Turbo - prop/fan/jet ?

[Hedley]

Night Multi IMC PIC Jet Solid Rocket Booster column

You forgot to log your cross-country and float time:

Night Multi IMC X/C PIC Jet Solid Rocket Booster Amphib column

[flying4dollars]

Another way to look at it is this: A PT6 is a turbine placed in a cowl whereby the thrust/exhaust is used to drive the propeller, which produces power to move the aircraft. It is NOT jet time because it is not managed the same way a jet engine is. Because it's the propeller which provides the airplanes movement and not the thrust from the exhaust directly. A jet/turbofan is a turbine placed in a cowl whereby the thrust/exhaust directly drives the airplanes movement. Yes, in high bypass turbofans the inlet compressor provides a lot of the thrust, but it's not a propeller, and conversely jet engines aren't managed the same way as a turboprop. Different forms of power, different values for managing power, one more set of levers in a prop, and one less in a jet.

Jet time is not always considered the be all and end all of flying time. Jet operators want jet time because it's relevant to their operation. A company with a fleet of turboprops isn't going to necessarily benefit from having a guy with jet time vs a guy with turboprop time. It's all about relevance ie. You don't see Porter asking for jet time.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Every once in a while a thread comes along and my first reaction is "HUH" because I am thinking nobody could be seriously discussing something so obvious.

The way things work in the aviation industry is really simple and will never change.

You only have "jet" time when you are flying a powered airplane with NO Props

You only have "turbine" time when the engine in the airplane has NO pistons

and, this is the really important part, "real" pilots fly aircraft where the engine(s) in the aircraft have cylinders that are arranged in a radial pattern (preferably in two rows).

[ETOPS]

The way things work in the aviation industry is really simple and will never change.

HUH!?

Suggestion: change "in the aviation industry" with "for simple minded pilots".

[Main Gear]

Wow...Even Joe Blow passenger knows the difference between a jet and a turboprop. You can dice it any way or use all the semantics you want...if it has props it ain't no jet. This subject is one of those,"It's just the way it is.".

[ETOPS]

Passengers also think they're flying a turbojet when they're flying a turbofan, and that props belong in WWII.

Final post.

[iflyforpie]

Passengers don't know the difference between turbojets and turbofans. They are all 'jets' if they don't have sticky outy rotaty thingys (excellent post BPF).

The airlines tried really hard in the early sixties to educate and woo passengers with fancy monikers (prop-jet/jet prop for turboprops, fan-jet for turbofans, airline slogans saying props are for boats, etc), but the jet-set and voted turbofan for the noise, speed, and low ticket prices.

Talk to the average passenger today who unexpectedly flew on a Dash 8 for the first time and they will have you convinced they rode on top of the baggage in a Fokker Trimotor.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The way things work in the aviation industry is really simple and will never change.

HUH!?

Suggestion: change "in the aviation industry" with "for simple minded pilots".

Yup like the "simple minded pilots" who are sitting on the job interview panel and will think you are an complete tool when you call your King Air hours "jet time".

[Gino Under]

Interesting discussion.

I'd say most of you have things clearly sorted out in your minds as to what exactly "jet" time is. Especially those of you who are talking aircraft when ETOPS was asking about an engine. Pay attention. If you think the PT6 ISN'T a jet engine then I suggest you contact Pratt & Whitney right away and let them know. (They're gonna be in for a shock) You might ask them whether or not the Q400 has a jet engine or not, while you're at it. They're going to enlighten you. Well, some of you.

Quoting Wikipedia??? You can't be serious???? How about van Sickle's Modern Airmanship as a credible source? 4 kinds of "jet" engines as I previously pointed out. Or, Pratt & Whitney's Gas Turbine Engines? Like I've said, 4 kinds of "jet" engines.

FWIW... the B737NG, while a very nice aircraft, is not as modern as some egos in this thread would have portrayed it to be. It's a cosmetically enhanced version of its older self. You should fly a newer aircraft to actually understand what a modern aircraft truly is. The NG doesn't even have EICAS like it's grown up brother, the B767 or B757 (aren't they older than the NG?) and the NG is supposedly a 'newer' aircraft. Gimme a break!

Yes, we all agree, a JET AIRCRAFT is a jet engine powered aircraft but so too is the King Air a jet engine powered aircraft. (key word, powered) The King Air just happens to be a PROPELLER AIRCRAFT. And that's the destinction. I don't make this up.

"You only have "turbine" time when the engine in the airplane has NO pistons."
I agree.
Again, a reference to engine. A gas turbine engine (also known as a jet engine, is turbine time) Who amongst us has a logbook with a column for Turbine time and a separate column for Jet time?

Pardon my being pedantic, but I understand jet engines are jet engines and jet aircraft aren't propeller aircraft, and we all know the difference. Perhaps some should re-read this thread from the begining.

(with apology to ETOPS)

Gino Under

[iflyforpie]

Saying 'jet powered' is a terrible stretch of semantics when dealing with a turboprop. The correct term is gas turbine engine. Jet engines are reaction engines only (which can include the gas turbine powered turbojet and turbofan, as well as the pulsejet and ramjet).

Here is my credible source, I've read it from front to back to front many times.

http://www.amazon.ca/Aircraft-Gas-Turbi ... 0028018281

[fingersmac]

Pardon my being pedantic, but I understand jet engines are jet engines and jet aircraft aren't propeller aircraft, and we all know the difference. Perhaps some should re-read this thread from the begining.

Listen, most of us know that turboprop, turbofan and turbojet are all forms of gas turbine engines. ETOPS initial posts where in reference to what is or isn't considered jet time not what is or isn't considered a jet engine. Jet time is in reference to the type of aircraft flown not the type of engine operated. So while the type of engine bolted to the airframe is important in the distinction, it isn't the final say in what is or isn't jet time.

So, yes, perhaps you should go back to the beginning and read what ETOPS was asking.

My search didn't turn up much...sorry if this has already been discussed.

Does turbofan time count as "jet" time?
Does "turbine" time incorporate all three groups (prop, fan, jet), or does it just refer to turboprops?

Thanx

But turboprop is not "jet" time?
I'm pretty sure the answer is NO.

What I'm trying to get at is: why does a turbofan count as "jet" time while a turboprop doesn't?
They both have a jet component producing thrust. So maybe the jet component on the fan produces a greater percentage of its total thrust, but where do you draw the line and why?

I'm guessing the distinction comes from the operation.
What exactly is so different (more complex) about the operation of a turbofan vs. a turboprop?

[Gino Under]

ETOPS

Does turbofan time count as "jet" time?
Well, that depends. Are you talking about your logbook and the logging of flight time, or what a prospective employer is looking for? Because, yes, a turbofan engine (airframes aren't engines, they're airframes) is a gas turbine engine as opposed to a piston four stroke engine. And, it is usually logged as Turbine time because most log books don't have provisions for the logging of jet time, if that's what you are asking. Which is apparently unclear to some. Jet engines include four types of gas turbine (jet) powered engines, etc., etc., etc..

Does "turbine" time incorporate all three groups (prop, fan, jet),
Yes it does. Turboprop, Turbojet, Turbofan, and Turboshaft gas turbine (jet) engines, which are actually the four subdivisions of the 'jet' engine power plant.

or does it just refer to turboprops?
No. It doesn't just refer to turboprops. Turbine time is all four.

Gino Under

[skyhigh]

Hmmm, Van Sickle's Modern Airmanship eh Gino? Is that required reading for one of your current classes in Aviation College? Regardless, before you start working on your Commercial, you might want to get one your instructors to explain the difference between a Jet and a Turboprop preferably with pictures if that helps you.

Never in any of my posts did I ever praise the "modern" aspects of the B737NG. But now that you mention it, I guess its a little old fashion, what with the RNP Approaches, CAT 3 Autoland, Heads Up Guidance Displays, AutoThrottles, FADEC "Jet" Engines and so forth.

[flying4dollars]

ETOPS

Does turbofan time count as "jet" time?
Well, that depends. Are you talking about your logbook and the logging of flight time, or what a prospective employer is looking for? Because, yes, a turbofan engine (airframes aren't engines, they're airframes) is a gas turbine engine as opposed to a piston four stroke engine. And, it is usually logged as Turbine time because most log books don't have provisions for the logging of jet time, if that's what you are asking. Which is apparently unclear to some. Jet engines include four types of gas turbine (jet) powered engines, etc., etc., etc..

No it doesn't. Turbofans are jet engines, and therefore considered jet time. So to answer his question, yes, turbofan time is jet time.

[AuxBatOn]

Gino,

A TURBINE ENGINE is NOT NECESSARILY a JET ENGINE. Some people may call it the same, however, this is grossly incorrect.

[broompusher]

Deleted, failed to RTFS2

[flying4dollars]

No it doesn't. Turbofans are jet engines, and therefore considered jet time. So to answer his question, yes, turbofan time is jet time.

Take that one into your next interview and see how far that will get you. If you tell them that you have jet time, and the interviewing company asks on what, and your answer is the above, well, good luck with the interview, that's all I have to say.

This is the stupidest topic I have seen here in a very very long time.

So if I have time on a 777, and I tell them I have xxx jet hours on a 777, I'll look foolish? Are you sure about that?

[broompusher]

Use your head, of course if you have time on jet aircraft such as a B777, Airbus, Citation, Lear or whatever then that is that. But, If you go into an interview saying you have jet time whilst flying nothing but a BE20, you will not last too long in said interview.

[AuxBatOn]

Use your head, of course if you have time on jet aircraft such as a B777, Airbus, Citation, Lear or whatever then that is that. But, If you go into an interview saying you have jet time whilst flying nothing but a BE20, you will not last too long in said interview.

A BE20 is powered by turboprop engines. A 777 is powered by turbofan engines.

Holy shit people, you guys have commercial licences?!

Edit to add

[AuxBatOn]

However, turboprop time is "jet" time, simply because a turboprop engine is a jet engine.
Consider the exhaust of a turboprop engine (PT6 or other). Is it not a jet (a high-velocity fluid stream forced under pressure out of a small-diameter opening or nozzle)? Does this not follow with your previous definition of a jet engine?

Nope.

It doesn't have a Nozzle. It does, however, have turbines which will expand the gas (ie: extract the energy and transfer it to the compressors and the prop).

[Ogee]

Please, please, lock this fucking thread so I don't have to lie awake at night worrying that sometime in the future I won't unknowingly hire whoever in the name of Christ started it or the maroons who came in to try and support him.


Jeeeeesssssussss. By the arsehole logic on here, I can log jet time in a Bell 206.

Does that help you understand the utter depths of your grinding ignorance and why pilots whose IQ is higher than the stall speed of a hanglider are embarassed for you?

[slam525i]

I can't stand it anymore. I only have a PPL SEL and it seems to me it's a simple problem with semantics you need to sit down and think about.

Turbine - A device derives rotational power from the flow of fluids. In this case, a gas turbine that derives rotational power from gas. This is the case in turboprop, turbofan, and turbojets. In the case of pure turbojets, the turbine only drives the compressor. In the case of turbofan, it also drives the big fan up front. In the case of turboprop, it also drives the big propeller up front. We can all agree on this, yes? So all three are "turbine" engines, right? GOOD.

Jet - A high speed stream of fluid. Turbofan and turbojets both have very high speed gas coming out the back end. A turboprop "paddling" along at 1600 RPM moves a hell of a lot of air (volume), but the air isn't very high speed, relatively speaking. The exhaust, after passing through the turbine, contains very little energy in a turboprop. We can all agree on this, yes? So a turbofan and turbojets are "jet" engines but a turboprop is not, right? GOOD.

Turbofan - Turbine, Jet
TurboJet - Turbine, Jet
Turboprop - Turbine, Not-Jet


Turbo-charged reciprocating engine - Silliness to call them turbines. It is part of the induction system but not a necessary part of power generation.

PulseJets, RamJets - Non-Turbine, Jet

Just keep turbine and jet as separate concepts and we can all agree.

[flying4dollars]

Use your head, of course if you have time on jet aircraft such as a B777, Airbus, Citation, Lear or whatever then that is that. But, If you go into an interview saying you have jet time whilst flying nothing but a BE20, you will not last too long in said interview.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote.

No it doesn't. Turbofans are jet engines, and therefore considered jet time. So to answer his question, yes, turbofan time is jet time.

Read it carefully, and then tell me you still feel I need to use my head.

[rooster]

So all three are "turbine" engines, right? GOOD.


Just keep turbine and jet as separate concepts and we can all agree.

All 3 are turbine engines, but we should keep turbines and jets as separate concepts? So then all 3 AREN'T turbines. The PPL you have sure has you knowing more than the commercial pilots on here hey? Smart guy.

For your sake I'll assume you meant "keep turboprops and jets as separate concepts". Just clearing up the 'semantics' for you

[slam525i]

So all three are "turbine" engines, right? GOOD.
Just keep turbine and jet as separate concepts and we can all agree.

All 3 are turbine engines, but we should keep turbines and jets as separate concepts? So then all 3 AREN'T turbines. The PPL you have sure has you knowing more than the commercial pilots on here hey? Smart guy.

For your sake I'll assume you meant "keep turboprops and jets as separate concepts". Just clearing up the 'semantics' for you

You have a flaw in your logic. If we treat all three as turbines, and we keep turbines and jets as separate concepts, the fact that only 2 of the 3 are jets does not disqualify any of the 3 as a turbine engine. It's the classic "A is a subset of B, but A does not encompass all of B." type logical fallacy.

Since you make it a point of attack, rooster, I'd like to know what qualifications you have, and what makes you more qualified to give your opinion than me.