Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Q400 Improved Efficiency?  
User currently offlinebaje427 From Barbados, joined Jul 2011, 405 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

I read the article below and realised the Q400 does not use much composites could BBD use more composites as a means of making the Q a bit more fuel efficient.

Here is the article
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraf...-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinewingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

Bombardier owns Learjet who are currently developing the composite Learjet 85 business jet. Inevitably the technology deployed on Lear 85 will find its way into other Bombardier products eventually.


Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 4055 times:

I think it's more likely that BBD would use lighter AL-li alloys, at least on the fuse, than going to composites. I think composites, except for perhaps some sub structures, are probably best designed into the aircraft from the design stage, than being retrofitted.

Going from one aluminum alloy to another would be a much simpler process and wouldn't require radical changes in production processes.

There may be some advantage to go with a composite wing, I suppose. Perhaps they'll try that when they do their stretch.



What the...?
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

On a separate note, would there be any advantage to adding winglets to a Q400 wing?


What the...?
User currently offlineGAIsweetGAI From Norway, joined Jul 2006, 934 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3964 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 3):

What is the AR for the Q400 wing? Looks big enough to me that you might not need to add winglets to keep induced drag down. On the other hand, it also looks like it has a high wing loading. Perhaps you'd get too big of a weight penalty.

Just throwing ideas around here.  

  



"There is an art, or rather a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
User currently offlinebaje427 From Barbados, joined Jul 2011, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

A Q400 with winglets would look nice

User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2684 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

Quoting baje427 (Thread starter):
a means of making the Q a bit more fuel efficient.

As a side note, there is the Q400, and then there is the Q400 NextGen, which is basically a Q400 with updated cabins, lighting, windows, overhead bins, landing gear, as well as reduced fuel and maintenance costs.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3504 times:

I've tried asking this about the Q400 before but have had no takers.

Curious, would the Q400 have similar operating cost to the ATR72 if the Q ran at tha same speeds as the ATR?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinemiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 7):
Curious, would the Q400 have similar operating cost to the ATR72 if the Q ran at tha same speeds as the ATR?

The Q400 is 10% larger than the ATR, so you have to do a seat comparison. At typical speeds, the Q400 already has lower seat costs than the ATR. Slowing it down reduces fuel burn, but increases crew and maintenance costs, which is exactly what penalizes the ATR to begin with.

Yes, you can match fuel costs per seat to the ATR by slowing the Q400 down, but you're also matching operating costs per seat, where the Q400 was winning at the higher speeds.


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting baje427 (Thread starter):
I read the article below and realised the Q400 does not use much composites could BBD use more composites as a means of making the Q a bit more fuel efficient.

In that size class the use of composites does not yield major benefits. On the contrary, the cost of production and the burden to maintain the structure eats up all weight savings by saved money. A composite primary wing structure might make sense, but that's about it.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

First off, thank you for your input. I do have one question though.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 8):
Slowing it down reduces fuel burn, but increases crew and maintenance costs

I understand this scenario raising crew costs because of the additional time. But doesn't pulling the throttle back reduce wear and tear? I know there have been some threads about why full throttle isn't always used for take off for that reason.

Thanks again.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10):

I understand this scenario raising crew costs because of the additional time. But doesn't pulling the throttle back reduce wear and tear? I know there have been some threads about why full throttle isn't always used for take off for that reason.

Thanks again.

It increases fixed maintenance costs because you don't get as many flights out of each check. If you only fly 450 trips per A check instead of 500 trips because you slowed down, then you have 50 trips less to pay for the maintenace.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 11):

Ahh, didn't even put the checks into consideration. Many thanks.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Q400 Improved Efficiency?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Winglets Efficiency For SA Questioned posted Tue Apr 10 2012 07:48:54 by ferpe
Interesting Article Comparing Q400 To ATR-72 posted Thu Feb 2 2012 14:50:29 by JoeCanuck
Q400 Reliability posted Sat Jan 28 2012 15:13:56 by baje427
Q400 SPU Question. posted Thu Jan 12 2012 14:16:41 by avt007
SAS Q400 Configurations posted Sun Jan 8 2012 14:03:11 by ditzyboy
Bombardier Q400's posted Sat Nov 12 2011 09:42:05 by AA7771stClass
787/A350: Efficiency From Lasting Slickness posted Mon Oct 31 2011 10:55:33 by faro
Route Analysis: Calculating Route Efficiency posted Fri Jul 22 2011 18:16:38 by coffeepilot
Efficiency Of Modern Cfrp Airliners posted Sun May 22 2011 00:09:29 by ferpe
Turboprop Efficiency At Long Distances posted Sun Feb 27 2011 17:44:51 by cloudboy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format