Turboprop transports

>>31840288
You're talking like jet engined transport aircraft didn't exist

There's the C-2 (mitsubishi), Embraer KC-390(hueland) and even Antonov An-178 (ukraine)

turboprops are way more fuel efficient than turbofans, they're just slower. If airliners thought that people would put up with the noise and the slow flight time they'd be using turboprops for every flight to save on the cost of fuel. As it is they're only used on flights short enough that the time lost doesn't add up to much. Smaller intakes on the turbine section also provide a slighty better protection against FOD.

>>31840288
Also, while turboprop is easier to maintain than turbofan aircraft, the main advantage of turboprol aircraft is its tactical lift capability, where the aircraft can operate in short, unpaved airstrip

>>31840316
Yep, turboprops are incredibly efficient. Increases range and reduces cost.

>>31840316
>turboprops are way more fuel efficient than turbofans, they're just slower.

You cannot really justify that statement especially for medium transport aircraft, considering the turbofan equivalent of C-130 aircraft (KC-390, C-2) use 2 turbofan engine compared to 4 turboprop engines in C-130

File: image.jpg (26KB, 200x193px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 200x193px

>>31840320

Having worked on both types for many years, I can say that your statement on the easier maintenance of turbo props is false.

source:
>commercial airline mechanic

>>31840510
Yo "personal experience" is irrelevent in the grand scheme of things

Turboprop aircraft has lower maintenance per flight hour and longer D-check interval compared to turbofan aircraft of similar size

>>31840565
You're equating ease of maintenance as length between heavy maintenance intervals.

Those are two separate discussion points, and mine was about the former.

I'll repeat myself just for you.

>turbo props are harder to work on

>>31840340
So 2 turbofans cannot consume more fuel than 4 turboprops? That's absurd.

Unless you're saying that the KC-390 is a more efficient aircraft than the C-130.

>>31840340

That's the difference between being built in 2010 and 1954. Just because they're the same size doesn't make their efficiency equal. The C130 is a stupidly poor design in general with absolutely buttloads of drag. I've heard it actually goes faster with the rear door open just because that whole transition space is so poorly designed. A c130 with the same amount of thrust provided by turbofans would burn more fuel than the turbopropped design.