User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:05 pm

VSMUT wrote:
it's pretty simple, 600 kg/hr for a full ATR, vs 1200 kg/hr for a Q400.


The Q rarely burns above 1030-1050 full at maximum cruise. Usually the numbers are around 1000 for a 340/350 knot TAS.
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:15 pm

berari wrote:
we have seen US airlines shy away from it and go into RJs. Is the Q400 poised to make a comeback?


I sure hope not! The E-175s that have replaced Q400s on routes like STS-SAN and DEN-EGE are *far* superior. I'm glad UA got rid of theirs (inherited from CO) and the sooner AS does the same the better!
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:18 pm

aerolimani wrote:
As to overflying weather, the Q400 can reach 25,000 ft in any conditions. That is enough to overfly most weather.


Not in the least. It provides "better clearance" from the worst of it at lower altitudes - but it definitely does not fly high enough to clear it completely (nor even most of it).
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
DenverA330
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 8:57 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:44 pm

Flew one of BT's Q400's a few months ago. Flight was uneventful, but indeed loud considering I was sitting right next to the prop. Didn't notice any panel or bin rattling. I've never heard of their Q's having the landing gear issues. Better mx or just newer build planes?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12949
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:31 pm

Customers would be willing to oay a bit more for significant better speed and payload. But unfortunately they have to pay much more and the minutes time saved on short flight don't make difference. It seems ATR pulled the trigger with the ATR -600s. Glass cockpit, new cabin, much quieter engines/ props.

And ATR could probably do another upgrade in capacity/ performance if needed/ demand is there.. it would be sensitive though. 50% ATR partner Airbus would kill the Q400 program of 49% A220 partner BBD..

https://www.mro-network.com/airframes/a ... rop-market
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3219
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:18 am

B777LRF wrote:
1st flight on a Q400: Delayed due to technical problems
2nd flight on a Q400: Replacing an A320, extending flight time from 01:15 to 01:45. Was not impressed with the noise.
3rd flight on a Q400: Delayed due to door sensor warning
4th flight on a Q400: Door sensor warning during climb out, return to departure airport
5th flight on a Q400: **** me, this is a noisy bastard!
6th flight on a Q400: Cancelled due to technical issues
7th flight on a Q400: Cancelled due to technical issues

If I never see the inside of a Q400 again, that would suit me just fine.


And this information is as useful as my saying of my 20+ flights on Q400s not one has been canceled or delayed by technical issues... I have no problem getting on any member of the Dash 8 family... and I'll choose a Q400 over a CRJ-100/200 or ERJ if i can.

And for everyone that thinks a Q400 is noisy, pray you never fly on a REAL prop like a Twin Otter, EMB-110... or heaven forbid a Convair 580! I mean those can shake the fillings out of your teeth (and I love em!)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
holcakker
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:47 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:41 am

DenverA330 wrote:
Flew one of BT's Q400's a few months ago. Flight was uneventful, but indeed loud considering I was sitting right next to the prop. Didn't notice any panel or bin rattling. I've never heard of their Q's having the landing gear issues. Better mx or just newer build planes?

Air Baltic had a nose gear up landing as well in 2016. They use(d) their Q400s on routes like Riga-Frankfurt or Riga-Budapest which was a punishment for the passengers with flight times up to 02:30. No wonder they phase them out by 2021. My only "good" (=short enough) Dash-8 flight was between CPH and GOT where the flight time (31 mins) was in fact comparable with the MD-87 operating the return leg (30 mins).
 
DenverA330
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 8:57 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:33 am

holcakker wrote:
DenverA330 wrote:
Flew one of BT's Q400's a few months ago. Flight was uneventful, but indeed loud considering I was sitting right next to the prop. Didn't notice any panel or bin rattling. I've never heard of their Q's having the landing gear issues. Better mx or just newer build planes?

Air Baltic had a nose gear up landing as well in 2016. They use(d) their Q400s on routes like Riga-Frankfurt or Riga-Budapest which was a punishment for the passengers with flight times up to 02:30. No wonder they phase them out by 2021. My only "good" (=short enough) Dash-8 flight was between CPH and GOT where the flight time (31 mins) was in fact comparable with the MD-87 operating the return leg (30 mins).


Yes, after PRG-RIX on that Q, the CS300 on RIX-TBS was a welcome change of decibels.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:34 am

aerolimani wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
To those who complain about any prop being noisy… here’s a pro tip. The quietest section of a prop cabin is at the back. In the old days, before jets, the first class section was at the back. So, get yourself a seat towards the back. You won’t even have to pay extra for it!


Two months ago I rode a Piedmont Dash-8-300 and it did not matter where you sat, the overhead bins rattled loudly for the whole flight. Face it, props are dead in the US. Newer model RJ's have better fuel numbers, better short field performance and can fly faster, quieter and above bad weather.


This thread is about the Q400. Comparing the Q400 to a DH8C is like comparing a B732 to a B738. They share the same DNA, but they have some very different spec's/capabilities.

As to overflying weather, the Q400 can reach 25,000 ft in any conditions. That is enough to overfly most weather. It certainly does better than other TP options when it comes to one-engine-out performance. To others who have questioned its importance, consider overflying the Rockies in Western Canada. With a one-engine-out ceiling of 17,500 ft, the Q400 can easily overfly the mountains and make it to the nearest airfield. The ATR one-engine-out performance tops out at 11,000 ft. That could really spell trouble overflying the Rockies. That was almost certainly a factor in the WS decision to buy the Q400 for Encore.

As to the short field performance, I think only the the E-190 E2 comes close to the Q400. Currently, the E-190 E2 exceeds scope clauses, so it is not likely to appear en masse in the US market just yet.

For the US market, yes, I think the props are pretty much finished. However, I think it has more to do with customer perception than anything. For other parts of the world, however, they still make sense.


The Q400 is a derivative of the Dash-8 and as such shares much of the Dash's characteristics. There is resistance by passengers to prop planes and when a route goes from prop to an RJ, the passenger response is positive. AA went from the Dash to the CRJ-200 on the HVN-PHL route. Passengers on the first inbound flight from PHL all said it was a much better ride. Next gen RJ's are better on fuel burn than the early 50 seat RJ's and better off short runways which negates the props advantages. Load factors on the HVN-PHL route have gone up with the RJ's, its obvious passengers prefer RJ's. Airlines and passengers don't want props, thus the dismal sales record in the US.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:30 am

cheapgreek wrote:
The Q400 is based on the old Dash-8 series which has been out of production for years. I have not flown the Q400, but I have taken dozens of Dash-8-100,200 and 300 flights and they all were inferior in noise and comfort compared to RJ's.


What??? You flew a plane we're not talking about, didn't like it, and therefore can make conclusions about the Q400.

Seriously.

Did you know that the Q400 is about 50% bigger than the Q300. It does not share wings, fuselages, or engines. Really a different thing.
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:53 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Did you know that the Q400 is about 50% bigger than the Q300. It does not share wings, fuselages, or engines. Really a different thing.


The wing is very similar and developed directly from that of the 300, the fuselage is in essence just a stretch, and the engines are generally based on the same PW120 series as used on the 100/200/300 and the ATRs (albeit with an additional compressor on a third shaft). A number of its systems are the same (some components are even interchangeable), though the 400 has some hydraulically powered flight controls, a larger gear to cope with the extra weight, and far more automation.

EDIT: what's more, in Europe at least the 100/200/300/400 hold a common type rating, which means that anyone certified to fly the 400 can also (with conversion training) fly any of the others. Because of this, the 400 still has condition levers (even though it doesn't need them) and very heavy controls to mimic the feel of the 300.
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
estorilm
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:47 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
To those who complain about any prop being noisy… here’s a pro tip. The quietest section of a prop cabin is at the back. In the old days, before jets, the first class section was at the back. So, get yourself a seat towards the back. You won’t even have to pay extra for it!


Two months ago I rode a Piedmont Dash-8-300 and it did not matter where you sat, the overhead bins rattled loudly for the whole flight. Face it, props are dead in the US. Newer model RJ's have better fuel numbers, better short field performance and can fly faster, quieter and above bad weather.

I agree with your overall conclusion here, but they CERTAINLY don't have better fuel numbers.. not even close. Once you factor in a number of other variables (route frequency for example... which BTW was a large advantage of the Q400 over ATR) and pax comfort, etc.. the jets end up winning the day ultimately, but not for the same # of pax on the same route. A Q400 will squash the economy of a jet (and for their prime target routes and slam-dunk arrival capabilities, they're usually able to nearly-match the frequency of jets.)
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:24 pm

estorilm wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
To those who complain about any prop being noisy… here’s a pro tip. The quietest section of a prop cabin is at the back. In the old days, before jets, the first class section was at the back. So, get yourself a seat towards the back. You won’t even have to pay extra for it!


Two months ago I rode a Piedmont Dash-8-300 and it did not matter where you sat, the overhead bins rattled loudly for the whole flight. Face it, props are dead in the US. Newer model RJ's have better fuel numbers, better short field performance and can fly faster, quieter and above bad weather.

I agree with your overall conclusion here, but they CERTAINLY don't have better fuel numbers.. not even close. Once you factor in a number of other variables (route frequency for example... which BTW was a large advantage of the Q400 over ATR) and pax comfort, etc.. the jets end up winning the day ultimately, but not for the same # of pax on the same route. A Q400 will squash the economy of a jet (and for their prime target routes and slam-dunk arrival capabilities, they're usually able to nearly-match the frequency of jets.)


The longer the flight, the better the fuel numbers and with the added speed, more legs can be flown in a day. A few years ago a study found when a jet replaced a prop, ridership rose by 20%. The Q400 has been offered for many years but none of the majors have recently ordered any frames. Just saying more effort is being put into newer RJ's, E-2's, CRJ-900's, MRJ-70 & 90's. The Q400 and the ATR's are based on old models, not new clean sheet designs. It seems a certain amount of sentimentality exists on Anet regarding props, but in the real world, airlines and flyers prefer jets and the order books bear this out. UA,AA and DL have had over the last few years,hundreds of RJ's on order, but not a single prop.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:44 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
…in the real world, airlines and flyers prefer jets and the order books bear this out. UA,AA and DL have had over the last few years,hundreds of RJ's on order, but not a single prop.

By real world, you mean the United States of America. If you look at the rest of the world, you’ll see many more props on order. The Q400 is not doing particularly well, but the ATR continues to sell in respectable numbers.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:16 pm

aerolimani wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
…in the real world, airlines and flyers prefer jets and the order books bear this out. UA,AA and DL have had over the last few years,hundreds of RJ's on order, but not a single prop.

By real world, you mean the United States of America. If you look at the rest of the world, you’ll see many more props on order. The Q400 is not doing particularly well, but the ATR continues to sell in respectable numbers.


I should have made my point clearer, I meant here in the USA.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:37 pm

I figured I could post a portion of what a Q400 driver wrote on PRRuNe... (handle: "Fuel-Off")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Q400 is a beast of a machine. Speed is the main point. Makes those longer regional sectors just that wee bit shorter. Consistently over take those pesky ATRs in the CLIMB, let alone in the cruise (and being told to slow down on descent because you're catching up to the 737 ahead)

Can get to max ceiling at MTOW (although getting there in ISA+30 in the humid tropics is a bit enduring).

Effectively 5 hours fuel endurance so tankering really isn't an issue. You can always squeeze a bit more on for mum and the kids when it's full of pax and cargo.

Short field performance is pretty good, given the size of the aeroplane (a small, big aeroplane - or a big, small aeroplane - whichever way you want to look at it).

Most importantly, the Q400 has an APU! Which makes life much more civilised when you're out west on a 40+ day. Whenever we saw an ATR parked next to us, we used to start the APU just to remind them that we had one!

(...)

Most common problem was those bloody ATRs just kept getting in our way!"
 
BHXRunway15
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:17 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:45 pm

First flew on the Q400 in December 2006 BHX-EDI and it was an hour late tech and my second flight a few years later was also late due tech but since then I have faired better although my last one was an hour late but that was due to an ATC comms failure and nothing to do with the aircraft.

In general as a BHX watcher and flybe having such a large base, I can say that they have been pretty unreliable at times but flybe have solved this to a certain extent by having spare aircraft. As recent as last Tuesday, which of course is mid-summer one was is in the MAEL hangar and one spare on stand until mid day and later than night two Q400 cancellations.

On board they are fairly comfortable but definitely noisy wherever you sit but they are fast and smooth in the cruise and not that bad in poor weather. Flew up to GLA from BHX in February in heavy rain and wind and the aircraft was fine.

After a bad run of cancellations a few years back I fired off a strongly worded email to the CEO at the time berating flybe for cancelling most of the 175 orfer (which is a mega aircraft to fly on) and to be fair the COO at the time Paul Simmonds replied (or his office) defending the Q400 to the hilt stating passeger satifaction was no different to the 175 (sorry but rubbish) although the main thrust of his defence was cost stating there was nothing to compare for speed and fuel burn although had he has his head buried in the sand for reliability. I think Flybe forget sometimes that there cancellations can be tracked on their own website for the last three months.

It has improved and Flybe claim they are here to say but whether having several spare aircraft is the best way to guarentee schedules I can't answer for definite other than it seems Flybe are happy with them.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:49 am

TripleDelta wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Did you know that the Q400 is about 50% bigger than the Q300. It does not share wings, fuselages, or engines. Really a different thing.


The wing is very similar and developed directly from that of the 300, the fuselage is in essence just a stretch, and the engines are generally based on the same PW120 series as used on the 100/200/300 and the ATRs (albeit with an additional compressor on a third shaft). A number of its systems are the same (some components are even interchangeable), though the 400 has some hydraulically powered flight controls, a larger gear to cope with the extra weight, and far more automation.

EDIT: what's more, in Europe at least the 100/200/300/400 hold a common type rating, which means that anyone certified to fly the 400 can also (with conversion training) fly any of the others. Because of this, the 400 still has condition levers (even though it doesn't need them) and very heavy controls to mimic the feel of the 300.


They are related. But it's just not the same plane. It's a 50% bigger plane with (probably) very few common parts.

The fact they have the same type rating says a lot about cockpit similarity, but not so much about noise.

BTW, noise chart the the FAA (exterior noise. I don't know of any chart for interior noise)

ATR-42-500 78.5db
DHC-8-315 80.0bd

DHC-8-402 78.6db
ATR-72-210 82.2db

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _36-1H.pdf
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:47 am

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
As the Q400 flies faster, obviously it will perform more rotations per day than the ATR. (Or similarly, it will obviously rack up many more miles per hour)

Can you provide the stage length used for the above, and the speed used ?

That should allow us to calculate the CASM. (If we know the maintenance costs)


Yes, the Q400 does indeed fly faster, but:

Your typical ATR flight is something like 40-50 minutes max. On a flight of that length, a Q400 will save a mere 5 minutes. On the return leg to the hub, say CDG, you will get caught up in congestion, meaning that you likely won't be saving those 5 minutes.

Much is made of the possibility to perform extra cycles, but also here reality is somewhat different. I have yet to see a single regional turboprop operation that runs block-to-block with minimum turnaround times for a full day. Typically turnarounds are pretty long, especially at the hub. Those 5 to 10 minutes you save for each return trip only mean that you get to spend 5 to 10 minutes more waiting for your next flight.


aerolimani wrote:
The ATR one-engine-out performance tops out at 11,000 ft. That could really spell trouble overflying the Rockies. That was almost certainly a factor in the WS decision to buy the Q400 for Encore.


That depends entirely on the weather conditions, load and temperature though. With a typical load and temperatures for Europe, the single engine ceiling is somewhere between 14.000 ft and 16.000 ft.
Of course, thats all a mute point over mountains. Neither the ATR nor the Q400 have masks for all passengers, so flying over mountains is really risky business in both types. If you can't descend below 13.000 ft in 5 minutes because of mountains, your passengers will be ill-off in a depressurization.


keesje wrote:
it would be sensitive though. 50% ATR partner Airbus would kill the Q400 program of 49% A220 partner BBD..


It's 31% of the A220, not 49% ;)


estorilm wrote:
A Q400 will squash the economy of a jet (and for their prime target routes and slam-dunk arrival capabilities, they're usually able to nearly-match the frequency of jets.)


Except it doesn't. The first generation of small E-jets got pretty close, and the latest generation of GTF powered RJs are pretty much equal with a Q400. For maybe 100-200 kg/hr additional consumption, you get true jet speeds, with the comfort and noise levels of a mainline jet.


kitplane01 wrote:
ATR-42-500 78.5db
DHC-8-315 80.0bd

DHC-8-402 78.6db
ATR-72-210 82.2db


The DHC-8-315 and ATR-72-210 both have older and more noisy 4-bladed props. OTOH, the 42-500 and Q400 both feature 6-bladed props.
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:22 am

kitplane01 wrote:
But it's just not the same plane. It's a 50% bigger plane with (probably) very few common parts.


It mostly is. It is an ambitious stretch of the 300 that was updated just as much as was necessary to make it work in the "high speed role" (such as adding more power, hydraulically powered flight controls, updated cockpit equipment, sturdier landing gear and structural strengthening where necessary). A number of its systems have been ported over directly from the 300, or beefed up to cater for the larger size of the aircraft. The fact that Bombardier brands it as the second coming does not change the fact that it is an evolutionary development of the standard Dash 8 series - a big development, but an evolutionary one nonetheless.

EDIT: even the different wing you'd mentioned previously is almost no different. It's just the standard wing of the 300 with a ~0.5 m plug at each wing root to move the engines outboard and increase the clearance between the propeller tips and the fuselage. In most other respects, it had remained the same (with structural tweaks underneath to compensate for the increased overall weight, heavier engine nacelles and larger fuel tanks).

kitplane01 wrote:
The fact they have the same type rating says a lot about cockpit similarity, but not so much about noise.


The ATR-72-600 is noticeably quieter than the early 200 - and all they did was change the props. Does that mean it is not the same aircraft?

VSMUT wrote:
OTOH, the 42-500 and Q400 both feature 6-bladed props.


Correct. Much of the Q claimed by the Q400 comes from those props (Dowty R408 units, 4.11 m diameter), especially since they spin at pretty low speeds (1020 RPM on take-off, 900 in the climb, 850 in the cruise).
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:42 am

VSMUT, you wrote:

"Yes, the Q400 does indeed fly faster, but:
Your typical ATR flight is something like 40-50 minutes max. On a flight of that length, a Q400 will save a mere 5 minutes. On the return leg to the hub, say CDG, you will get caught up in congestion, meaning that you likely won't be saving those 5 minutes. "

And then you wrote:

"the latest generation of GTF powered RJs are pretty much equal with a Q400. For maybe 100-200 kg/hr additional consumption, you get true jet speeds..."

---------------------------------------------

If the Q400 faster speed (versus ATR) gets likely erased by congestion, say CDG, why isn't it the same for the GTF RJs having "true jet speed"? Wouldn't it also get erased by congestion, say CDG ;-)

Just saying, if Q400 faster speed is more likely useless due to congestion, the same logic should apply for the RJ's (having "true jet speed"), in the same short CDG flight?

In Canada, the typical Q400 flights is longer the the ATR's. And despite the "congestion", its superior climb rate and faster speed indeed allows the Q400 to perform more rotations (versus ATR).
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:43 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
They are related. But it's just not the same plane.


To add, the fuselage of the Q400 is the same as that of the 300, but with several frames added and different doors. The nose forward of the cabin door is identical, as is the tail aft of the cargo compartment (bar the APU exhaust and pack vents); indeed, the Q400's ventral fins were added because Bombardier did not want to spend money redesigning the 300's tail to provide the necessary stability in yaw. The wing would be almost identical without the half meter plugs at each wing root - and even the engine nacelles were adapted directly from those of the 300, only lengthened to accommodate the longer PW150 at the front and longer main gear legs at the back.

Underneath, the Q400 had only added hydraulically powered elevators (to the powered rudder and spoilers already seen on the 300), a higher capacity automated electrical system with two additional batteries (whose architecture is nearly the same as on the 300), a higher capacity air conditioning system (which is again of similar architecture), a more powerful APU and structural modifications in strategic places. The only things that were not directly adapted from the 300 are the updated avionics (which in turn required additional sensors and instruments) and the landing gear.
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8374
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:47 pm

In the end the problem for the Q400 is that on routes where it can really make use of the better performance over the ATR passengers start to prefer a jet due to better comfort and it is even faster os flight time goes down as well. It makes sense if you are operating a smaller fleet that needs to cover short hops and longer flights.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:49 pm

seahawk wrote:
In the end the problem for the Q400 is that on routes where it can really make use of the better performance over the ATR passengers start to prefer a jet due to better comfort and it is even faster os flight time goes down as well. It makes sense if you are operating a smaller fleet that needs to cover short hops and longer flights.


There is indeed a sweet spot (between the ATR and the RJs) where the Q400 is the optimal eqpt to use.

Then, if you have higher elevations and/or shorter airstrips, that sweet spot widens somewhat - by basically eliminating the ATR.

In Canada, many city paires fall into that sweet spot.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:09 pm

Interestingly, from personal observation, I have noted that the props almost always have shorter taxi time at my local airport. The props almost always taxi to somewhere in the middle of the runway, closer to the terminal. Whereas, all the jets, including CRJ's and E-Jets, taxi all the way to the end of the runway for their takeoffs. This is a definite time saving, usually on the order of 5-10 minutes less taxiing/queuing time.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11548
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:58 pm

I don't think the Q400 is underrated. Plenty of airlines have or had them, if you want it you can buy it, if it doesn't sell much it's because there are better aircraft out there, simple as that.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 10:39 pm

Most of my comfort issues when flying have been more airline related than aircraft related. I have had comfortable 6 hour flights on a Austrian 738 and butt numbing 2 hours flights on an EK 777.

I'm 6"1" and had quite a comfortable ride on my last trips on a couple of Westjet's Q400's. Whatever seats they are using are excellent. I had 3 or 4 inches of knee room and I could stretch my legs right out. That's more leg room than I can recall ever having in goat class on any airliner.

My carry easily fit into the overhead. Bonus.

I don't recall my Q flights being overly noisy as I was able to converse without shouting and could clearly hear conversations from a row or two over.

My flights weren't much over an hour but I would have been comfortable for longer.

It's worth noting that the same aircraft can have radically different passenger comfort levels with different airlines.
What the...?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:53 pm

aerolimani wrote:
Interestingly, from personal observation, I have noted that the props almost always have shorter taxi time at my local airport. The props almost always taxi to somewhere in the middle of the runway, closer to the terminal. Whereas, all the jets, including CRJ's and E-Jets, taxi all the way to the end of the runway for their takeoffs. This is a definite time saving, usually on the order of 5-10 minutes less taxiing/queuing time.


QX used to do that in SEA with their props, but now must taxi all the way to the end like everyone else. It was a great timesaver, particularly given that they usually turned much sooner after departure than the jets.

VSMUT wrote:
Much is made of the possibility to perform extra cycles, but also here reality is somewhat different. I have yet to see a single regional turboprop operation that runs block-to-block with minimum turnaround times for a full day. Typically turnarounds are pretty long, especially at the hub. Those 5 to 10 minutes you save for each return trip only mean that you get to spend 5 to 10 minutes more waiting for your next flight.


QX has a lot of late night flights, mostly heading out to RON at an out-station. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that shaving a half-hour or more off of their flight times throughout the day makes a fair difference later. An 11PM departure is better than midnight.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
T prop
Posts: 963
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:33 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:03 am

The Q has an optional passenger O2 mask system, I believe Ethiopian has them. When the aircraft is ordered with the pax O2 system, the service ceiling is a bit higher than 25000 ft. The Q's air conditioning system is superior to the ATR's. In hot climates running the packs on the ground using hotel mode is useless, they won't cool the cabin and the airplane has to be parked nose into the wind lest you overheat the nacelle. You can't refuel the airplane or use the service door if hotel mode is in use. The Q has a real APU that doesn't burn nearly as much fuel as a PW127 that is being used as an APU.

I know pilots who worked at WP in Hawaii when they were around who flew both the ATR and the Q. They told me that they much prefer the Q. Passengers preferred the Q, they were faster to board/ de-board with front and rear doors. They could easily turn them in 30 min or less. Also, if a 717 and a Q were leaving at the same time on some of the same routes, controllers would send the Q first because the Q's were faster on those routes.
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:37 am

T prop wrote:
The Q has an optional passenger O2 mask system, I believe Ethiopian has them. When the aircraft is ordered with the pax O2 system, the service ceiling is a bit higher than 25000 ft.


But just a bit; 27,000 ft. That's why many airlines did not order that option - too little gain for quite a bit of extra weight and a reduction in overhead bin space.
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:15 am

TripleDelta wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
But it's just not the same plane. It's a 50% bigger plane with (probably) very few common parts.



EDIT: even the different wing you'd mentioned previously is almost no different. It's just the standard wing of the 300 with a ~0.5 m plug at each wing root to move the engines outboard and increase the clearance between the propeller tips and the fuselage. In most other respects, it had remained the same (with structural tweaks underneath to compensate for the increased overall weight, heavier engine nacelles and larger fuel tanks).



I politely don't believe you. How would a -300 wing carry 50% more weight than a -300? Is it that the wing was 50% too strong on the -300, or that the 0.5M plugs are carrying 1/3 of the total weight?

I'd believe a reference to a well know web site (your pick). But this seems quite unlikely.

I did Google it, but cannot find any reference to you claim.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:36 am

T prop wrote:
The Q's air conditioning system is superior to the ATR's. In hot climates running the packs on the ground using hotel mode is useless,


Not completely useless, but the air conditioning system is garbage.

T prop wrote:
and the airplane has to be parked nose into the wind lest you overheat the nacelle. You can't refuel the airplane or use the service door if hotel mode is in use. The Q has a real APU that doesn't burn nearly as much fuel as a PW127 that is being used as an APU.


OTOH, not so true. We can accept a 10 knot tailwind for the hotel mode. Refueling and using the service door is officially not allowed, but that doesn't prevent a lot of Asian operators from doing it anyway. And believe it or not, the hotel mode actually uses less fuel than the Q400s APU.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Just saying, if Q400 faster speed is more likely useless due to congestion, the same logic should apply for the RJ's (having "true jet speed"), in the same short CDG flight?


If used on such short flights, thats correct. But the RJs are generally also used on longer flights.

The Q400 competes for 2 segments: The really short sub-1 hour regional flights where the ATR is completely eradicating it, and the longer 1-2 hour flights where it has to go up against true RJs. The true jet speeds advantage referred to the latter.

Most European airlines that operate both turboprops and RJs generally make the split around 45-50 minutes flying time.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
In Canada, the typical Q400 flights is longer the the ATR's. And despite the "congestion", its superior climb rate and faster speed indeed allows the Q400 to perform more rotations (versus ATR).


So in other words, they are used for different jobs ;)

All I can say is, if the additional rotations claim really was true, then where are the sales to back it up? The 90-seat option was available since 2016. The speed advantage has been there the whole time. The option to slow down has been there the whole time. And yet, no matter how many accounting tricks that can be done to make the Q400 look better, the ATR and Regional Jets are still outselling it by a massive margin.
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:59 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I politely don't believe you. How would a -300 wing carry 50% more weight than a -300? Is it that the wing was 50% too strong on the -300, or that the 0.5M plugs are carrying 1/3 of the total weight?


The lift created by a wing is not determined only by its size, but also the speed of the airflow over it. If you want more lift out of the same wing area, increase speed. Hence why the Q400 often has approach speeds that are equal to those of short/medium haul jets. In some conditions (such as in icing), a heavy Q400 with Flaps 15 will outrun even a larger jet on final.

kitplane01 wrote:
I'd believe a reference to a well know web site (your pick). But this seems quite unlikely


You can do do the math yourself. There are a number of sources online with wing dimensions and characteristics for both the 300 and 400. Have a go and find the difference between them other than span (due to the plugs) and total area (again due to the plugs).

Otherwise, hopefully a quote from A.net's own Aircraft Technical Data section (https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/ ... dash-8/122) will help:

The Q400's inner wing section and wing fuselage wing join are new, while the outer wing has been strengthened
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2123
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:31 am

I hate to bring up this reference, but it seems like the Q400 is like the 757 of the regional airplane world. It’s great at what it does, but the operating profile where the Q400 is the best choice compared to a slightly less capable but considerably less costly option (ATR), or a slightly more expensive but much more capable option (RJ) is so narrow that it’s hard for very many airlines to make it work in large numbers.

In a few years, orders will run out and the line will shut down, followed by endless threads about how Bombardier should never have discontinued the Q400 and nothing can replace it and why did they destroy the tooling and such.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:42 am

hOMSaR wrote:
In a few years, orders will run out and the line will shut down, followed by endless threads about how Bombardier should never have discontinued the Q400 and nothing can replace it and why did they destroy the tooling and such.


And how nothing can carry the same amount of fish... :D
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11548
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:38 am

Wing loading between the 300 and 400 must have increased significantly.

An A318 and A321 also share the same wing (A321 has bigger flaps but that's it).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2628
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:51 am

If anything the Q400 has always seemed a little OVERrated. The speed premium just isn't worth the added expense and weight in most markets. Comfort is very, ermmm, rudimentary as well.

This incident in particular sticks out... I remember posting about it only to have the moderators move it to Polls and Preferences forum(???!)...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e21516648/
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:08 am

While some extol the virtues of the Q400, it is clear airlines in the USA don't want them and I am sure they put a lot of research in making selections for regional aircraft. The natural progression led from piston props to turbo props to turbo jets to fan jets to what we have today. The prop age is all but over with jet engine manufacturers making great strides in lowering fuel burn and noise along with extending maintenance checks. Passengers and airlines prefer jets and it seems it will stay that way for the foreseeable future.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:21 am

cheapgreek wrote:
While some extol the virtues of the Q400, it is clear airlines in the USA don't want them and I am sure they put a lot of research in making selections for regional aircraft. The natural progression led from piston props to turbo props to turbo jets to fan jets to what we have today. The prop age is all but over with jet engine manufacturers making great strides in lowering fuel burn and noise along with extending maintenance checks. Passengers and airlines prefer jets and it seems it will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

I would be curious to see how a proper clean-sheet turboprop, with a range of models from 70-100 seats, would fare in today's market (excluding the USA, as they seem dead set against props of any kind). Unfortunately, I'm not sure who would come up with it. ATR is under the thumb of Airbus, BBD has less than no money, Embraer is more interested in its jets, and who else would really have the money to develop such a craft. Plus, could an engine manufacturer even be wooed to develop a new engine?
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:23 am

cheapgreek wrote:
While some extol the virtues of the Q400, it is clear airlines in the USA don't want them and I am sure they put a lot of research in making selections for regional aircraft.

I would venture to say that the USA don't want turboprops, period!

If the Q400 would be such a terrible aircraft, how come this more expensive aircraft still have a market (albeit small)?
Like mentionned earlier, it has indeed a sweet spot, wedged between the ATR and RJs.

That sweet spot widens somewhat if it involves higher elevations (Rockies) and/or shorter airfields - up to the point of basically eliminating the ATR.

By exemple many citie paires in Canada fall into that sweep spot - so airlines are willing to spend that extra money for the Q400 (instead of the cheaper ATR).

Also, if you are stuck with a shorter airstrip (YTZ), then the Q400 is the superior eqpt in most application, basically eliminating the ATR. Same logic applies if you have to cross the Rockies.
 
stinson108
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:30 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:59 am

I like the Q-400
Fly in it all the time in Alberta
Plus 30 to minus 30 C
It’s kind of like a big pick up truck
Nothing fancy but keeps on doing what it’s made for
It actually seems faster than the 737 gate to gate
On the flights from ft Mac to Calgary it seems
Anyways
I think the 20,000 foot level compared to the
737 heading to 37,000 ft makes the difference

I flew in the q-400 with just 4 passengers and the flight crew
It took off like a rocket
It’s the plane to take in my books if the flight is under two hours
 
stinson108
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:30 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:00 am

I like the Q-400
Fly in it all the time in Alberta
Plus 30 to minus 30 C
It’s kind of like a big pick up truck
Nothing fancy but keeps on doing what it’s made for
It actually seems faster than the 737 gate to gate
On the flights from ft Mac to Calgary it seems
Anyways
I think the 20,000 foot level compared to the
737 heading to 37,000 ft makes the difference

I flew in the q-400 with just 4 passengers and the flight crew
It took off like a rocket
It’s the plane to take in my books if the flight is under two hours
 
leghorn
Posts: 845
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:22 am

A larger Q400X stretch is outline designed already.
P&WC have an new engine which should be ready by 2023 which will deliver about 15% fuel savings to maintain the gap over regional jet engines and it could bolt directly on to a Q400 stretch giving at or above 25% CASM saving which is a threshold at which the plane starts generating its own business and not just replacing older turboprops.
The turboprop plane is not dead yet.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 25-442292/
 
BubbaYugga
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:55 am

"EDIT: even the different wing you'd mentioned previously is almost no different. It's just the standard wing of the 300 with a ~0.5 m plug at each wing root to move the engines outboard and increase the clearance between the propeller tips and the fuselage. In most other respects, it had remained the same (with structural tweaks underneath to compensate for the increased overall weight, heavier engine nacelles and larger fuel tanks)."

The above statement is absolutely categorically untrue. Please don't lie in public.
The 300 had outboard extensions put onto the 100's wing. The 400 is a complete redesign and has nothing other than a passing resemblance.

The 100/300 wing box has a 42.5" chord at the root and is constant between the nacelles before beginning to taper.
The 400 wing box is 52.5" and the leading edge begins to taper immediately outboard of the fuselage attachments.
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:31 pm

BubbaYugga wrote:
The 300 had outboard extensions put onto the 100's wing.


I never said anything about the 100.

BubbaYugga wrote:
The 400 wing box is 52.5" and the leading edge begins to taper immediately outboard of the fuselage attachments.


Again, I never mentioned the wing box; just the sections outboard of it. And the inner section leading edge has been streamlined slightly as a result of it being plugged; but the section outboard of the nacelles has mostly been untouched (apart from being strengthened to cope with the extra mass and fitted with larger fuel tanks).
Hawkeye: "It doesn't make any sense."
Radar: "Well, none of it makes any sense. You just have to send in the right number of forms." - MASH 4077
 
leghorn
Posts: 845
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:46 pm

A simple stretch would open the freighter market back up as it would have a much larger capacity than the ATR72 which matches it capacity wise now.
When the likes of FedEx or DHL order they order in quantity.
 
BubbaYugga
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:00 pm

TripleDelta wrote:
BubbaYugga wrote:
The 300 had outboard extensions put onto the 100's wing.


I never said anything about the 100.

BubbaYugga wrote:
The 400 wing box is 52.5" and the leading edge begins to taper immediately outboard of the fuselage attachments.


Again, I never mentioned the wing box; just the sections outboard of it. And the inner section leading edge has been streamlined slightly as a result of it being plugged; but the section outboard of the nacelles has mostly been untouched (apart from being strengthened to cope with the extra mass and fitted with larger fuel tanks).


The 300 wing is a simple derivative of the 100. The 400 is an entirely new design. Oops, almost. I found an aileron hinge fitting that shares a part number between them. But even the aileron itself is different.
There's no such thing as a half meter plug inboard of the nacelles.
The wing box is the front spar, rear spar and everything in between. Wing tip to wing tip. There is not a single cleat, rib, or stringer that is shared between the two.
"Mostly been untouched" is a blatant lie. Even the flux valve mounting structure is different.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:45 pm

leghorn wrote:
A simple stretch would open the freighter market back up as it would have a much larger capacity than the ATR72 which matches it capacity wise now.
When the likes of FedEx or DHL order they order in quantity.


I wouldn't count on it. FedEx, UPS and DHL are the last operators that require the extra performance of the Q400. Speed doesn't matter, they don't need the APU to cool the cabin, and they operate out of big airports with all the ground handling equipment (GPUs) and long well-paved runways you could ever dream about.

Further, only FedEx owns its own feeder planes, and already went the ATR route with the new 72-600 freighter. UPS and DHL use contractors, so the decision will be up to smaller operators. That means notoriously cheap airlines like West Air Sweden, Sprint Air, ASL and Swift, who will undoubtedly prefer much cheaper secondhand ATRs. The ATR also has the added advantage that it already has a large cargo door up front, making conversions cheap.
There already is a Q400 conversion program, and it barely sold any at all. Maybe with time, old Q400s could find a niche in far-flung regions of Africa, where the better rough field performance could make it useful. Alas, even here ATRs are already marching in.
 
BubbaYugga
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:03 pm

There is a structural splice in the fuselage just aft of the pilot bulkhead. The flight compartment forward of this joint is common to the 1/2/300. Everything aft is a brand new aircraft.
Even the empennage that looks like the old Dash 8 is all new engineering.
The ventral strakes were added to address less than ideal handling when sideslipping with full flaps. Not that anyone ever goes there, but hey...
The strakes actually improved the cruise performance by a knot or so.
The original intent was to make it common pilot qual with the earlier birds but, in hindsight, crippled the design more than anything, as there are few mixed fleets taking advantage of it.
Don't hold your breath for a stretch, as there's more than enough tail strikes as it is. Steady pitch and modulate power to arrest descent rate if you don't want to "do the grind".
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: Q400: the underrated aircraft type?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:07 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
Interestingly, from personal observation, I have noted that the props almost always have shorter taxi time at my local airport. The props almost always taxi to somewhere in the middle of the runway, closer to the terminal. Whereas, all the jets, including CRJ's and E-Jets, taxi all the way to the end of the runway for their takeoffs. This is a definite time saving, usually on the order of 5-10 minutes less taxiing/queuing time.


QX used to do that in SEA with their props, but now must taxi all the way to the end like everyone else. It was a great timesaver, particularly given that they usually turned much sooner after departure than the jets.


They do intersection departures at PDX, especially when departing on 10R. More often than not in my experience, they'll depart from the entrance just before 21/3 and only use ~6k of the 11k feet available.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos