>>962447>Early ones were limited in how fast they could change their thrust, but generally they produce far more thrust for takeoff than propeller engines do. No, they didn't, and they still don't. Jets have comparitively good dynamic thrust in flight, but their static thrust isn't particularly notable. Propellers, on the other hand, can produce remarkable amounts of static thrust, but this thrust declines considerably with increasing airspeed.
Have an example: the B-52 and the Tu-95 are, by all measures, comparable and equivalent aircraft from the same era, but where the B-52 employs jets (EIGHT of them), the Tu-95 uses turboprops. A fully-loaded B-52 requires 10,000 feet of runway, but a TU-95 only needs half of that, because it propellers produce much more static thrust.
This is still the case as well, as evidenced by the continued use of turboprops in the tactical airlift role, where STOL performance is valued (A400M being the most recent example).
