in what respects does the performance of a jet-driven aircraft differ from that of apropeller-diven type?

Answer 1

jets dont have the 'instant response' a prop driven plane has, but the prop's dont have anywhere close to the speed, climb rate, g-force limits, or top speed. but then again, a jet doesnt have the turn radius a prop plane would either, and the jet would drink alot more fuel per minute than the prop does per hour.

Answer 2

There are a few types of each but generally propeller driven craft are slower, can't fly as high or have the range of a jet. However, a propeller driven craft uses less runway to take-off, burns less fuel, takes less runway to land on and costs far less to maintain.

For further clarification, there are piston engine propeller driven aircraft, ranging from a Piper Cub to a Cessna 421.

There are jet driven propeller aircraft, commonly called turboprops ( a contraction of turbojet propeller) which range from the Cessna Caravan to the Lockheed C-130 to the mighty Russian "Bear" bomber ( Tupolev TU-95 I think) from the Cold War era.

Turboprops offer the best attributes of propeller driven aircraft with the reliability and smoothness of a jet engine. Since the propeller limits speed and range, plus they still aren't as smooth as a pure jet they are not as popular (especially with passengers) as the jets we have now

Answer 3

In prop driven airplanes the engine is a source of power, while the jet is a source of thrust.
The prop is more efficient than jet for some simple physic considerations....
so the prop is the best for slow speeds(less than 0.6 Mach), while for high speeds you need something different, the jet..or for subsonic(between 0,6 Mach and 1 Mach) speeds also turbofan, that is a mix of prop and jet charateristics....
And there are also differences in the other performance....for example the same airplane has to fly at different attitudes(and different speeds) to obtain the maximum range or endurance...for example flying at the attitude of min power needed a jet will perform the max range while a prop will perform the max endurance....

Answer 4

Respectfully, I disagree with the thought that jets are superior to prop planes. Yes, they are different. But, may I remind you of the race between the fighter (I believe it was a Hellcat) and the F16. They both started at the same time, and raced to see who could get to 10K feet first. The prop plane made it first.
Yes, jets have the capability of being faster, and usually are. But, there is something to be said for the performance of a prop airplane with an engine failure, versus a jet with engine failure. I'll fly props any day of the week....

Answer 5

Jets fly faster, eat more fuel, but take way too long to stop on the runway.

ALOPILOT stated that turboprops take a long time to slow down. They don't have to slow down. The blades can be feathered so they don't provide any thrust, or reversed to help stop the aircraft on a short runway. A turboprop aircraft's engine pretty much runs the throttles at 100%, while the propeller pitch is controlled by condition levers to regulate thrust.

Answer 6

For Leopold: I'm not sure how a piston-engined fighter could possibly out climb a jet-engined fighter. My 100,000 lb. gross F-111A could climb at 50,000 fpm, and I can't imagine ANY piston aircraft doing that. Never flown the F-16, but I would expect it to at least match the F-104 I flew which climbed at a respectable 30,000 fpm. Again, I don't think there is a piston fighter in the world that can get close to that.

Answer 7

I disagree with the "instant response" idea about props, if your talking about a single engine piston, then reaction is very fast... if your talking about turbo-props which are more comparable to jet airplanes, props get to speed faster but require longer to slow down if the throttle is dropped to idle... Jets are tons faster and can outperform a prop in nearly any category, climb speed, acceleration, deceleration, and more than anything RELIABILITY!