High gas prices aid prop-plane comeback
 

BRUSSELS, Belgium—As fuel prices soar to record highs and airlines struggle to maintain profitability, the unglamorous but fuel-efficient turboprop regional airliner is making a remarkable comeback.
more stories like this

The revival of the propeller-driven planes -- which typically consume a quarter to a third less fuel than equivalent jets -- marks a significant new trend in the industry. Until recently, many commuter airlines had been determined to consign the planes to history and convert to all-jet fleets which offer greater passenger comfort.
http://www.boston.com/business/artic...lane_comeback/

In 80s and 90s didn't a few turboprops crash due to icing issues, and then soon after all of them converted to jets? How are they in cold weather?

CO is bringing the DASH8-Q400s into EWR to increase capacity and decrease costs versus the ERJ145s.

As for operations in icy/cold weather, they are fine if they are de-iced properly. I believe that all the historical issues were with bad weight calculations and/or bad de-icing, not a problem of prop planes in general.

Most icing incidents arise from ice accumulating on an aircraft inflight, not on the ground. Turboprops generally are more susceptible to icing than jets because they tend to fly lower where there's a better chance of encountering icing conditions. They also tend to fly slower, which makes it easier for the ice to "stick" to the airframe.

As bhmlurker pointed out, after this crash in 1994 some airlines actually moved turboprops out of cold weather locations. But even sticking to warmer areas doesn't guarantee an ice-free flight: in 2006 a commercial turboprop flight out of SBP dropped several thousand feet after encountering severe icing over the coastal ranges on the way to LAX.

I wonder if where the a/c was designed makes a difference as far as cold weather ops go. The DH8s seem to operate well in cold weather while SAABs and ATRs (the former really confuses me as Sweden is a cold country) seem to be a big more problematic.

I think you've just ended up answering your own question there...

Heat also poses quite a bit of issues to some turboprops. Some turboprops just don't have much spare performance to accommodate a wide range of situations.

Turboprops like the Twin Otter fly all over the Canadian Arctic.

I don't agree. I think that more icing accidents have come from takeoff attempts with inproperly deiced airplanes. The past decade has seen significant improvement in deicing technology (Type IV fluid), procedures and awareness so that should be improving. Most inflight icing accidents are on smaller airplanes, not airliners (jet or turboprop). There have been some exceptions, particularly the ATR, but that was blamed on inadequate design and training which has now been corrected.

Once in the air, transport category aircraft can take care of themselves in all but the most severe icing.

The article suggests that the only current manufacturer of commercial turboprops is Bombardier. I thought the Embraer EMB-120 was still in production. Does anybody know for sure? Or could this just be another case of ill-informed reporting?

Antonov makes AN-140 (50-seater), a replacement to the AN-24 which is used widely around the world.

The author must not do too much airline travel to come up with his conclusions. I guess next we will be reading of the many advantages of the horse-n-buggy over the automobile.

MisterNice

Aircraft in general are more likely to encounter icing incidents in flight for many reasons, the most obvious being that up is where the clouds are and that if the weather is bad you don't ever have to leave the ground in the first place. However, I will concede that in the air transport category, the majority of fatal incidents do seem to happen at takeoff.

But this part of the thread is discussing the relative safety of RJ vs. turboprops in adverse weather conditions, in particular in cold and/or icing conditions. There is no doubt that a turboprop is more likely to encounter an icing upset in flight than a jet. Not only because it flies slower and lower, but also because a propeller, not a ducted fan, is supplying the thrust. This recent article from Aviation Week discusses some of these issues in the context of jet vs. turboprop.

This is not to say that turboprops are unsafe or are falling out of the sky right and left. I certainly would not avoid flying on a commercial turboprop. In fact, in good weather, I might prefer them over a small jet just for the adventure factor. But when the weather is bad, be it ice or T-storms, I'd rather take the jet any day.

I'd prefer a jet even if it's mainly for a quieter cabin (there are other more technical reasons for my preference but I shan't bore you all with this).

The cold-weather manufacturer hypothesis would be a reasonable one to draw unless/except 1) deHavilland Canada/Boeing/Bombardier has been remarkably lucky, 2) one would expect a Swedish a/c mfg to design for cold weather ops too (unless Fairchild had too much of a say).

I imagine you're referring to the SAAB Fairchilds run by one of the AA regionals out of LAX and vicinity which has frequent weight restrictions?

Wikipedia says that serial manufacture of the EMB120 was terminated in 2001, but that they can still make a one-off for you if you order it.