When did turboprops come into vogue?

[es330td]

I was reading my new Flying magazine today and it had an article
covering the decline of the 310/Seneca type light twins. It pointed
out that the performance ground previously addressed by a twin piston
is now covered by turbine powered aircraft. Being new to flying
myself vs riding in a fast bus I'm not well versed in GA history. I
was just curious to know when the single engine turboprop became a
true viable alternative.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

es330td > wrote in news:8d75f79c-b652-4c71-9924-
:

> I was reading my new Flying magazine today and it had an article
> covering the decline of the 310/Seneca type light twins. It pointed
> out that the performance ground previously addressed by a twin piston
> is now covered by turbine powered aircraft. Being new to flying
> myself vs riding in a fast bus I'm not well versed in GA history. I
> was just curious to know when the single engine turboprop became a
> true viable alternative.
>

Well, the first ones were just post was and the RR dart was first to appear
AFAIK. I think the Fokker F27 might have been the first, or the Vickers
Viscount.
The became commonplace during the fifties, but it was the introduction of
the PT6 in the 60s that really brought it into GA, though. I think they
tested it on a Twin Beech and then installed them on a number of airplanes
throughout the sixties. Hal Krier even put one on his Great Lakes! There
were a number of other engines, but I don't thing any of the little Garrets
or Allisons ever came close to the ubiquitous PT6 in popularity.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

es330td wrote:
> I was reading my new Flying magazine today and it had an article
> covering the decline of the 310/Seneca type light twins. It pointed
> out that the performance ground previously addressed by a twin piston
> is now covered by turbine powered aircraft. Being new to flying
> myself vs riding in a fast bus I'm not well versed in GA history. I
> was just curious to know when the single engine turboprop became a
> true viable alternative.

At least 10 years ago.

[Dallas]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:51:29 -0800 (PST), es330td wrote:

> It pointed out that the performance ground previously addressed by a twin piston
> is now covered by turbine powered aircraft.

Much of the logic is based on the concept that 1 turboprop engine is more
reliable than 2 piston engines.

--
Dallas

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:22:15 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:51:29 -0800 (PST), es330td wrote:
>
>> It pointed out that the performance ground previously addressed by a twin piston
>> is now covered by turbine powered aircraft.
>
>Much of the logic is based on the concept that 1 turboprop engine is more
>reliable than 2 piston engines.

But just wait until you see the insurance bill <:-))

Roger (K8RI)