baje427
Topic Author
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:30 pm

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/
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:06 pm

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
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:08 pm

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...?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:44 am

On a separate note, would there be any advantage to adding winglets to a Q400 wing?
What the...?
 
GAIsweetGAI
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:19 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:21 am

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."
 
baje427
Topic Author
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:24 pm

A Q400 with winglets would look nice
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:17 pm

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 !!
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:13 pm

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'!
 
miller22
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2000 4:48 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:12 am

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.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:47 pm

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]
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:51 pm

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 avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1427
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:23 pm

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,
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Q400 Improved Efficiency?

Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:50 pm

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'!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Slide, Starlionblue and 15 guests