4 ms·

But propeller driven-aircraft aren't obsolete; they became turboprop. Take a look at Super Tucano for a modern example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_

But propeller driven-aircraft aren't obsolete; they became turboprop. Take a look at Super Tucano for a modern example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/world/la-fg-ecuador-warplane23-2010feb23 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/world/la-fg-ecuador-... Only $10M each!

partisan 11y ago
Well, yes. And that is due to the fact that jet engines don't scale down to personal aircraft of the size of the Super Tucano. Nor would it make sense to do that. I am sure there are plenty of people who enjoy flying their turbo props and would find a jet less enjoyable. But for the purposes of long distance travel, no one wants to sit in a plane for several more hours because they find flying in a piston powered plane charming. I want that Boom plane here now, in fact. The shorter the flight, the better.
- Bjorkbat 11y ago
  I'm mildly confused by your comment. It seems that you're implying that the Super Tucano is a personal airplane. Just checking to make sure that you know it's actually a warplane, and that countries are buying it because it's downright outstanding for ground support. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
  - partisan 11y ago
    Sorry for the mis-wording. I understand it is a warplane; I read the articles in the past few weeks about the impending death of the A-10 Warthog and the use of the Super Tucano in private military fleets. My point was that the segment of small turbo prop planes is alive and well and so innovation, of course, continues there, but that isn't the same segment of larger passenger or cargo planes that the article is speaking of.
    - Bjorkbat 11y ago
      Ah, gotcha. Just wanted to clarify.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  I've always considered turboprops to be jet engines; any other definition of "jet" would likely leave high-bypass turbofans to also be not "jet" engines.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

partisan 11y ago

Well, yes. And that is due to the fact that jet engines don't scale down to personal aircraft of the size of the Super Tucano. Nor would it make sense to do that. I am sure there are plenty of people who enjoy flying their turbo props and would find a jet less enjoyable. But for the purposes of long distance travel, no one wants to sit in a plane for several more hours because they find flying in a piston powered plane charming. I want that Boom plane here now, in fact. The shorter the flight, the better.

Bjorkbat 11y ago
I'm mildly confused by your comment. It seems that you're implying that the Super Tucano is a personal airplane. Just checking to make sure that you know it's actually a warplane, and that countries are buying it because it's downright outstanding for ground support. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
- partisan 11y ago
  Sorry for the mis-wording. I understand it is a warplane; I read the articles in the past few weeks about the impending death of the A-10 Warthog and the use of the Super Tucano in private military fleets. My point was that the segment of small turbo prop planes is alive and well and so innovation, of course, continues there, but that isn't the same segment of larger passenger or cargo planes that the article is speaking of.
  - Bjorkbat 11y ago
    Ah, gotcha. Just wanted to clarify.
aidenn0 11y ago
I've always considered turboprops to be jet engines; any other definition of "jet" would likely leave high-bypass turbofans to also be not "jet" engines.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]