For a cheap fare, would you fly in a turboprop?
Mar 15th, 2007, 05:25 PM
#21
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew from Geneva to Venice last year in a turboprop, got some nice pictures of the Alps as I wasn't too hight.
My guess is that 'packed' flew Babboo Airlines, a fun airplane. The train time essentially took up a complete day, (see Gardyloo's comments)which we didn't want to do.
If you have plenty of time, go slow; if you're cramped for time go fast.
My guess is that 'packed' flew Babboo Airlines, a fun airplane. The train time essentially took up a complete day, (see Gardyloo's comments)which we didn't want to do.
If you have plenty of time, go slow; if you're cramped for time go fast.
Mar 15th, 2007, 11:05 PM
#22
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never encountered a European with this weird propellorphobia.
In western Europe, scheduled flights on propellor planes are almost universally flown by very modern, uncramped, planes designed for maximum fuel efficiency and for operating out of city airports. They are generally a great deal LESS noisy than most jets.
There are a few elderly rattlers (of the sort you find in America on commuter routes) operating very out of the way flights (like between remote islands), and I've come across these planes (not recently) in some ex-Communist countries, though even there, they're being replaced by proper ones.
So what happens is you turn up with an American colleague at an airport (like London City) where most planes are propellor driven, and discover him reacting like that elderly aunt you remember who swore they'd never get her on an Iron Horse. You're amazed, you ply him with drink, then observe the shock when he realises that here (unlike on the Oshkosah-Chatanooga flight he took once in 1973) propellor technology hasn't been frozen solid for the past 50 years.
In western Europe, scheduled flights on propellor planes are almost universally flown by very modern, uncramped, planes designed for maximum fuel efficiency and for operating out of city airports. They are generally a great deal LESS noisy than most jets.
There are a few elderly rattlers (of the sort you find in America on commuter routes) operating very out of the way flights (like between remote islands), and I've come across these planes (not recently) in some ex-Communist countries, though even there, they're being replaced by proper ones.
So what happens is you turn up with an American colleague at an airport (like London City) where most planes are propellor driven, and discover him reacting like that elderly aunt you remember who swore they'd never get her on an Iron Horse. You're amazed, you ply him with drink, then observe the shock when he realises that here (unlike on the Oshkosah-Chatanooga flight he took once in 1973) propellor technology hasn't been frozen solid for the past 50 years.
Mar 16th, 2007, 04:04 AM
#23
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not a matter of "cheap fare". Turboprops are just standard aircraft on less frequented routes. They are somewhat smaller than the "large" jet airliners, but otherwise "normal" planes. They fly as smoothly as jet airliners, no "bumpy rides".
There is nothing scary with turboprops.
Turboprop engines are even safer than jet engines.
There is nothing scary with turboprops.
Turboprop engines are even safer than jet engines.
Mar 16th, 2007, 04:46 AM
#24
I am old enough that my first trip to Europe was on a turbo prop and have since flown on turbo props countless times. They are fine. Depending on the manufacturer and configuration, they may or may not be noisier than a jet - the one you are considering is one of the quieter ones. Enjoy the view of the Alps. The quietest area is usually towards the rear.Anyone remember when first class was in the back?
Mar 16th, 2007, 06:00 AM
#25
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one's old - and perhaps wealthy - enough, he/she may have flown to Europe in a piston-engine aircraft, not turboprop.
In fact, most airlines switch their longhauls directly from piston engine aircraft (DC-7, Constellation, etc) to jets (707, DC-8); and skipped the turboprop (Britannia).
In fact, most airlines switch their longhauls directly from piston engine aircraft (DC-7, Constellation, etc) to jets (707, DC-8); and skipped the turboprop (Britannia).
Mar 16th, 2007, 06:25 AM
#26
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flanneruk says:
"I've never encountered a European with this weird propellorphobia"
I don't like flying them in the US because our weather is generally different to yours (at least until recently) -- sometime stormier but more often turbulent from convection owing to our hotter climate. Even when turboprops CAN fly over the weather, they are usually used here on short routes where they DON'T fly over the weather. A ride in an ATR over the Alps is a very different experience from the same flight over, say, West Texas in the summer. Better fly very early!
In addition, many (Beech 1900, Saab 340, for example) are very cramped inside and are a real problem for the claustrophobic.
"I've never encountered a European with this weird propellorphobia"
I don't like flying them in the US because our weather is generally different to yours (at least until recently) -- sometime stormier but more often turbulent from convection owing to our hotter climate. Even when turboprops CAN fly over the weather, they are usually used here on short routes where they DON'T fly over the weather. A ride in an ATR over the Alps is a very different experience from the same flight over, say, West Texas in the summer. Better fly very early!
In addition, many (Beech 1900, Saab 340, for example) are very cramped inside and are a real problem for the claustrophobic.
Mar 16th, 2007, 06:50 AM
#28
My first flight to Europe was with Icelandic airlines on a Canadair CL 44J turboprop. Most other, if not all, transatlantic airlines had already made the switch to jets and that is why Icelandic was cheap. It was a very nice and comfortable airplane. later, Icelandic switched to the DC-8.
Mar 16th, 2007, 07:06 AM
#30
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For many years, the aircraft of choice for hurricane hunters (you know - those guys who fly through the eye wall into the heart of the storm?) was the Lockheed P3 Orion, which is the military version of the Lockheed Electra.
Not only does the Electra have one of the strongest airframes ever designed, but the engines develop sufficient power to propel the plane <i>straight up</i>.
If I had to fly through turbulence, a turboprop would be my first choice.
Not only does the Electra have one of the strongest airframes ever designed, but the engines develop sufficient power to propel the plane <i>straight up</i>.
If I had to fly through turbulence, a turboprop would be my first choice.
