anyone have a huge infatuation with turbo props?

Only ever flew on one, and that was a Convair 580, probably 30 years ago, and I can't say I was impressed.
 
Turboprops vs jets, silly argument, it's like saying which is better a Phillips or a torx, well if you have a Philips screw, probably the Philips, and vise versa.
 
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...

The PC-12 and TBM's are freaking awesome.
 
Doc Holliday said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was slightly ambitious, but your math is flawed. 456pph is 68gal/hr, not 76. 385pph is 57gal/hr. It seems like the 1000 does 290kts on 57gal/hr at FL350.

http://www.eagle-creek.com/2015/05/...lling-for-the-magic-of-great-legacy-aircraft/
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay, second post. You do understand that it's a jet engine blowing air into a drive for the prop.. right?
At least on most kingAirs they use a PT6.
That is nothing more than a jet engine blast blowing through a fan that turns the prop.
If you were strong enough you could hold the prop with the engine at 100+%
The prop is not mechanically connected to any part of the engine.
Click to expand...

the atr which has p&w 127's on it, has a prop brake on the right engine so you can run the engine at idle to get air for the packs and not have the prop turning.

bob
 
Doc Holliday said:
CJ3 and Citation II SP, Beech Premier can do 1645. Phenom 300 is about 2300.
Click to expand...
A II SP can do it, but with just a light pilot on board. :rolleyes: I am not saying it isn't done, just not a good idea to get over aggressive on figuring out the actual take off weight. :eek:
 
unsafervguy said:
the atr which has p&w 127's on it, has a prop brake on the right engine so you can run the engine at idle to get air for the packs and not have the prop turning.

bob
Click to expand...

I used to see rampers walk under the prop and warn them not to do that as they have become "unbraked" in the past and will do a number on you, if not kill you. Amazingly to me how some ignored me. We had a few come loose with our ATRs but no one hurt.
 
Last edited:
I love turboprops and there's one to rule them all...

maxresdefault.jpg
 
I like the phillips versus Torx comment. I think if you are deciding between a jet and a TP, really haven't defined your mission very well. But as an all around plane, I love my SETP. I can do anything including flying into and out of any airport in my TP that I could in my Cirrus, including flying VFR low and slow, but can also travel long distances like a jet pretty quickly above 99% of the hostile weather in the flight levels. Canyon flying one day and crossing the country above a major named winter storm the next. The TP makes the ultimate most purpose GA airplane in my opinion.
 
About 25 years ago was starting engines on a Metro at EWR. Started the right engine on a GPU then signalled the rampie to disconnect it. The connection for the GPU was behind the right wing root. A minute later blood splattered over the FO's window. She had taken the short cut and tried to go between the fuselage & prop & died instantly. Procedure for them was to go around the right wing back to the GPU. Metro's have Garret engines and are a geared direct drive so the prop was in flat pitch unlike a PT6 which would be feathered. Years later I ran across my FO on that flight. She told me she never flew again as a pilot. This industry can be very dangerous if you try to take shortcuts.
 
hawk25u said:
About 25 years ago was starting engines on a Metro at EWR. Started the right engine on a GPU then signalled the rampie to disconnect it. The connection for the GPU was behind the right wing root. A minute later blood splattered over the FO's window. She had taken the short cut and tried to go between the fuselage & prop & died instantly. Procedure for them was to go around the right wing back to the GPU. Metro's have Garret engines and are a geared direct drive so the prop was in flat pitch unlike a PT6 which would be feathered. Years later I ran across my FO on that flight. She told me she never flew again as a pilot. This industry can be very dangerous if you try to take shortcuts.
Click to expand...

Eesh. We have two GPUs and use them frequently. I am always -incredibly- careful when disconnecting them. Ducking directly under engines in a place where crouching a bit too high could put me at eye level with either end of a turbine engine. Or walking just a little too close to props which often become invisible.

Scariest ones are the Swearingen Merlins. The plug is right next to the prop and those suckers are loud.
 
James331 said:
Turboprops vs jets, silly argument, it's like saying which is better a Phillips or a torx, well if you have a Philips screw, probably the Philips, and vise versa.
Click to expand...
Nah... turbo props still have more moving parts, which means more potential for failure.
 
mscard88 said:
I used to see rampers walk under the prop and warn them not to do that as they have become "unbraked" in the past and will do a number on you, if not kill you. Amazingly to me how some ignored me. We had a few come loose with our ATRs but no one hurt.
Click to expand...

Anyone silly enough to do the "pull the prop brake breaker" game to save fuel on yours while keeping both packs operating with one shut down during taxi?

I hear that's started a few fires when someone looked up and noticed a breaker out...

hawk25u said:
About 25 years ago was starting engines on a Metro at EWR. Started the right engine on a GPU then signalled the rampie to disconnect it. The connection for the GPU was behind the right wing root. A minute later blood splattered over the FO's window. She had taken the short cut and tried to go between the fuselage & prop & died instantly. Procedure for them was to go around the right wing back to the GPU. Metro's have Garret engines and are a geared direct drive so the prop was in flat pitch unlike a PT6 which would be feathered. Years later I ran across my FO on that flight. She told me she never flew again as a pilot. This industry can be very dangerous if you try to take shortcuts.
Click to expand...

Ouch. That was you? I heard about that one through the grapevine back then. Ugly.
 
denverpilot said:
Anyone silly enough to do the "pull the prop brake breaker" game to save fuel on yours while keeping both packs operating with one shut down during taxi?

I hear that's started a few fires when someone looked up and noticed a breaker out... .
Click to expand...

On an ATR72? Never heard of that...
 
Kritchlow said:
Nah... turbo props still have more moving parts, which means more potential for failure.
Click to expand...

If that's the logic, a single engine turbo prop is les likely to fail compared to a twin jet.


But as far as what's likely to kill me, my turbo prop chatting the bed is soooooo far down my list, it's not even worth the mental effort I just took to respond to this ;)
 
overdrive148 said:
Scariest ones are the Swearingen Merlins. The plug is right next to the prop and those suckers are loud.
Click to expand...
That sounds like the Beech 18. My ground power hookup is on the outboard side of the left engine just forward the wing (and only about a foot or two behind the prop.

If I ever have to start on ground power, I'll start the right on the GPU and then disconnect and let it run for a bit before starting the left.
 
mscard88 said:
On an ATR72? Never heard of that...
Click to expand...

Some old "not smart" against policy configuration in the old -42s with weak air conditioning packs, that would keep both packs operating on sweltering days -- but with the left engine shut down.

It had something to do with tricking the aircraft into thinking the prop brake was activated, when it wasn't. Or vice versa, via pulling an appropriate breaker. Seems to me it had something to do with tricking the aircraft into thinking it was in Hotel mode while still taxiing. Totally not an approved thing...

The net result of the non-smart config was that when the breaker was closed, back to the normal position, the brake would be applied... and if the right engine was above idle... instant brake fire.

I've looked over the systems stuff and never figured out what they were doing, but heard the story third hand over the years.
 
I dunno, Nate. Never heard that, unless it applied just to the 42, which I doubt. We only operated the 72 at ASA.
 
mscard88 said:
I dunno, Nate. Never heard that, unless it applied just to the 42, which I doubt. We only operated the 72 at ASA.
Click to expand...

I'll have to ask the person I heard it from. Such ancient history it really doesn't matter anymore, but was something that seemed both funny and unfunny at the time.

"Guess what some idiot did to set his right nacelle on fire the other day...!" ... that sort of thing.

Of course the brake just being weak could also easily accomplish that feat of derring-do...! A little slippage and friction and poof... smoke and fire. Wheeeee.

Seemed like a lot of operators avoided using Hotel mode, doing some quick Googling around nowadays. Neat idea though. No need for an APU if you trusted the brake and didn't have more than a ten knot tailwind -- wherever you had to park.

(And the company didn't mind the fuel burn... and you didn't need to fuel or work on that side... and... okay maybe it wasn't such a nifty idea... haha...)

That airplane was ahead of its time back then... folks were still operating the last of the domestic steam gauge 727s regularly when that thing came out. Lights out cockpit, pretty displays for the day anyway, quite a bit of automation considering their age now.

Neat aircraft. The icing thing hurt the public view of them, which never really was great for any turboprop... always thinking it's "old tech" if it has a propellor on it.

During said Google search, looked like someone came up with a nifty upgrade to the panel with big flat displays on the very late model -72s. Pretty photos anyway. No idea how many actually got built or converted.

Ran across an interesting article during that search that compared the -72 and the Dash-8.

Always interesting what you find to read when you go Googling for ... whatever...

A family member went to Africa recently and sent a photo of the airplanes to the family airplane nut (me). There was both an ATR-42 and and a Dash-7 (!!!) parked on the dirt next to the dirt runway.

His particular charter to wherever they came and went from, was in a Caravan. But it was cool to see those larger aircraft operating from dirt. Wish he had some video of it. He wasn't really meaning to shoot photos of airplanes, he just shoots all the time, being semi-pro at photography. (He sent some photos looking out the windows of the Caravan as a passenger, also. I was able to guess what it was from the photo, and he confirmed. Also configured with more seats than we allow here, of course.)

The really cool photos are of the wildlife from his trip... amazing stuff... but he knew the family airplane buff would appreciate anything with an airplane in the shot. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Of course the brake just being weak could also easily accomplish that feat of derring-do...! A little slippage and friction and poof... smoke and fire. Wheeeee.

Seemed like a lot of operators avoided using Hotel mode, doing some quick Googling around nowadays. Neat idea though. No need for an APU if you trusted the brake and didn't have more than a ten knot tailwind -- wherever you had to park.

(And the company didn't mind the fuel burn... and you didn't need to fuel or work on that side... and... okay maybe it wasn't such a nifty idea... haha...)
:)
Click to expand...

We had a few instances of the brake releasing the prop. When the rampers were loading bags on that side we weren't permitted to operate in Hotel mode. APU? I'd rather have had an APU. Those things could haul a load, never recall being weight restricted as with the Brasilia that we had also at the time.

There are new versions of the ATRs out. I'm sure they have updated displays and such. I remember a passenger bs'g (PPC) with us and was impressed with the EFIS screens and such. I told him we're equipped w/ VORs & ADF just like your Cessna, nothing really fancy here. As mentioned before, we had SQUARE cup holders in the cockpit that we couldn't use with our round cups. French thing I guess.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That sounds like the Beech 18. My ground power hookup is on the outboard side of the left engine just forward the wing (and only about a foot or two behind the prop.

If I ever have to start on ground power, I'll start the right on the GPU and then disconnect and let it run for a bit before starting the left.
Click to expand...

That is the smart way to do it. No part of me likes being near props. Jet engines aren't so bad but you still have to be careful.

For more horror stories on the Merlin and others regarding the GPU placement and danger thereof: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=737819
 
Yeah, GSE should always be positioned away from the first engine to be started and then moved after that engine is started and before the next one is started. That has always been SOP in my world.
 
On the -16 you had to get within a foot or so of the inlet edge to pull the EPU pin right after engine start. When we switched over to flying with the short fat tanks, fatboy here had to quit working the right side on launch and recovery as I couldn't get between the tank and gear door without climbing onto the tank . If we flew slick wings, or ordinance only, wasn't a problem.
 
stratobee said:
Perhaps I was slightly ambitious, but your math is flawed. 456pph is 68gal/hr, not 76. 385pph is 57gal/hr. It seems like the 1000 does 290kts on 57gal/hr at FL350.

http://www.eagle-creek.com/2015/05/...lling-for-the-magic-of-great-legacy-aircraft/
Click to expand...
Wow, this thread really brings back memories... this guy, I'll call him Kent ;), worked on Commanders at Eagle Creek before coming to work with me on G-1's. I'll never forget the time he noticed an oil access door left open after an engine start (he had checked oils). It was like 5 am. We were parked just outboard and aft of the left wing. He jumped out of the truck, grabbed a ladder, and ran towards the engine. I freaked out, jumped out of the drivers side and quickly debated running forward to tell the crew to shut the engine down but seeing Kent starting to set up the ladder under the engine and realizing the engine wouldn't have time to spool down, I ran towards him. when I got there he was already up the ladder, just a couple feet behind the prop. I grabbed the ladder with one hand and his belt with my other... yeah, I startled him... that dumb ass, after we got done I told him to never do that again. He quit a short time later. Still scares me thinking about that one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top