posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 01:14 PM
originally posted by: Zaphod58
In addition to the C-130 having access to rougher strips, a C-17 requires 3,500 feet to operate, if it's extremely light. The C-130 only needs 3,000
feet with a medium load. That's with a 500 foot safety margin added. The J model can takeoff with a heavy load in similar conditions.
Yeah, but TO distances in a fixed-wing aircraft are a function of wing-loading, and not of propulsion type (though you may get small benefits from
greater wing area being blown by the props). Rough field ability is a function of loading, speed and gear/tire-performance. Given the same TO weight,
there should be little or no difference between a turbo-prop A400M and a turbo-fan version generating the same net thrust.
Main advantages for turboprops are in fuel consumption at non-transonic speed, such as the requirements of the A400M project.
Props have more constant thrust than jet engines so they actually produce more power at low speed.
Ermm, what? It's easier to change available thrust in a turboprop by changing blade pitch and not having to wait for the engine to spool up, but
apart from that, I don't have any idea why you would think the static thrust available would be advantageous to a turboprop?