Will props ice up?  Sorry if it's a dumb question... :unsure: 

Oh yes, and it smashes the paint off the side of the aircraft I fly regularly, Dash 8, p and down the Norwegian coastline.

The bottom line, if airlines thought it was cost effective, airplanes manufacturers would gladly make them. L-1011, DC-9 and B777 and others were designed as per major airlines specifications.

From an airline perspective the use of props for such long hauls, while it would probably yield good fuel savings on paper, it would also create frustration amongst much of the flying public.  The average passenger today is not very fond of prop aircraft (mainly due to not knowing much about props - many actually fear seeing the propellers and think the worst).  Going over the 500NM threshold in a turboprop is somewhat pushing it.  Passengers would rather a quieter ride, I have even heard some passenger express that riding on jets feels safer (ok....continue holding that theory).

 

We see this in our stats quite frequently even on short sectors where there will be a jet serving the same sector.  If some passengers can avoid the turboprop they will actually pay the change fee or wait until the jet service is departing instead of booking their flight on the turboprop flight.  For those unwilling to pay a service charge fee, they will actually attempt to ride standby n the next available jet flight.  Of course there are the exceptional nuts (like us) who have no problem enduring the droning noise of props - even when they are out of sync for several hours and think nothing of it.  I truly don't see the likelihood of demand for props for transatlantic operations, as airlines would have lower fuel costs, but they would be paying crews more as the flights would be somewhat longer than cruising in a jet.

From an airline perspective the use of props for such long hauls, while it would probably yield good fuel savings on paper, it would also create frustration amongst much of the flying public.  The average passenger today is not very fond of prop aircraft (mainly due to not knowing much about props - many actually fear seeing the propellers and think the worst).  Going over the 500NM threshold in a turboprop is somewhat pushing it.  Passengers would rather a quieter ride, I have even heard some passenger express that riding on jets feels safer (ok....continue holding that theory).

 

We see this in our stats quite frequently even on short sectors where there will be a jet serving the same sector.  If some passengers can avoid the turboprop they will actually pay the change fee or wait until the jet service is departing instead of booking their flight on the turboprop flight.  For those unwilling to pay a service charge fee, they will actually attempt to ride standby n the next available jet flight.  Of course there are the exceptional nuts (like us) who have no problem enduring the droning noise of props - even when they are out of sync for several hours and think nothing of it.  I truly don't see the likelihood of demand for props for transatlantic operations, as airlines would have lower fuel costs, but they would be paying crews more as the flights would be somewhat longer than cruising in a jet.

As a seasoned pilot there are some a/c that I have some disquiet in flying in. One being the ATR. First sitting in line with the props is extremely noisy! Secondly in bad weather with icing conditions they have in the past suffered sudden excursions leading to accidents. Their wings are pencil thin and it takes nothing to disrupt the airflow.

As for the old Connie crossing the Atlantic, it was known as the best three engined airliner! Meaning the they frequently arrived at their destination with one engine out. In the 50's Air France had the habit of crashing them earning them the nickname "Air Chance".

Props and Turboprops don't deliver as much thrust/power as jets do. If you look at a connie, IL18, even the Tu144, you see long slow shallow climb-out angles.

 

Compare that to a 777, 767 etc, the climb rate far exceeds any prop.

 

Mach 0.85 at FL380 is a far cry from mach 0.6 odd at FL250.

 

For short routes where a Jet wouldn't even get above FL290, it is likely that the turboprop will be more efficient, They use less fuel per hour.

 

For a 6000+nm long haul, the 777 flying the 13 hours vs the quad turboprop doing 18 hours?

Not to mention nothing but the absolute worst tropical weather systems getting up past FL350, whereas your average thunderstorm can easily top out FL250...

 

Props spinning making noise. Low, mid-range noise in the same part of the spectrum human speech occurs in... unlike Jet noise which tends to be higher in pitch.

 

Props also tend to have more moving parts, and less available bleed air than jets. Turboprops are significantly better, but many still have gearing parts in the engine, unlike a turbine.

 

but really, it's mostly about the speed. Wings, Fuselage size, weight, flap size... assuming these things are the same, and the only difference is the engine, the only real difference is climb rate and speed, aka available power. And a jet has more.