Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Turboprop Efficiency At Long Distances  
User currently offlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 854 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7755 times:

Turboprops tend to be more efficient at short distances over jets. Is there a point, however, where the advantage goes to the jet when you factor in speed and distance traveled? It would seem that for long flight distances the fact that a turboprop flies slower would mean that there is more fuel consumed as the plane is in the air much longer.


"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7658 times:

I would like to add that longer flights could mean less aircraft utilization. I notice that in the recent AS contract with Skywest, AS wants jets on some of the longer flights into PDX and SEA.

User currently offlinekcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3847 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7454 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Thread starter):
Is there a point, however, where the advantage goes to the jet when you factor in speed and distance traveled? It would seem that for long flight distances the fact that a turboprop flies slower would mean that there is more fuel consumed as the plane is in the air much longer.

Yes, for any given situation there's a point where the two will cost the same and beyond that where the jet will make more sense.


User currently offlinemafi29 From Germany, joined Nov 2010, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7140 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Thread starter):
It would seem that for long flight distances the fact that a turboprop flies slower would mean that there is more fuel consumed as the plane is in the air much longer.

A turboprop consumes way less fuel per unit time than a comparable jet and it still consumes less fuel per unit distance. But at longer distances other facts (as low utilization, less passenger comfort, ...) exceed the fuel savings


User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7123 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Thread starter):
Is there a point, however, where the advantage goes to the jet when you factor in speed and distance traveled?

In short yes. I just gave a gantleman two charter quotes from Colorado to California in both a turboprop (Beech King Air 90)and a jet (Cessna CJ2). The man, whom we've done business with before, wanted a turboprop (because for whatever reason in his mind-thinks jets are unsafe), and I gave him the quotes. While for short distances, the BE200 is clearly the winner and is a fraction of the cost of a comparible jet, in this case, the BE200 was $1000 more than the CJ2.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6987 times:

I have that question but not for current turboprops, rather for an hypothetical long range widebody turboprop with the latest tech. It probably would need to be relatively fast for a turboprop (like the A400M), passenger comfort is not a priority (as I'm thinking about a 200$/barrel of oil world), however on very long flights you have three problems : you carry lots of fuel for a long time, you have to carry lots of catering and water for the passengers, and you need more crew.

But maybe what would make more sense is to forget about long range altogether and go back to the first days of the jet age, when you just made several tech stops. At the time it was because the planes couldn't carry more fuel, now it would be to burn less fuel carrying fuel.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6856 times:

Provided that speed is not a particular concern, a turbopropeller design is far more efficient.
Example.
CL-44 versus B707.
Route, NRT-SFO
Enroute time...B707, 10 hours, CL-44, 16.5 hours.
Payload...the same for both aircraft.
Fuel consumption?
The CL-44 will consume one half as much as the 707.

Varified by the Flying Tiger Line...long ago.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6853 times:

Western and PSA's Electra's were faster and more fuel efficient on their California routes (LAX-SFO, BUR-SAC, SAN-LAX etc) than the 727's that replaced them. I flew the BUR-SAC route many times and the 727's added 15 minutes to the flight.

User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6734 times:

Colgan Air use Dash 8 Q 400 on the Norfolk-Newark route and Horizon/AS also use Dash 8 Q400 on the LAX-SJC routes. the Norfolk-Newark is about the same distance as the jets flown ORF-JFK route, and other airlines use jet on the LAX-SJC routes.


PS: The Dash 8 Q 400 is a pretty fast turboprop, it may be able to keep up with some jets.


User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3441 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6732 times:

In my observation, yes, a similarly sized TP will be eclipsed by a jet. My observations, are however, based on aircraft built for different purposes.

In this case the DHC-8-300 and the CRJ-200. The Dash was built for shorter field performance and short flights. Its wing, powerplants, and props were optimized fro that. The CRJ-200 is a comparative runway hog, and when taking off in icing conditions has terrible climb performance. It is essentially built for cruise flight.

411a's comparison would probably be better, but is very out of date. I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that turbo fan technology has come much further than turbo-prop technology has.

I think the closest modern comparison might be the CRJ-700 and the Q400, if anyone has info those.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently onlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6574 times:

I am kind of surprised at replies here, it is logical that turbrops burn less fuel for distance , but jets outweight in other fields.
When they say that turboprops are better for short hops in terms of fuel fuel efficiency is somewhat misleading, because they are more fuel efficient no matter the distance.


User currently offlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

That was the ultimate question. Since a turboprop flies slower, it spends more time flying for a given distance. On a short flight this shouldn't add up to much, but if you had a theoretical long distance turbo prop, at some point it would have to spend so much more time in the air flying the savings in fuel burn per hour would be offset by the extra hours of fuel burn. The question is when is this point reached? Is it a fairly short distance? Or is it so long as to be longer than any possible flight?


"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6464 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 11):
On a short flight this shouldn't add up to much, but if you had a theoretical long distance turbo prop, at some point it would have to spend so much more time in the air flying the savings in fuel burn per hour would be offset by the extra hours of fuel burn.

In general, turboprops also burn less per mile. So even though they're in the air longer, the trip fuel burn is still lower.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 11):
The question is when is this point reached? Is it a fairly short distance? Or is it so long as to be longer than any possible flight?

It's the trade between other costs that are time based, and fuel cost. As you spend more time in the air, utilization drops, flight crew trip costs go up, maintenance costs (which are mostly per flight hour) go up, etc. At some point, the time based costs grow to exceed the trip based costs.

Tom.


User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6441 times:

I remember reading somewhere that a Q400 is more economical on stage lengths up to 400 miles over a CRJ700. I believe at 400 miles the Q is only 5 minutes slower. But beyond this point the jet really catches up fast and eventually overtakes on total economics after 500-600 miles.

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Turboprop Efficiency At Long Distances
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...
TurboProp Transition At Flight Safety posted Tue Sep 2 2003 19:12:15 by Inbound
Fuel Efficiency GTF Vs Turboprop posted Wed Jun 24 2009 06:20:53 by VirginFlyer
Squeezing More Efficiency Out Of The MD-11 posted Thu Feb 24 2011 10:55:46 by tsugambler
Concrete Runways At Cold-Weather Airports posted Sun Feb 20 2011 08:35:05 by Reggaebird
What Do ATCs Do At Closed Airports For Weather? posted Tue Feb 1 2011 15:54:23 by Goblin211
Primary Structure At Airbus? posted Mon Jan 24 2011 13:54:19 by B777Neuss
Broken Flap At Trailing Edge posted Wed Jan 12 2011 18:31:25 by flybaurlax
How Long Do You Think A 737 Can Be Streched? posted Mon Jan 3 2011 15:47:00 by 747400sp
A321 Efficiency posted Sun Jan 2 2011 04:03:14 by dimik747
Keeping Track Of ULDs At Outbases posted Mon Dec 20 2010 09:22:25 by JAGflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format