16 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

My favorite turboprop passenger plane is the De Havilland Dash 8-400.  It's fast, almost comparable to a jet, and has a large passenger capacity for a turboprop.

If you want better fuel efficiency, then upscaling something like the dash8-400 that would seat 120-150 pax with more powerful turboprop engines would make a lot of sense for flights under 1,000 miles.

Dave

 

There's plenty of mid sized turboprops around though. Aurigny ATR 72 500's serve us in the channel islands. And Dash 8 Q400's before they went bust.

The Q400 isn't as fast as a jet except a very slow one. 300 knots I recall. Cessna Latitude cruises at 451 knots. Gulfstream G900 Mach 0.925 max speed.

The article isn't about big Turboprops that carry 70 plus people, its about replacing business jets that carry up to 15.

I've flown on the Dash 8 Q400 a number of times and I can tell you that the ATR is better. More leg room, better aircraft in my opinion. 

As far as MSFS is concerned, I'd rather see more business jets than fewer.  Hondajet looks fine.  Id love to have a Cirrus Vision and Id absolutely love a Premier 1 like P1D drives/flies/

14 minutes ago, Paul Deluca said:

It's a shame the plane is being phased out here in the states Dave.  Good plane to have while we are seeing the fuel issue. Many gripes about turboprops in another website i frequent. It seems people want jet service while paying pennies for it so to say.

 

The Q400's that served us, Flybe, were pretty knackered. You could barely see out of the windows on some of them, they were so scratched. One I flew on had a lose panel on the nacelle. 😁 I much prefer the ATR 72 500's. As soon as you sit in it you feel the difference, wider, more leg room.

Actually, when I arrived in Guernsey with my daughter when she first moved in to her place, it coincided with Flybe going bust. I had to get an emergency flight home cutesy of Blue Islands on one of their ATR's. No allocated seat, the cabin crew just scratched their heads for a bit and spread us out so the C of G was Okay. It was a great flight, hardly any of us on the plane, nobody around me at all, I felt like quite a celebrity. 

The ATR 72 600 is even better, lowest seat-mile cost in general aviation, with fancy gear like "clear vision" system. Which was tested hear in Guernsey. 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Would make sense. I'm thinking that even without the exhaust passing through the prop, the proximately to the wake from the wing would be detrimental to noise too. In addition, many pushers have smaller pros too, which would be a noise disadvantage.

 

 

 

Yupp. The size of the props doesn't help. 

The Piaggio flies around with the props at 2,000 RPM in all phases of flight (slightly lower for the Avanti II and Evo, I think) 

Contrast that to the Q400, which has its (comparatively massive) props at 850RPM in cruise, and can land at that RPM setting as well. Takeoff is at 1050 I think. 

Can't remember how it compares to something like a King Air..... which should be a bit less at cruise/approach (1700-1800?l

 

DB

FSX/P3D had an absolutely horrible turboprop model.  (X-Plane's works a whole lot better.)  I don't know if it's been fixed in MSFS but I hope so.  Anybody know? 

EDIT:  By the way, I'm a big fan of the turboprop twins like the Cheyenne, Conquest, Turbine Duke, etc.  I suspect we'll see a Conquest from FlySimWare at some point.  Carenado's Cheyenne wasn't half bad though they didn't quite finish it and left some permanent bugs (don't they always).  I also like the TBM (850, 900...), C208, though, the ones in FS, last I tried them, left an awful lot to be desired. It's weird to me that there's never been a solid 208 developed for any sim (though one is finally now in development for X-Plane).  

Edited March 27, 20224 yr by Gregg_Seipp

Hello Gregg:I remember the Rockwell Turbo Commander, Corporate Jetstream 31's,  Mitsubishi MU-2J, Corporate Fairchild Metroliners.