Talk:Turboprop

World's first production turboprop...
Deleted '''The world's first turboprop engine that went into mass production was designed by a German engineer, Max Adolf Müller, in 1942. ''' "World's first" claims are always popular. This statement only brings up questions while at the same time actually tells us nothing. Perhaps it's not verbatim from the source. Dart production engine deliveries began in mid-1952, so it has to be before that. It's probably referring to a Russian engine although I can't find Max Adolf Müller mentioned in any lists of German help in Russian turboprop developments. One source says the Kuznetsov TV-2 went into series production 1950/1 but it had to be twinned for the NK-12 before it was OK and that was sometime after 1952.Pieter1963 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Aviation Week 1957-09-09 states literally the Rolls-Royce Dart ... was the first turboprop engine to be taken through to production. You were right to delete the poorly sourced statement not even linking to the quoted engine (which should be notable enough to have its own article!).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Why does the deletion not show in "view history"?Pieter1963 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It does--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I still don't see it when I select "view history" myself though. If I use your link I see it. If I then go back to article then view history it's gone. First time I've ever come across this. Just done another edit with a no-show. LOLPieter1963 (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuel
Can we say what fuel turboprop airplanes use? I am suspecting Jet-A since airports already have it around, but it would be nice to say. Gah4 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Turboprop - definition and broader definition
Insist on distinguishing between "turboprop aircraft" (an aircraft equipped with turbine-propeller engine(s)) and "turboprop engine". Link to my edit is here: []

p.s. it may also be wise to have actual page for "turbine-propeller engine" (and\or a link from Turbine\Aviation turbines) and then having this page ("Turboprop") describing different word usage to link to (or redirect to) "turbine-propeller engine". This page would summarize the development of turbine propeller engines, whereas "Turboprop aircraft" would do so for aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M8sterMind (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to creating a separate page on turboprop aircraft, but since the proper use of the word “turboprop” is to refer to the engine, I don’t see a need to change this article. - ZLEA  T \ C 17:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh goody, but that is exactly what i did in original edit and this other guy "undoed": since we only care to present the difference in terms, it is wise to have a separate sentence, e.g.: "Turboprop" is also sometimes used to refer to an aircraft equipped with turbine propeller engine(s)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by M8sterMind (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend against putting a sentence within the article text itself. In cases like this, we usually have a disambiguation page to list articles with similar titles.  However, if a separate page were to be created for turboprop aircraft, I don't think there would be enough articles to warrant a disambiguation page.  Instead, Template:About hatnote at the top of the page should suffice (for example, "This article is about the aircraft engine. For turboprop-powered aircraft, see Turboprop aircraft."). -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that looks great. Can we do that? Actually, the Turboprop page currently contains a fair bit of information on Turboprop aircraft (thou it may be greatly expanded), leaving the history and achievements in developing Turbine-Propeller Engines on that page and moving all Aircraft related information to separate page & creating a disambiguation page. M8sterMind (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would agree that 'turboprop' is used to describe an aircraft powered by turboprop engines but it is slang/jargon within the aviation industry and/or a colloquialism. Mentioning it in this article would be against Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary does cover the usage.
 * A hatnote to a red link can not be created (WP:REDHAT) and there is no real difference between the airframes and systems of piston engine/turbojet/turbofan/turboprop/propfan-powered aircraft. I did check a 500 page Jane's aerospace dictionary where the only meaning for turboprop is a gas turbine driving a propeller. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  16:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I had proposed the hatnote only if a separate article were created for turboprop aircraft. - ZLEA  T \ C 18:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

TSFC
Can we add the TSFC (eg 0.280 kg/kWh) as a column to the ‘current engines’ table, please? 20040302 (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently they have a distinctive sound?
That would be neat to have a clip of. 208.98.223.19 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All engine types have distinct sounds. I'm not sure a sound clip would be of much encyclopedic value to this article. -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)