anyone have a huge infatuation with turbo props?

mscard88 said:
Here's a cool turbo prop.

il_570xN.947966400_tgdy.jpg


Piper Enforcer. Back when I was a controller at Eglin they had 2 of them there weapons testing for 2 months in the early 80s. Very cool and fast, PT-6 motors.
Click to expand...

There is one at Edwards AFB sitting in a fenced yard like a junkyard dog. Saw it while driving to park at one of the airshows years ago.

Fearless Tower said:
Has any pilot ever liked flying the metroliner?

Everyone I know that flew it hated it.
Click to expand...

Key Lime Air at Denver Intl flies them. Don't even get me started... :eek:
 
overdrive148 said:
There is one at Edwards AFB sitting in a fenced yard like a junkyard dog. Saw it while driving to park at one of the airshows years ago. :eek:
Click to expand...

Yup, another at the Air Force Museum in Ohio. 2-3 more around I believe.
 
Turboprops are fun, but jets are better, especially when I'm sitting at FL410 looking down on all the bumpy clouds I used to have to fly through when I was driving a PC-12
 
I fly a Meridian. The advantages of a T-prop vs. jet are 1) getting in and out of small runways. 2) way more efficient and less expensive on small trips, say less than 300nm and just as fast. 3) you can pull the power back and fly it low and slow just like a recip on pretty similar fuel burns. So you can use it for serious transportation as well the $100 burger or messing around in the practice area without spending a fortune. 4) If you're a below average pilot like me, you can be pretty poor at speed control and still bring it over the numbers at Vref. Or not and stop with plenty of runway left. 5) No check ride required. This last one is BS in my opinion because if you can't fly a TP well enough to pass a check ride type test, you shouldn't be flying one - but it sells a lot of planes. 6) even though the thing costs twice as much as my house, non pilots (and especially in laws) think I'm flying a puny little propeller plane and I'm not some super rich guy flying a jet that should give them money.

Having said that, if I could afford a jet, I'd be flying one.
 
Groundpounder said:
Turboprops are fun, but jets are better, especially when I'm sitting at FL410 looking down on all the bumpy clouds I used to have to fly through when I was driving a PC-12
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone that's flown jets can say they prefer turbo props with a straight face, me included! :rolleyes:
 
Fearless Tower said:
Mostly correct, except that there are indeed some direct drive TPs. Obviously not P&Ws though.
Click to expand...
Completely correct. As I was describing a PT6, not a TPE.

I also said "most king airs". I do believe there were a few built with the TPE (Garrett) engines.
 
Kritchlow said:
Completely correct. As I was describing a PT6, not a TPE.

I also said "most king airs". I do believe there were a few built with the TPE (Garrett) engines.
Click to expand...
Sure. But you originally made a statement that turbo props in general were not direct drive. You didn't limit it to the PT6.
 
There's a number of current and past turbo props that fascinate me. I miss the Beech Starship and am sorry I never got to step onto one. The other one that I have always liked, but the wings are in the wrong place, is a Silver Eagle 210. http://www.onaircraft.com/products-services/silver-eagle-conversion/ I could live to 200 and never have enough money for either. That won't stop me from dreaming though.
Maybe But will see this and bring his Starship by for a ride!
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sure. But you originally made a statement that turbo props in general were not direct drive. You didn't limit it to the PT6.
Click to expand...
Okay... I don't see where you get that, but I can roll with it.

It's all good.
 
I am not sure why we got off on how king air engines work, but I get the general idea and how it's not a single shaft running from the turbine all the way into the prop.
I don't know if I described a king air/PT6 startup wrong or not.
 
midcap said:
I am not sure why we got off on how king air engines work, but I get the general idea and how it's not a single shaft running from the turbine all the way into the prop.
I don't know if I described a king air/PT6 startup wrong or not.
Click to expand...
To be clear, that's not a King Air thing. A Pratt turboprop is as you describe. A Garrett is a solid shaft. Either can be put on any airplane.
A quick way to tell Pratt vs Garrett....
If the props are feathered when engine not running = Pratt. Not feathered = Garrett.
With a direct drive shaft there needs to be minimal drag during start, so there are start locks that hold the props in flat pitch. With no direct drive drag is no factor.
 
Kritchlow said:
To be clear, that's not a King Air thing. A Pratt turboprop is as you describe. A Garrett is a solid shaft. Either can be put on any airplane.
A quick way to tell Pratt vs Garrett....
If the props are feathered when engine not running = Pratt. Not feathered = Garrett.
With a direct drive shaft there needs to be minimal drag during start, so there are start locks that hold the props in flat pitch. With no direct drive drag is no factor.
Click to expand...


I understood that....don't caravans have pratts?
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
I mean, if you want to get picky, I believe the breakdown percentage for thrust on the PT6A-67P attributed about 10% (15%?) to exhaust gases so it's not all coming from the prop.
Click to expand...

Weird. In the typical PT6, the gas in the gas generator section flows from back to front. I guessing from what you say that there must be some shroud to redirect the exhaust gas in the -67P.
 
midcap said:
cool


seems like a direct drive would have more power and efficiency...but at a cost of more Mx I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

Longer TBO, way better engine for a 208, better performance, economy, plus the SRL and TTL, all makes for one heck of a ship.
 
^^^^ that's really cool. I didn't know that conversion existed.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The only place I ever see them these days is on the ramps at Naval Air Stations.
Click to expand...

No kidding. There seems to be one on every ramp here, and I think they haul freight. I've seen the UPS truck unloading into it.
 
I want a PC-12 for my personal $100 hamburger runs. Need has nothing to do with it.

Here's one taking off outta 7B3... 2100' runway with obstacles each end. I don't think too many jets could do that easily.

 
UngaWunga said:
I want a PC-12 for my personal $100 hamburger runs. Need has nothing to do with it.

Here's one taking off outta 7B3... 2100' runway with obstacles each end. I don't think too many jets could do that easily.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me too!
 
So, I was in a surreal conversation at work this morning. One of the owners was lamenting that his trip to Reno this week was really too short for our jet and he was dreading the airlines. I offered up that a single-engine turbo prop would be perfect. The other owner offered up that a King Air would be better. So now, I'm looking at King Air operating costs and whether one will fit in our hangar. There is also an outside chance of personal use. Crazy.
 
TP's do a lot of things well. My old 680V will have to do for now, but if I had more cash I'd go for the Jetprop 1000 model. FL350 doing 300kts burning 54gal/hr in TOTAL. Add to that 2000nm range and the ability to land at short fields (that cost less and often are closer to your destination), they're impossible to beat on long hauls. Going from LA to Chicago, 1600nm, you're looking at non-stop in the Commander. With any jet you're looking at 1 stop at least. I've never managed to get from cruise altitude, down on the ground to refuel, go to bathroom and up to altitude again in less than an hour. So any jet speed advantage is completely gone on a route like that.

The fastest planes between two points are the ones with the longest range.
 
UngaWunga said:
I want a PC-12 for my personal $100 hamburger runs. Need has nothing to do with it.

Here's one taking off outta 7B3... 2100' runway with obstacles each end. I don't think too many jets could do that easily.

Click to expand...
2,100'? That's nothing. ;)
 
stratobee said:
Going from LA to Chicago, 1600nm, you're looking at non-stop in the Commander. With any jet you're looking at 1 stop at least. I've never managed to get from cruise altitude, down on the ground to refuel, go to bathroom and up to altitude again in less than an hour. So any jet speed advantage is completely gone on a route like that.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on "any jet"?
 
Care to elaborate on "any jet"?
Click to expand...

I meant single pilot jet. I only know of maybe 1-2 that can do over 2000nm - CJ4 or the SJ30.
 
stratobee said:
But not 2000nm
Click to expand...

Your theoretical trip was 1600 miles in which you claim "any jet" can't do without a fuel stop. Also, your theoretical trip is LA to Chicago, which normally has a westerly wind.

So why does a 1600 mile trip need 2000 miles range? Considering VFR flight and typical summer winds?
 
stratobee said:
TP's do a lot of things well. My old 680V will have to do for now, but if I had more cash I'd go for the Jetprop 1000 model. FL350 doing 300kts burning 54gal/hr in TOTAL.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are skewed btw. 300kts at FL350 in a 1000 will yield a ff of 456pph (76gph). If the plane is flown at LRC (long range cruise) then you'll see 280kts at 385pph (65 gph).

And that plane is not happy at FL350, you'll rarely see that altitude unless you're light and below ISA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top