Bombardier Inc., the world's third-largest plane maker, may add a larger version of its Q400 turboprop to compete with rivals' jets on commuter routes, an executive said. The Montreal-based company is studying a model with 90 to 95 seats that "would have commonality with the Q400," Philippe Poutissou, Bombardier's director of airline analysis, said yesterday at an aviation conference in Cannes, France. The plane now carries a maximum of 78 passengers. The Q400 is popular among regional airlines trying to pare jet fuel costs on short-haul flights. A bigger Q400 may spur airlines to pick a turboprop over jets of similar capacity, creating a "new market where there was never turboprop planes in the past," Mr. Poutissou said. Bombardier aims to introduce the model in 2011, he said. BBD.B (TSX) fell 20 cents to $5.52.
PanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2708 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12348 times:
If they can make it work, it will be insanely economical. Ideal for short hops like BOS-NYC or PHL-WAS (in terms of economics, not traffic flow). In this day and age, as much as I enjoy the roar of a jet engine, I'd rather see an airline choose something more economical than a CRJ (not hard to do ). Bravo to Bombardier for trying something new! I certainly hope they pursue it, and airlines jump on it!
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12280 times:
It'd be kind of interesting if this aircraft was built. Most airline contracts in the US require an aircraft type of this size to be flown by the mainline carrier. I'd be a return of props flown by the majors for the first time in decades....
Mach3 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12254 times:
The day of the RJ is going fast. Bomb is trying to milk the cow as much as it can for as much money as they can get because their day is ending!!!!! Stretching the Q400 just may be carryong a good thing to far.
If you pull on the Tiger's tail, better be prepared for him to bite you in the ARSE
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 6): It might look long in its fake pic, but in reality it will still be a few rows shorter than E190/195 aircraft.
Oh, I'm aware the fake pic is a gross exaggeration, but I still think a stretched Q400 will look unbelievably long....particularly when parked next to a 100 or 200 series. It would be like seeing a CRJ-900 parked next to a Challenger.
Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 5): I'd be a return of props flown by the majors for the first time in decades....
Here's hoping Lockheed-Martin will introduce a modernized Electra with 8-blade props, a la the new Hawkeyes...
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21810 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12134 times:
Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 1): I hope they plan on jacking up the gear to make the bird taller so it can actually rotate on take-off.
They can add most of the length ahead of the wings, which of course could lead to making the plane nose heavy during flight. But if they also couple it with some weight saving measures for the front end and redistribution of weight of some systems toward the rear, they may be able to balance it out, mostly.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
PavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11957 times:
I think a prop that size could be a winner. Whether a stretch of the Dash 8 even more is the best solution is another question.
Personally I'd rather see them launch the C-Series and use the cockpit and fuselage from that aircraft with different wing boxes for the jets (low wing) and prop (high wing). Having a family of six aircraft in the 90-110-130 seat ranges could be a winner.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7133 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 11853 times:
I think there would be some more work needed than just a simple stretch. I guess they will need a larger wing and a new gear, too. But I like the idea and if they get customers for it why not. Every plane that does not look like an E-Jet or A320 is more than welcome
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Cessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 11826 times:
I'm going to think outside of the box...
Instead of making these beasties longer...why not just widen the fuselage to allow for one more seat so that the seating is at 2-3 instead of the already cramped 2-2? Sure, it'll allow commuters to experience the cabin of a DC-9, but it would cut down on making that gooney any longer than it already is...
Might have to set up the gear like an ATR-42/72 to make it work but it seems to make sense. If you get these birds any longer, you'll need retro thrusters to get the thing to lift off as it won't be able to properly rotate. Q4's already look wierd enough when trying to flare...then again, they don't actually flare. They just keep floating down the runway to bleed off airspeed until all the tires finally decide to hit...at a fairly parallel pitch to the runway.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11732 times:
Quoting Cessna172RG (Reply 18): why not just widen the fuselage to allow for one more seat so that the seating is at 2-3 instead of the already cramped 2-2?
Because it poses a much more severe change of the Q400s design and would have much more serious implications. You would end up with an entirely different product, with all the risks and costs involved. Just lengthening it is a much cheaper and lower-risk untertaking.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11475 times:
Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 5): It'd be kind of interesting if this aircraft was built. Most airline contracts in the US require an aircraft type of this size to be flown by the mainline carrier. I'd be a return of props flown by the majors for the first time in decades.
Actually, that's in regards to jet a/c. Scope clauses have involved regional jet a/c not turboprop a/c. They limit the size of a/c and in some cases the number of regional jets that can be used.
Alangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9116 times:
Will the intention be to keep the field performance of the Q400 so that the new version can use Toronto Island? Any chance of the Economical cruise speed being increased a bit?
A few years ago, when Dornier brought out the Jet version of the Do328, their comparison was that the Do328JET was the better plane on distances of more than 300 miles. The Do328 turboprop was quite a fast cruiser at the time (early 1990s).
Economics have changed since the early 90s, are there any studies to show when you should prefer the Q400 or Q400+ over the CRJ-900 or CRJ-1000? There will be some airlines who will have both planes in the same fleet. Will the Q400+ (Q500) have an advantage up to 400 or 500 miles?
: Wow, if such an aircraft could effectively bypass scope clauses, it seems like that would be a selling point right there. Let's take it a step furthe
: Hey I will second that idea!!! Highly doubtful but would be a neat idea. I would love to see a modern version of the Convair 580 maybe the Convair 58
: Here's regretting that they could no longer make L-1649 Starliners with turboprops... That would be nice!!! Looks interesting, to my profane eye... I