Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bombardier May Stretch Q400 For 90-95 Seats  
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11653 times:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...20.RTICKER20-6/TPStory/?query=Q400

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.

[Edited 2007-10-20 21:12:38]

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11639 times:

I hope they plan on jacking up the gear to make the bird taller so it can actually rotate on take-off.

User currently offlinePanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2672 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11626 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  Wink). Bravo to Bombardier for trying something new! I certainly hope they pursue it, and airlines jump on it!  Smile

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4818 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11580 times:

So why not simply call it the Q500?
Good idea tho! It would indeed be very cheap to run per seat.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11582 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Sebring (Thread starter):
Bombardier May Stretch Q400

Bloody hell....any longer, and the pax will need a moving sidewalk to get to the rearmost seats:


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Leonardo Taccola
Template © Leonardo Taccola



2H4




Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11558 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....

User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11547 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):

Bloody hell....any longer, and the pax will need a moving sidewalk to get to the rearmost seats:

It might look long in its fake pic, but in reality it will still be a few rows shorter than E190/195 aircraft.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11531 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):

If that aircraft is gonna be that long, they are going to have to borrow the 757's 'chicken legs'!!!!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMach3 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11532 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
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11503 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.  Smile

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...  crossfingers 

2H4




Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11451 times:

I guess they won´t get SAS as an launch customer  duck  Big grin

That aircraft will definitely look like a loooong sausage.  Smile


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11441 times:

The new version will have to be around 10 feet longer to get 4 more rows (16 more pax) in. The landing gear and engine nacelles will certainly have to be redesigned to make it work.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11412 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.
User currently offlineHorizonGirl From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 807 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11373 times:

Didn't they announce this a while ago? Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
I think the only reason why it would look long is because of the comparison to the 100 and 200 series.

Devon



Flying high on the Wings of the Great Northwest!
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11235 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.


User currently offlineASMD11 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11228 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
They can add most of the length ahead of the wings, which of course could lead to making the plane nose heavy during flight.

The Q400 already tends to be nose heavy during flight, so I would think that any stretch would need to be at or aft of the wings so that it wouldn't be even more so.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11131 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  Smile


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineCessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11104 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.



Save the whales...for dinner!!!
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11010 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.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10753 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.


User currently offlineOlympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10579 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):
Bloody hell....any longer, and the pax will need a moving sidewalk to get to the rearmost seats:

They say great minds think alike. That was my thought while trudging back to row 54 on a B773 - and there were still several rows behind that  Smile


User currently offlineDavidkunzVIE From Austria, joined Mar 2007, 431 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10357 times:

Sounds like the kind of plane that OS/VO might need.


DH3 DH4 CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 F70 732 733 734 73G 738 752 762 763 772 742 743 319 320 321 333 343
User currently offlineWestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

The plane would surely need some extra structural reinforcement to prevent it from say......splitting in half?


Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 8432 times:

I'd really think about making the existing plane work correctly before a stretch like that.

I do really think its a good idea, however. Props are fantastic.

NS


User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 8394 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?


25 2H4 : 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
26 HermansCVR580 : 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
27 Aircellist : 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
28 Post contains links and images Rampart : Did you mean this, which already exists (apart from 6-bladed props)? View Large View MediumPhoto © Carlos Aleman - SJU Aviation Photography http
29 2H4 : I wonder how efficient (when compared with modern designs) that fuselage is, aerodynamically. Say, for example, the fuselage shape of the Starliner w
30 Zkpilot : QF has just announced an order for another 12 Q400 (not the Q400+/Q500 however).
31 Silentbob : I know at least one scope clause that allows regional jets to be larger than turboprops.
32 AirframeAS : I dont know what happened to my question earlier about QX ordering some, maybe it was a forum glitch. But if this plane does actually get built, will
33 Milesrich : The lack of a constant width and tubular fuselage was one reason the DC-6/7 outsold the Connies. That is why the Electra had a more conventional fusel
34 2H4 : I think these factors were more applicable in the past. Today, crashes like Pinnacle 3701 and Comair 5191 are fresher in people's minds than those in
35 HermansCVR580 : Yeah that is the Convair 5800. I knew it already exists but what I meant was to build a new airframe 0 time on it with updated turboprops. I'm not su
36 9252fly : I can't speak for other airlines,but the AC scope clause does not apply to turbo-props.
37 NZ8800 : It would be interesting to see a stretched Q400 - but as other people have said, I think it would either have to have ATR72 style landing gear, or be
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UK Press: BA May Snub Airbus For Boeing Long-haul posted Tue May 29 2007 21:23:35 by Jimyvr
US May Increase Offer For DL..news posted Mon Dec 18 2006 08:10:47 by Vega
What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs posted Fri Dec 15 2006 16:45:28 by Tangowhisky
Disabled Man Left On BA Plane For 90 Minutes posted Wed Jul 19 2006 17:36:58 by BDKLEZ
Qatar Airways May Drop A350 For B787 posted Mon Jun 5 2006 15:21:14 by PanAm_DC10
Is There A Market For A 90-160 Seat Props? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 14:32:46 by PavlovsDog
First Q400 For QantasLink posted Fri Jan 20 2006 13:21:24 by MauriceB
EL AL May Be Sued For Breaking Shabbat posted Thu May 19 2005 21:41:18 by Planenutz
May 3: Big Day For B6 posted Thu Apr 28 2005 19:19:03 by FA4B6
UAL: Ruling May Allow Bids For Company posted Mon Jan 10 2005 05:44:43 by Scotron11