I still wonder why vis-à-vis jet planes vs propeller planes

I still wonder why vis-à-vis jet planes vs propeller planes

Mostly it was the local crash circa 2005 of a Navy WWII propeller driven airplane that got me thinking.

It was not equipped with instruments to navigate with, and so was attempting to fly from Dollywood in Tennessee to Little Rock in Arkansas using Interstate 40 as a navigation means. Well the weather was so bad that day that the plane ended up clipping a powerline and crashing, killing the skilled pilot to boot.

Now with the world having around 37 aircraft carriers of all sorts, I think there is a “market” for future airplanes (both fixed-wing and rotary-wing), and I suspect many of them will be propeller powered vice jet powered. I am thinking turbo prop engines that burn already existing jet fuel.  The assumption assumes that naval airplanes, like people, do wear out and need replacing every so often. 

And for many the replacement time is upon us or soon to come upon us.   And that often means they (smaller ship airplanes) will be less capable than heavier and higher tech jet airplanes (bomb trucks if you will), but the world is more simple than some may assume.

Said another way, the tooth to tail ratio will come down if things get simpler for many of the missions that are still valid. Now while the idea of “tooth to tail ratio” is valid, there are other more practical things to consider, like even building and manning the schools to teach all this.