Turbo Prop Time Vs. Jet Time

[Rythm3]

Yes, jets and turboprops burn the same type of fuel, and operate on the same principles, however there are major differences between the two. The obvious differences are the speed and altitudes that each are flown. For me, personally, this was much more of a transition than the operation of the engines.

Average jets fly almost twice as high, and almost twice as fast as average turboprops. Yes, there are exceptions to this, hence the word "average" being used.

These are just some examples. There are many other differences that most of us don't even have time to explain (climb gradients, rapid decompression, buffet onset, high speed aborts, etc, etc)

With that being said, when an operator is requiring X number of hours jet time, they may be looking for all aspects of jet experience, not just turbine engine experience.

I hope this helps.

 

[Quimby]

Thanks for that!
Your just the kind of "Pilot" I would love to kick down air stairs.

He answered your question.

and it's "you're"

really........if you have to ask what they mean regarding jet time, then you probably don't have it.

 

[jet2work]

It depends on what your definition of is is

Thanks for that!
Your just the kind of "Pilot" I would love to kick down air stairs.

Which is probably because you lack the maturity and or temperment to fly a jet for a corporate flight department or charter outfit.

By Jet, I of course mean a turbo fan powered aircraft. Otherwise while we are playing the semantics game, can't I legally log all the time that I am sitting in the aircraft with the APU running as single engine turbine time?

I don't mean to sound condescending (although I am probably doing a good job of it), but when an employer wants "jet time" what they want is turbo fan time.

If your resume gets to a chief pilot who wrote the ad, it will probably get s4itcanned. If your resume goes through an HR person, it will probably make it's way through to the chief pilot and then it will get S4itcanned. Intellectual dishonesty is typically not a trait one seeks in an employee.

Now please do not let me discourage you from applying for this position. After all, at one time NONE of us had any "jet time" and by "jet time" I mean...... Well you know what I mean don't you.

Lastly, if applying for a job flying a "jet" and by "jet" I mean turbo fan powered aircraft, is not worth the 30 minutes of your time, you might not exactly be cut out for the job.

Of course my motto is "You gotta bet big to win big."

You should by all means apply for every job you are reasonably close to being qualified for, and try to check the attitude. Good luck.

 

[Fly91]

I don't mean to sound condescending (although I am probably doing a good job of it), but when an employer wants "jet time" what they want is turbo fan time.

Lear 25's do not have "turbo fan" engines, but it is "jet time."

When an employer wants "jet time" and only puts the words "jet time" in their ads, they are leaving a question on what type of "jet time" they want.....the two types being "turbo jet" or "turbo-fan." Hopefully the ad also includes the type of aircraft so we pilots can figure out for ourselves what type of "jet time" they are looking for. If they have a Lear 25, all they care about is pure "turbo-jet." You don't need 1 hour of turbo-fan experience to qualify to fly the Lear 25. If they have a Lear 35/55/60, you know they are probably looking for "turbo-fan" experience. BUT....they should except someone with just "turbo-jet" time because any monkey that can be a PIC on a "turbo-jet" powered aircraft can certainly transition into a "turbo-fan" powered aircraft with 2 minutes of ground school on N1.

I wonder how long this thread will go.

 

[avbug]

I figured I could just apply, but some of these sites take a good 30 to 45 min to work through the online application. Just didn't want to waste my time.

Then why have you wasted ours?

45 minutes of your time is too much effort to obtain that first "jet" job? Would you prefer that someone else filled it out for you, or that the employer come to your house and cater to you as you lay on the couch contemplating the meaning of the word "jet?"

Your just the kind of "Pilot" I would love to kick down air stairs.

Wisely, once once said that it's often far better to keep one's trap shut and appear the fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt. You appear to have gone the extra mile several times now, and have left no room for doubt. You are 14 years old then, are you?

The FAA does make a distinction between turbopropeller, and turbojet. The FAA does not make a distinction between turbofan and turbojet...and refers to jets as turbojets. Employers often do the same.

Yes, there is a difference between a jet and a turboprop. With the notable exception of the Piaggio Avanti, there aren't any corporate turboprops that fly close to or as high as or exhibit similiar performance to turbojet airplanes (and to be clear, as you seem a little slow, by "turbojet" I mean "jet" which means turbojet or turbofan).

Aside from advanced performance, flying turbojet airplanes usually means flying more expensive airplanes with greater insurance requirements, more affluent clientele, often more advanced training, etc.

When an employer says "jet" an employer means jet...as in turbojet. Not turboprop.

There's a big difference between flying a Citation X or a Learjet 60 or a Hawker 800XP, and a King Air.

You got the gist of it right, however, because there's a big difference between operating an airplane with some mass to it like a C-130 or a P-3, and operating a small airpalne that flies and performs like a light twin (because it is) such as a King Air 90.

The employer is looking for jet experience. Often employers will consider other applicants if they can't get applicants with jet experience. Today in this hiring market, unless the employer is offering very entry level wages, you're going to find that most jobs have plenty of applicants with ample experience.

Of course, you won't stand a chance anyway, because there's that mighty "gotta apply to get the job" barrier. After all, 45 minutes of your life to get a decent job that provides you benefits, pay, and valued experience is a terrible toll to pay, and you're right to question it. Like avoiding starting smoking or doing drugs, you should simply stay away. Lord knows, you could get a paper cut.

 

[brokeflyer]

they didnt ask that.....they asked for JET time....lear 25 and 35 are both JETS....I hope you know that a Lear type rating covers the 20's AND the 30's.....lol

lets not confuse the poor guy anymore than he already is.....lol

 

[Man-Ditch]

Good God!

To those of you that posted helpful answers thanks.

 

[Fly91]

Good God!

To those of you that posted helpful answers thanks.

I think you have the answer to your original question, right?

With that said, I've put pilots in the Lear 25, 35 and 55 having never touched a "true" jet aircraft. The only flight time they had was King Air, 1900, Merlin, Metroliners, etc.... They transition into it as easy as pie, every time. Its easier flying with turbo-jet or turbo-fan powered aircraft than it is with turbo-props. So apply to everyone regardless, you will have it easier when you start flying true "jet" aircraft.

 

[guido411]

I see job postings with a min requirement of 500hr+/- of "Jet" time. I'm not exactly sure what they mean here. For one, there really is no "Jet" engines out there and hasn't been in a long time. There are TurboFans and TurboProps which are burning the same gas and just produce thrust in different ways.

I have 700hrs of Turbine time (read: turbo prop) if you were me, would you apply to these postings?
Is this a "jet" engine or are they talking about sweptwing turbofans? I would think they are just looking for experience with the advanced engines and avionics.

I'd like to hear the opinions.

I had a former boss that tried telling a customer that only flew on turbine airplanes that his Navajo was "turbine charged" to try and sell a trip. Did I ever work for you?

 

[Man-Ditch]

FLY91-

Yeah thanks, I certainly got more than I asked for (or needed) to a simple question that I just needed cleared up. I have some Jet time in 750's of all things so I understand there are differences. I guess my question was more to applying to jobs that seem to be posted by HR and in my mind were not worded properly. I totally agree that turboprop time can be a handful and transitions should be a cake walk.

I am very specific with my applications and just where and who I am applying to. I have a full-time job and fly contract as well. So to those that think I am not willing to "put out" to spend 45 mins on an application, well that isn't realistic for me. I pay very close attention to the words "if you don't meet the requirements...." seems a reasonable request to me.

My strategy seems to be working because I have sent out exactly 9 application packets and have had 4 call backs and three interviews with one rejected offer. I am "in Process" with two others after looking for just two and a half weeks. Not bad for aviation job hunting in a hurting market.

But what do I know.

Thanks again.