Over the last couple months, casual browsing of a number of aviation forums has led me to observe that there seems to be a general hatred out there towards turbo-props. Most of these comments appear in topics along the lines of ‘Which a/c would you Avoid Flying on?’ etc… and the general sentiment seems to be that jets are the kings of the skies and any turbo-prop is an ugly second cousin. The one thing though that never seems to accompany these statements is a rational explanation as to why. The normal ones that I can think up don’t really hold much justification in my mind but perhaps they just haven’t been expressed well enough by those that hold them. These explanations are normally:
“Noisy” – However this isn’t really true as a/c such as the Dash-8 ‘Q’ series offer cabin noise volumes comparable to the CRJ.
“Tiny and Cramped” – I don’t really see this as being accurate since most turbo-props offer seats of the same width/pitch as those found on regional airliners. There are also jets that are of a smaller size (such as the ERJ-135) than some turbo-props. While I do realize that some people make these claims based on seeing the “smaller” Jetstreams and 1900s I challenge them to sit in the back of a 206 for an hour or so and then try to make similar comments.
“They just feel…. small and unsafe” – Once again I don’t buy it. While something like the 1900 may be smaller and allow you to feel the bumps more than a 747 they are most definately not unsafe. Once again, fly in a Navajo down to minimums on an ILS in cruddy weather and try not to be thankful for the size and stability of the 1900. Not to mention the fact that these aircraft feature most of the bells and whistles found on their larger “safer” cousins.
Anyways, like I said, most curious to hear from people on the forum regarding this topic. Sorry if my rant got a little bit out of control. I woke up this morning with a wee bit of a mysterious headache 🙂 and as a low-time pilot in Canada, I can only dream of being LUCKY enough to be able to fly something like a 1900 for the next 5 years or so before making the next step to a major such as Air Canada. These turbo-props that people always seem to loathe represent the ‘dream job’, the ultimate alternative to having to fly clapped out 402s in the bush for years and are the pinnical of a pilot’s career (in Canada at least) until it’s possible for him/her to make that final jump to Air Canada, Westjet etc. For some it will be the largest aircraft that they’ll have an opportunity to fly for no other reason than having caught the interviewer at our one major airline on a bad day. I think these pilots should be proud of what they’re flying and as I said it has always left my scratching my head when I hear the vast majority of the flying public insulting turbo-props.
So that’s the end of the rant. I look forward to hearing from those who have their own love/hatred for turbo-props and the justification for it.
Best Regards,
binx
By: frankvw - 26th January 2004 at 12:59
Oh yes, i forgot that “small detail”… Users flying over the channel 3 times a week when a simple phonetalk could do it too 😡
By: Hand87_5 - 26th January 2004 at 12:12
Originally posted by frankvw
True.In my company, when ppl have to go to London, they prefer take an expensive flight to LHR on a jet (for zero service), and then an expensive cab to the customer.
They laugh at me when i take a VLM F-50, land relaxed at LCY after a good meal, taka a bus for 2 miles, enjoy the wonderful sight in the Docklands light railway, and then take the tube to end at some yards from the customer’s place, and usually faster than them, who are stuck in some idiotic traffic jam on the Northern Circular 😀
And of course, the travel costs the half !
They can laugh, i enjoy it 😉
You forget one parameter there Frank. I have such bad behavior in my company too.
Those people do prefer the “expensive fly with no meal to LHR” just because of the mileage program.
They collect miles that they can use for their own.
By: Comet - 26th January 2004 at 09:49
Frank has voiced views identical to my own – there is nothing to beat going to London from Belgium on a Fokker 50 of VLM, and landing in London City (a truly superb, wonderful, delightful little airport, my absolute favourite in the UK!)
I think props are fun to fly on, and try the approach into LCY to see how fun they are, the Fokker 50 does this better than any of them, and certainly better than the Avro RJ (I’ve filmed both types on the approach into LCY and the Fokker has the more dramatic nose dive approach).
I find the new Dash 8 thoroughly hideous, but that’s just from the photogenic point of view, I have no doubt that they are very fine aircraft!
By: wysiwyg - 26th January 2004 at 00:17
I think that sums it up nicely!
By: frankvw - 25th January 2004 at 23:03
True.
In my company, when ppl have to go to London, they prefer take an expensive flight to LHR on a jet (for zero service), and then an expensive cab to the customer.
They laugh at me when i take a VLM F-50, land relaxed at LCY after a good meal, taka a bus for 2 miles, enjoy the wonderful sight in the Docklands light railway, and then take the tube to end at some yards from the customer’s place, and usually faster than them, who are stuck in some idiotic traffic jam on the Northern Circular 😀
And of course, the travel costs the half !
They can laugh, i enjoy it 😉
By: wysiwyg - 25th January 2004 at 22:45
I think these days the travelling public feel there is a certain status by travelling by jet. It’s complete snobbery really. Like most people on these forums I enjoy travelling by turboprop as the experience bears more resemblence to grass roots aviation however most business types think props are for boats!
By: Mark L - 25th January 2004 at 22:35
To be honest I will always try and get a prop! I love them, last year managed to get 3 Dash 8s, and this year I am booked on 2 ATPs. (I can see Ian shaking his head and shouting “WHY?”)
By: robc - 25th January 2004 at 22:32
I have no complaints with Props
Sign In
January 25, 2004 at 10:22 pm