Page 2 of 2

Re: Why are turboprops so named ?

Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:00 am
by YIMBY
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Nevertheless, I can believe that many have a bias against propellers, without them actually being able to explain why. Perhaps it is simply fear of the unknown? :roll:


Because most, essentially all modern turbprop powered airliners are small, and often cramped (configured for short flight time), have small overhead lockers, serve only snacks if even that, lack IFE, and are loaded by bus.

Were there an uncramped 150-seater, 3+3 abreast, using jet... - sorry, propbridges - people might consider it like 737 or 320.

To the original question, given the (justified) shame for climate pollution, it would make sense to change the turboprop name (for the next generation planes) to something more environmentally appealing, 'ecothruster' or whoever more creative comes with a nice name that is technically not too wrong. That may make people to prefer those over jets.

Re: Why are turboprops so named ?

Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:31 pm
by SheikhDjibouti
YIMBY wrote:
Because most, essentially all modern turbprop powered airliners are small, and often cramped (configured for short flight time), have small overhead lockers, serve only snacks if even that, lack IFE, and are loaded by bus.

Were there an uncramped 150-seater, 3+3 abreast, using jet... - sorry, propbridges - people might consider it like 737 or 320.

Small. Is there a problem with small? Some of my most enjoyable flights were in small aircraft. Smaller queues at the gate. Quicker to board. Quicker to disembark. Less competition for checked bags at the carousel. But then I'm an a.nut, so these things might not impress the masses.

Often cramped. You have just described every single flight I have taken in the last fifteen years, except they were all on jet aircraft. Except one. (737, 747, 757, 767, 777, A320, MD-80, and Dash-8)
True, I wasn't flying business class, and I accept that the average turboprop fails to pamper elite flyers to the level they think they deserve.

Small overhead lockers Yeah the overhead lockers on a 2+2 Dash 8 are smaller than those on a 737, but don't forget you only have to share them with three other people in your row instead of five. Is there something else special about large lockers?

Serve only snacks Again, you have just described every short haul flight I have taken in the last fifteen years, all but one of them on jet aircraft.
But I do agree, it's a real pain when you have gone specifically out of your way to book a lunchtime flight, only to find there's no lunch. If only the departure airport had some eating facility to make up for this..... :scratchchin:

Lack IFE That's such a killer. I despair at the thought of spending a whole 1½ hours with nothing to do except read a newspaper, a book, crack a few sudokus, a crossword, talk to the person next to you, or just chill out. Then again, I have children who cannot believe that when they leave school, they might end up in a job where the management are so cruel that they will not be able to access their phone or other entertainment for as much as 8 hours, day after day. That's like pure Charles Dickens Victorian cruelty, and shouldn't be tolerated in the 21st Century.
Somebody should tell the United Nations. :white:

Loaded by bus Buses are for peasants and poor folk, not people like us! :duck:

Were there an uncramped 150-seater, 3+3 abreast, using jet... - sorry, propbridges - people might consider it like 737 or 320.

Pfft - I challenge you to show me an uncramped 737 or 320 first.
And what is so special about 3+3? I didn't realise being stuck in the middle seat with two strangers was so desirable? Or getting a window seat, and having to squeeze past two others to reach it? I'll take 2+2 every time, thankyou.

I'm beginning to wonder if your post should have carried a sarcasm warning, because I've been treating it at face value.

To the original question, given the (justified) shame for climate pollution, it would make sense to change the turboprop name (for the next generation planes) to something more environmentally appealing, 'ecothruster' or whoever more creative comes with a nice name that is technically not too wrong. That may make people to prefer those over jets.
I think you might have nailed it there. :bigthumbsup:

Re: Why are turboprops so named ?

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:48 pm
by WPvsMW
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
And you will have to define "short distances" in terms of whether you are addressing a European, an American, or in the worst case, an Australian.

Or a Hawaii resident. "Short" is 6 hours... back to the W. Coast. Interisland is "momentary". ;)

Re: Why are turboprops so named ?

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:54 pm
by BravoOne
Max Q wrote:
Always thought this was a poor and inaccurate way to categorize these aircraft


Many people assume this is a description of a ‘turbocharged propeller’ aircraft and why wouldn’t they ? the title is very misleading, propellers mean piston engines to most people and passengers


Hollywood doesn’t help, how many times have you seen a King Air start up with an accompanying piston engine sound effect ?!


Refueling personnel are often confused, thinking it has props so it must use Avgas although this is a survivable mistake unlike putting jet fuel in a piston aircraft which may not be



Finally it sells the aircraft short, I think the name ‘turboprop’ should be retired and replaced with ‘jet prop’ or ‘prop jet’


That is an accurate description of the power plant, a jet turbine driving a propeller through a reduction gearbox



I think passengers would be more receptive to flying on aircraft so named as well



Turboprop is a poor name, time for it to go



In spite of the numerous posts here on this subject, I think Turboprop is a proper name that describes the turbojet engine/propeller combination just fine. FE rating says "Turbopropeller" which pretty much sums it up. I suppose that if it were somehow chnaged they would have to reissue all those certificates, or at least for those old guys like myself who are still living? :)

Re: Why are turboprops so named ?

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:55 pm
by kalvado
BravoOne wrote:
In spite of the numerous posts here on this subject, I think Turboprop is a proper name that describes the turbojet engine/propeller combination just fine. FE rating says "Turbopropeller" which pretty much sums it up. I suppose that if it were somehow chnaged they would have to reissue all those certificates, or at least for those old guys like myself who are still living? :)

FIne print: turbine engine, not really turbojet. "Jet" part assumes a significant exhaust thrust. If I remember correctly, many turboprops have turbine pointing the wrong way, with airflow back to front, in porded to reduce shaft complexity - and minimizing jet component in process.

Re: Why are turboprops so named ?

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:39 pm
by BravoOne
kalvado wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
In spite of the numerous posts here on this subject, I think Turboprop is a proper name that describes the turbojet engine/propeller combination just fine. FE rating says "Turbopropeller" which pretty much sums it up. I suppose that if it were somehow chnaged they would have to reissue all those certificates, or at least for those old guys like myself who are still living? :)

FIne print: turbine engine, not really turbojet. "Jet" part assumes a significant exhaust thrust. If I remember correctly, many turboprops have turbine pointing the wrong way, with airflow back to front, in porded to reduce shaft complexity - and minimizing jet component in process.



I believe your thinking of the PW PT6.

Re: Why are turboprops so named ?

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:56 pm
by CARST
The whole propeller thing and it's "bad reputation" is only a problem in the USA anyway, because people on average are not very well educated over there...

The other 194 countries have no problems flying ATRs, Q400s and all other kind of turboprops aircraft if it's more economical. So there is no other name needed, it wouldn't chaneg a thing anyway.