Capital146 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2125 posts, RR: 41 Posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4894 times:
Have seen the recent thread regarding the ACA J41 fleet reduction and it seems a mixed bunch of opinions of the J41.
From my time working with Eastern Airways in the UK up until the the end of last year (who are one of the largest users of J41's in the world) I can tell you the following:
Some of the senior flight crew (who had flown on other turboprop types for other airlines) seemed to be of the opinion that the J41 wasn't best aircraft in the 30-seat class.
Yet, the J41 seems to be one one of the most efficient 30-seat aircraft for sectors of 300 miles or less (or 29 seats in the J41's case).
Having stepped inside a J41 at Eastern Airways maintenance hanger at Humberside airport, the cabin does seem very small. I have flown on an SF3 and somehow the J41 seemed smaller.
I realise that there may be aircraft in the J41's class which may appeal more to business travellors than the J41, but is the J41 a deterrent or is it what you would expect from a 30-seat commuter aircraft?
FlyKCRW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4856 times:
I flew the J41 for ACA a few years ago. Most of what you mentioned in your post is absolutely correct. The J41 is good at what it's designed to do- short hauls in cooler climates. It is sturdy, it used to be fairly reliable; it is very fuel efficient, and it's relatively fast for a turboprop. The cabin is entirlely too small. Climb performance during all but optimal conditions is poor. It was exceptionally weak on hot, humid days...or when operating in hight altitude environments when ice protection was required.From a passenger stanpoint, it absolutely sucks...cabin is hot and cramped with limtied storage. From a pilot's standoint, it was a pretty decent ride. (except during the summer)
Overall, I must say the J41 is inferior to other 30-seat class aircraft.
ANCSO From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4752 times:
For what it was designed to do, I would say it does it ok. The 30 seat aircraft that entered service in the mid 80's to the early 90's were designed to replace Metro's, 1900's, Bandit's, BE99 etc.
The J41 was the second last (D328 the last) of these 30 aircraft to enter service and by the time it came onto service regional airlines were starting to look at RJ's. These same airlines also started to shed many routes that were originally flown by 19 seat aircraft and then by the 30 seat aircraft. So by the time the J41 entred service the market at changed, airlines wanted more, pilots wanted more and passengers expected more.
Look at what's occuring now, the regional airlines that have been operating 19 seat aircraft (Metro's/1900's) on those routes that were shed by the large regional airlines in the 90's are now starting to look at 30 seat aircraft. These airlines do not have the money to purchase new aircraft and the supply of used 30 seat aircraft on the market means they can now look at stepping up.
So those passengers who are still stuck in 1900's and Metro's would love to see an aircraft such as the J41 on their routes. To them it's an upgrade. So for routes around 100-300 nm the J41 would suit, just like it was designed for.