Turbo - prop/fan/jet ?

[Hedley]

This thread is desperately in need of Venn Diagrams!

[RVR6000]

This thread is lacking common sense. No nozzle means no jet, its pretty simple.

[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

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.

What flaw and what logic? I was pointing out YOUR flaw in YOUR logic. In your initial post, you first mentioned props, fans and jets are all turbine engines. Then you stated to keep turbines and jets separate concepts. Are you following me here? How does that make sense? Jets are turbine engines. So tell me how you separate them?

One poster on here already failed to RTFQx2. Go join him!

[jjj]

First of all AuxBatOn, I understand the principles of the three types.
Second of all, don't try and confuse the topic by throwing an F-18 vs. prop comparison in here. I'm trying to find out why they're not both considered jets (turbofan and turboprop).

What makes operating this airplane (PW300 turbofan)

so much more "special" then operating this airplane

Almost a really good thread.

My two cents:

Jet time is not the be-all end-all compared to turbo prop time. However there is a great deal of difference (generally) on how the two behave in the sky - especially approach to landing.

I submit that if you try to manage the types above with interchangeable technique - you will splat across the pavement.

Like I said, Jet time isn't the greatest requirement for a logbook but it does demonstrate another skill set.

Agreed with above - if you have a pile of King Air time and log it as Jet I would have you taken outside and flogged.


JJJ

[slam525i]

Rooster, you have all of 6 posts on this forum, none of it being helpful, insightful, or informative, or even remotely attempting to be. You admonish others without trying to understand what they are saying. You attack my lack of a CPL and yet you refuse to say what qualifications you have.

I have found interesting, informative and entertaining discussions on these forums, but continuing to discuss anything with you would only degenerate it into an argument. You'd drag me down to your level and you'd beat me with your experience.

[fingersmac]

What flaw and what logic? I was pointing out YOUR flaw in YOUR logic. In your initial post, you first mentioned props, fans and jets are all turbine engines. Then you stated to keep turbines and jets separate concepts. Are you following me here? How does that make sense? Jets are turbine engines. So tell me how you separate them?

I'm fairly certain he meant that turboprop/fan/jet are all gas turbine engines. Log all three as turbine time and log turbofan/jet as jet time; therefore your turbine time does not necessarily equal jet time and the numbers are kept separately. You're not logging engine operations in your logbook, you're logging aircraft operations (single, multi, land, sea, turbine, jet, IFR, IMC, night, landings, take-offs, etc).

[iflyforpie]

You can log whatever you want. I'm surprised Hedley hasn't come on here yet and told us about the guy he knew who logged the number of times he had sex.

Just write down whatever you feel (there is no legal requirement for 'jet' or 'turbine' time) be prepared to deal with the rewards/consequences when you are trying to prove your experience to your next employer.

[rooster]

Rooster, you have all of 6 posts on this forum, none of it being helpful, insightful, or informative, or even remotely attempting to be. You admonish others without trying to understand what they are saying. You attack my lack of a CPL and yet you refuse to say what qualifications you have.

I have found interesting, informative and entertaining discussions on these forums, but continuing to discuss anything with you would only degenerate it into an argument. You'd drag me down to your level and you'd beat me with your experience.

If correcting your mistake isn't helpful, then I'm clearly in the wrong place eh? Okay sure I sometimes come across kind of rough around the edges but you know what, reading some of the posts on these forums irritates me. When a PPL holder comes on here posting his credentials and follows it up with a hint of arrogance that even he knows about this stuff, then goes and explains it using incorrect logic, it makes me, and others, shake their heads.

- Ex-airline pilot

[Gino Under]

skyhigh
Thanks for your imput. A bank vault of information, you are. C'mon....

skyhigh - "Never in any of my posts did I ever praise the "modern" aspects of the B737NG."
Gino - I didn't say you did.
skyhigh - "But now that you mention it, I guess its a little old fashion, (that's fashion with an ED at the end) what with the RNP Approaches, CAT 3 Autoland, Heads Up Guidance Displays, AutoThrottles, FADEC "Jet" Engines and so forth."
Gino - There we go. Now you did praise it. (and what you say, IS true) Except for the auto throttle you could be describing the CRJ. Except the CAT 3 in the CRJ isn't autoland. The CRJ does have EICAS BTW. Keepin' score??

Just curious, are you available for classrooom lectures or what? I hope so, because it would be really neat if you'd turn up in your snappy pilot shirt and epaulettes oozing of that 'I'm a real Jet Pilot' schtick. That would be so cool. (Of course, you might not be a real pilot and that would really suck)

ogee
Thank gawd for the smart ones in the crowd. You're the first person to even begin to clue in to just how much of a windup this thread is. See how little it takes to spiral folks right out-of-control. And the shocking thing is, look at the convictions and justifications a variety of posters are standing on!

The point being, we all have a variety of interpretations of what is and what isn't jet time. This thread is a testament to that. Engine, airframe, turbine, or jet? Pilots log time in an aircraft not time in an engine.
Of course a turbofan is jet time. Of course a turboprop is NOT jet time. But, they're both turbines. My sense of what's written throughout this post is that we all agree on that.
It took this much, 4 pages of comments and the opinions are still ricocheting off the walls. But you know what? It gets people thinking, and that's a good thing.

Fly it like ya stole it!!!

Gino Under

[skyhigh]

Gino, thanks for the grammar lesson but "imput" is actually supposed to be "input".

Back to class.

[Main Gear]

The Jazz FO that landed hard in YYZ had lots of B1900 "jet time", but only 100 hours CRJ "jet time". Weird how that 1900 "jet time" didn't help much.

[Gino Under]

skyhigh

It was actually word tense. Not grammar. Thanks for your input.

Gino Under
DISLEXICS UNTIE

[Gino Under]

Main Gear

Not as weird as you might think.
It was more a question of decision making. Do I take a photo now or should I wait?
How's that for weird?
And then there's company training when it comes to bounced landings.
Followed by 'jet' time?

Gino

[skyhigh]

Hey Gino, first your Canadiens trade Halak and now you find out that your King Air really isn't a jet. Its been a bad week dude.

[complexintentions]

I think it's nice that people feel so passionately about such important things. It's why the internet was invented, after all.

Sounds to me like ETOPS is just sulking because he wasn't allowed to count his turboprop time towards a jet job and now wants to "prove" the distinction isn't fair. I have yet to see WHY it's so important to him that a propped Dornier be considered a jet...

Just get another jet job and build some time like the rest of us.

And Gino, I believe there is a picture of you in the dictionary in the listing for the definition of "pedant".

[Main Gear]

Main Gear

Not as weird as you might think.
It was more a question of decision making. Do I take a photo now or should I wait?
How's that for weird?
And then there's company training when it comes to bounced landings.
Followed by 'jet' time?

Gino

So you're telling me the FO needed his hand held by the Captain? What about the FO's handling of the aircraft before the bounce?

[SunWuKong]

Interesting to see everybody has a different definition. Interesting subject in fact...
I read again and again in this thread: BE20 time is not jet time! For Air Canada or Cathay Pacific, BE20 time or CJ1 time won't make a huge difference, if not at all...
Then what is jet time? Jet time is turbojet time, yes you know this engine that doesn't exist anymore (or almost)...
2 families:
-1-Reciprocating engine
-2-Turbine engine (turbojet, turbofan, turboprop)
Turbojet is jet time, turbofan is turbofan time, turboprop is turboprop time, all is turbine time.
Turbojet engine is very different from turbofan and turboprop time, the 2 last ones having a "propeller" that creates thrust, the turbo jet not. But all are turbine.

Why do we call turbo jet time jet time? Because after the WW2 only one kind of turbine engine was available, the turbo jet, so all our parents called it jet time. Since we got turboprop and turbofan engines, but no more turbojet...

I understand that some see a turboprop airplane as a small and slow airplane, and a jet airplane big and fast... Maybe, but it is better to compare what you can compare. Don't take the king air as an exemple all the other post please, this airplane has been created and built in the 60s... If you want to compare the BE20, compare it with a "jet" airplane from the 60s and the same weight, same range...
Take the Piaggio aventi is you want a modern small turboprop:
Performance

Maximum speed: 732 km/h (395 kn, 455 mph)
Range: 2,592 km (1,400 nmi, 1,612 mi) at 11,900 m (39,000 ft) with reserves
Service ceiling: 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 14.98 m/s (2,950 ft/min)
Wing loading: 327 kg/m² (67.1 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.24 kW/kg (6.79 lb/hp)

Now compare is with the CJ1:
Performance

Cruise speed: 389 ktas (720 km/h)
Stall speed: 83 kcas (153 km/h)
Range: 1,300 nm (2,408 km)
Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,497 m)
Rate of climb: 3,290 ft/min (1,003 m/min)

Here the turboprop and the turbofan are similare... Similar airplane, similar performance...

[AuxBatOn]

SuWuKong,

That's why we say "generally, Jets fly higher and faster than turboprops". You know that it is generally true. If you want to compare the Avanti to something, better use something relatively new, the Citation X for example.

A turbofan does not have a propeller. It's simply an enlarged 1st stage compressor. It's an integral part of the engine itself. A propeller is not an integral part of the engine. Also, there is a nozzle on a turbofan, which produce thrust via Newton's third law, something that does not happen on a turbo-prop.

[SunWuKong]

What about this one then?

Performance

Maximum speed: 780 km/h (420 knots, 485 mph)
Cruise speed: 729 km/h (392 knots, 453 mph)
Stall speed: 100 km/h (53 knots, 61 mph)
Range: 6,600 km (3,600 nm, 4,100 mi) with 20 tonnes of cargo
Ferry range: 8,000 km (4,320 nm, 4,970 mi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (40,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 24.9 m/s (4,900 ft/min)

I am not saying turboprop is faster than turbofan, I am saying that if you compare the same size/weight of airplanes that has been built for the same purpose, the difference is not huge, or at least much less than what we may think.

Of course if you take a bush turbine airplane to compare it with a turbine corporate business airplane you won't have the same performance...


Have a look at this cockpit, it belongs to a modern turboprop (have a guess which one it is if you like)...

[AuxBatOn]

What about this one then?

That one is actually powered by unducted fans (variation of a turbofan engine), not turbo-props.

Cockpit layout has nothing to do with how the engine is powered, except the possible addition of levers on a turbo-prop.

The difference in speed is huge. The FASTEST turboprop aircraft in the world, the TU-114, has a max speed of 510 Kts, or Mach 0.73. Most airliners cruise at M0.8+. Also, by design, turboprops are not made to operate at high altitude.

[SunWuKong]

That one is actually powered by unducted fans (variation of a turbofan engine), not turbo-props.

So what we see around the engine, those are not propeller then? If yes, so what? Somebody was saying in this topic we have propeller aircraft on one side, jet on the other. It's not that easy.
Those airplanes above are tubine and propeller engine, exactly like a turboprop..., or somebody is going to say it is a jet now?

Those airplanes have fly by wire and equipment that many "jet" don't... We can at least admit that the limit between turbine engines is not as obvious as we may think...


Have you heard about the B787 and the Airbus 350?

[AuxBatOn]

We can at least admit that the limit between turbine engines is not as obvious as we may think...

It is obvious. If it uses Newton's third law to push itself though the air, it's a jet. If it doesn't, it's a turboprop. In the case of the unducted fan, it's the exact same as a turbofan. Just remove the fan duct.

[SunWuKong]

Sure...

Please take note that the pic of the cokpit layout in my post above with the 8 "TVs" and the side stick is a TURBOPROP airplane, with fly by wire and equipment that many turbofan (jet?) airplane would dream to have... It flies at mach .72, carries a lot, have STOL capabilities...

Now smaller airplanes: which cockpit (below) belongs to a propeller airplane, which one to the "jet" airplane?



Q400 and CRJ700, same number of passenger, one flies at 500 MPH, the other one at 414MPH... That is not 2 different world..

Propfan, turbofan, turboprop, when we compare the same kind of airplane that are used for the same purpose, well the difference is not that huge, even no difference at all with the piaggio aventi compared with many small jet of the same size... Similar equipment (sometimes even better equipment with the Airbus Turboprop than many "jet"!), finally at the same weight a chief pilot shouldn't make a big difference between "propeller" turbine airplane and a turbofan one, what should make the difference at that point should be the pilot himself. I prefer a responsible, skilled Q400 pilot with PIC experience to upgrade in the B737NG than the average joe flying the CRJ700.

For the record I am a "turbofan" pilot, so I don't try to convince anybody here in order to enter "jet time" in my logbook... Oh wait, there is only multi/single engine, PIC/copi, day/night in mine!

[Gino Under]

skyhigh
We need goal scorers in Montreal. Camalleri (thanks Calgary) can't do it all. Remember Alex what's-his-name (Kovalev has an ATPL by the way. I wonder how he logs his time)? Halak will be missed but Carey is good enough with an ever improving defense in front of him. If they can only get him to stop going down and giving up juicey rebounds, the Habs should be better than last year. But not the LEAFS, thank gawd.

(This is for all you Leafs fans out there.... )

Main Gear
Sorry, I don't mean to pick on the misfortune of any crew, but the Captain needs to 'hand hold' any new F/O on any type of aeroplane. I think that's required by SOPs unless Jazz does it differently?

complexsintentions
OMG, I sure hope I'm not becoming a pedant! But thanks for the warning. I'll take that comment for its full value. Thanks. 96% of what I've said in this thread was a wind up to show how varied opinions are on this subject. But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised?

Gino Under

[ETOPS]

Just to clarify, I'm not logging turboprop time as jet time and I probably never will.