I'm looking at the 100 people project and I am looking at clean airplanes. Why did we stop using a clean source of lift, the propeller?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Turbofans (B737/A320) are basically large propellers, so we continue with propellers optimized for M 0.8 speed, and also continue with traditional propellers for slower aircraft flying at lower altitude (e.g. ATR, or Q400). For propellers, the actual source of energy is often a turboprop, that is a (jet fuel) turbine, like other airliners. This is not cleaner in any way. $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Oct 18, 2017 at 19:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Unless you're talking about a rotary-wing craft (i.e. helicopter), I don't really think the propeller creates lift - it's the airflow around (and most specifically below) the wing that creates lift. Also, in what way do you think it is a "clean source" of lift where a jet engine is (by inference) a "dirty source" of lift? $\endgroup$
    – FreeMan
    Oct 18, 2017 at 19:30
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ How are propellers cleaner than jet engines? $\endgroup$
    – zeta-band
    Oct 18, 2017 at 19:35

1 Answer 1


Look into Propulsive efficiency (and maybe also this one). Turboprops have a speed of peak efficiency, which is around mach 0.6 or so. If you try to go faster, it gets significantly less efficient. A high bypass turbofan, on the other hand, is most efficient at a higher speed, maybe mach 0.8 - 0.85. So the simple answer is: we switched from props to jets because people wanted to fly faster but didn't want to burn a lot of extra fuel to do that.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.