Many of the upcoming very light jets or personal jets have speeds of 300-400 knots. Would it not be more economical to fly at the same speeds with piston or turboprop engines instead?
by 
chewkc65
ANSWERS: 3
-
All things being equal the turboprop would certainly be the more economical. Prop-less aircraft generally enjoy greater passenger appeal than propeller aircraft though. Aircraft like the Bombardier Dash 8 series 400 and the Piaggio Avanti are good examples of short-haul, fast as jets point-to-point, economical turbo-prop aircraft. They enjoy much quieter cabins than the earlier generation of prop aircraft - the Dash 8-400 has an active noise supression system and the Avanti has the advantage of rear-located engines driving aft-facing propellers - the noise is effectively 'left behind'.
-
The problem with piston engines at that speed is that there aren't any with sufficient horsepower light enough to do the work. It's easier to package 500 to 1200 shp in a turboprop than to build the long, heavy V piston engine, or the short, heavy, touchy, and draggy radial engine with that kind of power. Plus, pistons with that kind of power are thirsty in their own right.
-
turbo-props and pistons can't fly at the hight altitudes to get over bad weather
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC