by Arniepie
Fastest Turboprop Twins posted Thu Sep 2 2004 15:00:32 by KiwiNanday
Light Vs. Moderate Vs. Heavy Chop posted Mon Sep 23 2002 21:21:41 by Flashmeister
Aircraft Vs Race Cars: Temps, Wear And Tear, Etc posted Thu Nov 2 2006 07:34:20 by TimePilot
DC-8 Vs 707 Today posted Tue Oct 31 2006 05:49:17 by DLKAPA
Heavy Take-off With Tailwind posted Fri Oct 27 2006 20:02:52 by BA84
Airport Design - Arrival Vs. Departure Floor posted Wed Oct 25 2006 05:08:15 by Abrelosojos
HF Vs VHF Vs UHF R/T Frequencies Useage posted Fri Oct 20 2006 08:28:34 by BOACVC10
Turbojet Vs Turboprop posted Mon Dec 14 2009 02:15:29 by Jasonbourne
Fuel Efficiency GTF Vs Turboprop posted Wed Jun 24 2009 06:20:53 by VirginFlyer
Piston Vs. Turbo Prop posted Mon Aug 12 2002 06:05:23 by Transactoid
Super Vs Heavy Callsigns posted Fri Dec 4 2009 21:22:20 by Rw774477
Twins Vs Quads, Explanation Needed posted Wed Jun 4 2008 19:00:16 by Banjo76
Piston Engine Fadec, Diesel Vs Avgas posted Sat Oct 6 2007 09:13:48 by Baw2198
Turboprop & Piston: Visual Differences Only posted Mon Sep 26 2005 22:49:15 by AmericanB763ER
Twin Engined Turboprops Vs Piston Engines posted Wed Oct 6 2004 12:17:52 by Arniepie
Fastest Turboprop Twins posted Thu Sep 2 2004 15:00:32 by KiwiNanday
Light Vs. Moderate Vs. Heavy Chop posted Mon Sep 23 2002 21:21:41 by Flashmeister

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format