To which accident are you referring? That doesn't ring any bells.

Regarding the RADAR... RADAR shows precipitation, not turbulence. The RADAR image must be interpreted by the crew to determine where turbulence is likely. Depending on the conditions, very heavy rain can be a smooth ride. RADAR is most useful in avoiding convective activity but that's only one source of turbulence. The turboprops can easily climb over the typical low-altitude bumps from convective activity. Everybody, jets and turboprops, have to go around the large, convective build ups. The biggest difference is the wing loading.

If you really want a good ride on a turbulent day, fly in a helicopter. Very high "wing" loading produces a much smoother ride in turbulence than an airplane.

It's about perception. I remember this accident being in North Carolina or some place in the east. The pilot was a woman, the baggage or other cargo wasn't properly tied down. Here, I've found it: Actually my perception was wrong, it was a turboprop, not that that had anything to do with the cause of the accident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0401.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0401.pdf
8 January 2003; US Airways Express (Air Midwest) Beech 1900; Charlotte, NC: The aircraft crashed into a maintenance hanger at the airport shortly after it departed for a flight to Greenville, SC. The NTSB determined that the loss of pitch control resulted from a combination of an incorrectly rigged elevator control system and by the airplane’s aft center of gravity being substantially aft of the certified limit. Both pilots and all 19 passengers were killed in the crash.

That raises an interesting question -- what if the ground crew had made that same cargo error on a CRJ? Would a CRJ have more power to overcome the extra weight?

It's just a cultural thing, i.e. that Americans don't like propellers or airlines think Americans don't. There's also data that showed that when regional jets first came out, those flights saw a surge in demand, compared to turboprops.

Likewise, there is an American cultural aversion to manual transmissions and station wagons.

Irrelevant. As explained to you above, radar detects precipitation, not rough air.

The envelope of allowable weight distributions varies from aircraft to aircraft. Higher speed reduces the bad effects of weight distribution. But, passenger aircraft are normally flown at predetermined speeds in all phases of flight from takeoff to landing. Airline pilots, and most pilots, will not knowingly operate a plane that is out of balance or overweight. They fly the aircraft by the speeds that their employer decides they should fly for reasons of fuel efficiency, safety, etc. He is not going to think, "I'm overweight and out of balance so I will rotate at Vr + 30", because he knows he may die or get fired. Jets rotate and land at higher speeds so maybe the envelope is a little bigger. I've seen passengers ordered to spread themselves out evenly on sparsely populated 737s, so maybe the envelope really isn't any bigger for jets. Poor weight distribution affects aircraft most significantly at low speeds such as those found during takeoff and landing. Changing weight distribution during takeoff and landing is frequently fatal. Changing weight occurs because the load has not been secured properly, or because the tranquilizers wear off and the cargo moves itself!

The accident airplane would have flown fine with the misloaded cargo if it's flight controls had been operating correctly. The problem was the misrigged elevator. The mis-rigged elevator did not cause an accident until the airplane flew well out of balance.

If you'll indulge one more step with this: what if a CRJ had both the cargo problem and the elevator problem at issue. Might the extra power of the jets have overcome both of those problems?

A lack of power wasn't the problem. They didn't have enough control authority to keep the nose down in their too tail-heavy configuartion.

I personally prefer the Dash-8 over something like a ERJ. Usually the turboprop is not full and I can spread out. The noise is something to contend with, but I don't mind. I like the short final on some turboprop routes as well, they make the trip interesting. With turbulence at low level (near take off and landing times) I prefer the turboprops as well, the regional jets seem to be so light that they get tossed around by the wind, I landed in a 15-20 kt crosswind in a Dash-8 and could barely tell.

Has anyone considered maintenance and aircraft life as a reason for U.S. airlines to not use turboprops as much? With the increased vibration you are effectively wearing parts down more quickly than you would with a jet.

Oh, and I despise the MD-80 family of planes... They are old and it is time for an upgrade (I'm talking to you AA and DL).

Does anyone else in their thread remember the late 1980s and early 1990s when the skys, and airports, were filled with turboprop regional airliners? Beech 99s, Metroliners, Jetstreams, Saab 340s, F27s, twin-otters, etc.? During the latter half of the 1990s the airlines transitioned to a mostly RJ fleet for their regional service due to customer dislike for the turboprops.

Part of my problem with the regional jets is that the airlines are deploying them incorrectly (IMO). They are meant to be point-to-point transportation, not a bus in the spoke and hub system. ExpressJet will be doing the point-to-point thing, connecting airports that would otherwise be a full day endeavor to reach. I am interested to see how that works out.

The RJs are "meant" to be tools with which to make a profit. Nothing more.

The RJs are more capable than the turbopropr that they replaced but, in the early 1990s, there were plenty of 1:30 to 2:00 Jetstream or Saab flights on turboprops. The only difference was that 2:00 in a Jetstream wasn't anywhere near as many miles traveled as 2:00 in an RJ.

And I have to respectfully disagree. Everything the airlines do is for a profit, but in this case it goes against the purpose of the jet. I mean, just look at its name, regional jet. I am sorry, but a IAH-CLT flight or DFW-ATL flight just isn't regional and most of the time those flights are full. I know they have their reasons for doing what they do (the airlines) but it makes more sense to me to deploy the jets in a point-to-point manner and let the turboprops do the puddle jumping.

The purpose of the jet as set by whom?

Certainly not the manufacturer. They will be glad to show any prospective customer the multitude of applications of which their airplane is capable.