B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16598 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6098 times:
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10883 posts, RR: 100 Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5506 times:
TrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 769 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4635 times:
Man, I was never much into propeller driven aircraft but I will say those Q400's are amazing looking machines!!! I do know from a controllers stand point they are very nice performing aircraft! I talk to Colgan and Porters all the time.
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2577 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3293 times:
Quoting airnorth (Thread starter): I hope this isn't a repost, but I couldn't find a link to this on the forums here.
Very cool vid on Youtube :
Thank you for sharing! An interesting video.
Quoting nostrum (Reply 2): sharing, the Q400 is such a beauty.
Quoting amccann (Reply 3): I'm a little surprised with how many buildings the aircraft passes through during the assembly process.
Me too. Very different from the moving Boeing line.
Quoting shanxz (Reply 10): Indeed, well suited for the first Q400 to fly in India. I hear SG is doing very well on the 5 Q400 destinations as well. Smart regional strategy
I am surprised that the Q400 has not been ordered by more companies. According to Flybe the Q400 offer close to 737-800 CASM and should be a good replacement for the more expensive regional jets.
golfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 562 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3020 times:
Quoting shanxz (Reply 10): Indeed, well suited for the first Q400 to fly in India. I hear SG is doing very well on the 5 Q400 destinations as well. Smart regional strategy.
Good luck to SG. I wish them well with the Q400 and hope they buy more. I am booked to fly SG TIR - HYD. I had to fly these birds. It would be such a kick flying the aircraft that was assembled so close to home.
The trip times with the Q400 are longer though. Almost twice as long. The TIR-HYD flight is 1 hour 45 minutes as opposed to the 55 minute flight on 9W (738) or AI (320). So for the average non-anetter passenger, a shorter flight may be more preferable.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5544 posts, RR: 34 Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2820 times:
Quoting amccann (Reply 3): I'm a little surprised with how many buildings the aircraft passes through during the assembly process.
Quoting oykie (Reply 12): Me too. Very different from the moving Boeing line.
Assembly & paint actually takes place in only two N & S buildings but there are several "bays" in each one. The "bays" are not, relatively, very wide and that is why in the video you see the Q400 going in an out of several of them as assembly progresses. If you go to this map you will understand...
Quite clearly on the N building you can see the 4 bays marked out on the roof (which was a much later addition to the S building where the DH Beaver, Otter, etc was manufactured and assembled. Hence why the bays are "relatively" narrow - you could fit a lot of Beavers nose to tail in one bay.)
In some ways it is no different than Boeing's Everett assembly facility where you also have "bays" but the scale of the building is so much larger than at DH.
BTW, at the E end between the N & S buildings you can see a GX being towed. It is also built at the same facility.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
amccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2519 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 15): Assembly & paint actually takes place in only two N & S buildings but there are several "bays" in each one. The "bays" are not, relatively, very wide and that is why in the video you see the Q400 going in an out of several of them as assembly progresses. If you go to this map you will understand...
I understand now, thank you for explaining the assembly process at Bombardier. For curiosity sake, are those two buildings where all series (-100/-200/-300/-400) Dash 8s are built? Where are the CRJs built?
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5544 posts, RR: 34 Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2306 times:
Quoting amccann (Reply 16): For curiosity sake, are those two buildings where all series (-100/-200/-300/-400) Dash 8s are built? Where are the CRJs built?
The -100 thru -300 were all built in the S building (they are no longer in production). As you may imagine, over the years things have changed. The 50-seat CRJ was built in Montreal at Dorval Airport while the CRJ700, -900 and -1000 are built north of Montreal at Mirabel Airport.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5381 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 12): I am surprised that the Q400 has not been ordered by more companies.
From what I've read most recently, this gets complicated because the ATR is actually more fuel-efficient. The catch is, the ATR is also MUCH SLOWER than the Q400. So it very much depends on the missions you're flying; if the routes are short enough (like United Express's IAH-DAL/DFW/OKC/ETC), then the Q400 has roughly the same block time as the ERJ, and that's a very attractive proposition, and negates the fuel advantage that the ATR offers, in my opinion.
I hope more carriers order the Q400 as well, I really like them, and DEFINITELY prefer them to a SAAB 340!!
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10883 posts, RR: 100 Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 12): According to Flybe the Q400 offer close to 737-800 CASM and should be a good replacement for the more expensive regional jets.
The issue is that turboprops of this size should do better. The ATR does for the bulk of the missions have a lower CASM.
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 19): The catch is, the ATR is also MUCH SLOWER than the Q400. So it very much depends on the missions you're flying; if the routes are short enough (like United Express's IAH-DAL/DFW/OKC/ETC), then the Q400 has roughly the same block time as the ERJ, and that's a very attractive proposition, and negates the fuel advantage that the ATR offers, in my opinion.
The issue is US airlines are not ordering. It is also dependent upon crew pay rates. If the pay rates are low enough, than fuel savings matter far more than block time.
Spicejet has enough routes where it would be of benefit to keep a reasonable block time and substitute a smaller airframe. For most airlines, turboprops are utilized to cut the per flight cost.
I personally like the Q400. But personal preference has nothing to do with economics. In this era of internet purchased tickets, the economics must be considered.
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2577 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 19): From what I've read most recently, this gets complicated because the ATR is actually more fuel-efficient. The catch is, the ATR is also MUCH SLOWER than the Q400.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 20): The issue is that turboprops of this size should do better. The ATR does for the bulk of the missions have a lower CASM.
With my limited aerodynamic skills, I have been thinking a bit about the fuel penalty the Q400 has because of its speed relative to the ATR. If my understanding is correct the wave drag would not be that much different if it was even quicker. It is when a plane approaches 0.8 mach that the wave drag increases much. In fact it increases so much, that some have suggested that the replacement airplanes for the 737 and A320 will eventually have a slower cruise speed and a wing looking more like the Q400. Would the Q400 be much less efficient if its cruise speed got even faster? Like the A400M fast. The cruise speed for the A400M is 0.68-0.72 Mach. A Q400 with this kind of speed would probably make up for some of that CASM penalty. From my understanding the Q400 is not so much faster that it is worth while the investment.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
amccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 21): With my limited aerodynamic skills, I have been thinking a bit about the fuel penalty the Q400 has because of its speed relative to the ATR. If my understanding is correct the wave drag would not be that much different if it was even quicker. It is when a plane approaches 0.8 mach that the wave drag increases much. In fact it increases so much, that some have suggested that the replacement airplanes for the 737 and A320 will eventually have a slower cruise speed and a wing looking more like the Q400.
You are correct in that wave drag will not dramatically increase even with a dramatic increase in speed of the Q400. However, in a vast over simplification of drag, drag is a function of velocity squared (D = 1/2 rho V V CD S), so even though the coefficient of drag may not change significantly the actual drag produced will change significantly.
Other things also become an issue with increasing turboprop speed, such as propeller tip speed, which may already be near the transonic region at current Q400 speeds.
It would not be entirely surprising of the replacement B737 and A320 series aircraft had wings looking more like the Q400 wing. Wings of higer aspect ratio have lower coefficients of induced drag (drag due to lift production). A good example high aspect ratio (low drag) wings is sailplanes, with no onboard propulsion system a sailplane must make the most efficient use of the altitude (potential energy) it has, therefore they utilize very high aspect ratio wings. One problem with high aspect ratio wings on B737 and A320 size aircraft is that with dramatically increased wing span comes structural issues, it becomes much more difficult to support longer and longer canteliver beams (wings).
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2577 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
Quoting amccann (Reply 23): Other things also become an issue with increasing turboprop speed, such as propeller tip speed, which may already be near the transonic region at current Q400 speeds.
I would imagine a Q400 with a larger turboprop engine and two A400M Turboprop propellers I do understand that it would have a higher CASM than the current Q400, but if it could cover more frequencies, it might cover some of the cost increase?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
25 CRJ900: Sounds reasonable. Flybe has 78 seats @ 30 inch pitch and galley structure big enough to hold 6 half-size carts with food and beverages for sale. Wid
26 JoeCanuck: I think BBD should pull the trigger on the Q400x. I think they've been holding back on the decision to protect the CRJ line. Power shouldn't be a prob
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 26 posts, 
I will be flying one of these on December 16.
From Bahamas, joined Jul 2011, 34 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 171 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2011, 50 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Apr 2006, 230 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2577 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5544 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Jul 2011, 405 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
