How would you compare these 2 aircrafts in terms of sales price, operating costs (fuel), comfort, versatility and safety record? Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Every 120 I've flown lately has been worn out inside and in need of a refresh.

The Saab 340B's I've flow across the Silver Airways system seem quite nice however.

Quoting MXP380 (Thread starter): safety record?

IIRC, the Saab 340 has a very good safety-record.

Quoting MXP380 (Thread starter): operating costs

I am no expert but I would tend to say that the Saab 340 is able to provide lower costs per seat due to her higher capacity.

Quoting MXP380 (Thread starter): comfort

Both aircraft provide adequate comfort for regional flights + provisions for a small galley + one lavatory.

Quoting MXP380 (Thread starter): versatility

IIRC, the Saab 340 won some orders due to her ability to be operated as a QC-aircraft. Finnaviation comes into my mind. On th eother hand, the Embraer BRasilia seems to be faster compared to the Saab.

Nevertheless, I like both aircraft.

I've been fortunate enough to log a couple thousand hours in both types. From a pilot perspective they're a blast to fly. The Saab flew like a truck and even if your technique was solid it might punish you on landing because it had a very stiff main gear. It's autopilot was a rock star, and the airplane could haul more than its fair share of ice. Up front I found it more comfortable than the Brophus due to being slightly wider and having more forehead room. It also had a yaw damper that once turned on, would all but eliminate the need to use rudder during normal operation. It also was under powered for hot/heavy conditions. Single engine performance near MGTOW on a warm day was doable, but dubious. Depending on the props installed (Dowty-Rotol or Hamilton Standard) it wouldn't necessarily auto feather, but actually auto-coarsen. This meant you may not have a fully feathered prop after an engine failure and that difference was big. Manually feathering the prop was paramount for single engine performance and controllability. When compared to the Bro, the Saab burned slightly more gas under similar conditions but there was more airplane to haul around too. It couldn't always put a butt in every seat, and if there was much cargo/bags we were generally limited to 28-30 passengers so offsetting the higher cost wasn't always reliable from what I understand. No APU meant relying on ground air to condition the cabin, not necessarily the airplane's fault because ground services were hit or miss depending on the station. It's systems were better thought out but the electrical system was a bear. Something like 21 DC buses and another handful on the AC side. Ground power was a must or the batts would drain quickly. It did have a phenomenal safety record. Given the number of cycles the fleet flew and the number of fatalities, I'd put it against anything carrying passengers out there. I never once doubted that the airplane would get me home. It was an absolute tank. Overall the airplane was a sweetheart, I miss flying the Saab.

The Bro was a handful to fly. It's a square airplane, so any power changes required re-trimming the rudder. If you thought about, or looked at the power levers, you had to re-trim the rudder. If you shifted in your seat, or a passenger farted, or the flight attendant served a drink, you had to re-trim the airplane. We joked that you could spot a former Bro driver a mile away because when they sit down their inside arm automatically reaches aft in search of the rudder trim. For whatever reason, the engineers that put the prop together designed it to always try and overspend on you. It required oil pressure balancing the forces to keep it from overspending. If you did have an over speed, losing control was a very real possibility and if I'm not mistaken there have been a handful of accidents as a result. Being somewhat lighter than the Saab and having a little more horsepower it performed better. At light-middle weights it wasn't unusual to keep up with jets in terms of vertical speed whereas the Saab was a slow climber unless it was light. Icing up the Brasilia was a more nerve racking experience than the Saab. The airplane didn't like carrying ice. It would do it but not as well as the Saab and you had to keep some speed on it or it risked losing controlability. There is a well documented Comair incident over Florida when they iced up and were too slow and the airplane departed controlled flight. If I remember correctly. There has been an accident or two from ice as well. That said, the Bro did land with much more consistency than the Saab. They both could use fairly short runways, but the be Bro routinely used a bit less under similar conditions and average braking efforts. Comfort wise. If you're over about 5'7" or taller, you're gonna have a bad time. It just wasn't built for tall folks and at 6'4" the front end wasn't comfortable. It had two types of pilot seats, if you had the older version the seats wouldn't sit low enough to keep the same sight picture as the newer model seats and it put your head awkwardly close to the overhead panel. The ram horn yoke had a tendency to hit your knees or the knees of the other pilot if their feet weren't out toward the rudder pedals. The tiller on the Saab was a consistent design but each airplane had its own feel on the ground. The Bro tiller wore your forearm out on a long taxi. In the cabin I found it louder than the Saab but much of that could be fixed by where you sat. Sit forward between the props and you'll be deaf at the end of the leg. Sit aft of the wing and it was reasonable for a turboprop. Saab had some sort of noise reduction, but I can't say it made a world of difference. A little, perhaps, but nothing earth shattering. Vibration wise, they both were a ladie's friend. They shook, rattled and rolled like you'd expect a turboprop to do. At cruise it sipped fuel, in the mid twenties at a reasonable cruise speed it wouldn't be unusual to see fuel flows in the 700-1000pphrange while cruising somewhat faster than the Saab. Oddly enough if ATC asked for "best forward airspeed" in the Bro it'd be consistently 230-240kts but the Saab could do 250 with more regularity in the terminal area. If memory serves, the Saab was consistently between 1100-1400pph on average. Fitting 30 folks in 30 seats was a rare feat as passenger weights increased, but we could usually do 27-28 unless we had a ton of bags or gas for an alternate. I knew the Bro was a safe airplane or it wouldn't be carrying the paying public, but there was a little more edge to it because of its handling characteristics and the faulty prop design. I knew it'd get me home but I also knew I had to be a little more on point should anything hit the fan. I'm glad to have flown it but I don't miss the airplane too much.

[Edited 2014-11-14 12:50:55]

[Edited 2014-11-14 12:53:46]

[Edited 2014-11-14 12:58:07]

I've only flown on a Saab once, with Mesaba, and the Brasilia several times between SMF and SFO. Comfort wise I find the Brasilia better. The Saab seemed a lot noisier and produced more vibration in the cabin.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 3): It also was under powered for hot/heavy conditions.

That was my impression, too. Brasilia were common in high altitude airports (DEN, etc.), but I only saw Saab 340s at the lower altitude airports.

Quoting MXP380 (Thread starter): How would you compare these 2 aircrafts in terms of sales price, operating costs (fuel), comfort, versatility and safety record? Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I believe the other posts are correct, the SF340 has a better safety record and that may impact insurance.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 3): For whatever reason, the engineers that put the prop together designed it to always try and overspend on you. It required oil pressure balancing the forces to keep it from overspending. If you did have an over speed, losing control was a very real possibility and if I'm not mistaken there have been a handful of accidents as a result.

PW redesigned the prop control valve some time in the late 80's/early 90's, but it took a few accidents and an AD to mandate replacement. The major problem is that many pilots have this tendency to just slam the prop forward, which is a perfectly fine SOP in other turbos, but turned out not so on the PW118. Regardless, even after the all the PCVs were replaced, my airline actually made it SOP to use slow, smooth adjustments to the prop to avoid the possibility of it ever happening in their fleet, and is still in effect to this day. It sure ruins that "open the barn doors" expectation.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 5): Brasilia were common in high altitude airports (DEN, etc.),

This doesn't mean that they actually performed well. Even the ERs with PW118B engines still struggle in the summer. You'll get to your destination, but nowhere near full.

[Edited 2014-11-14 21:58:16]

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 6): PW redesigned the prop control valve some time in the late 80's/early 90's, but it took a few accidents and an AD to mandate replacement. The major problem is that many pilots have this tendency to just slam the prop forward, which is a perfectly fine SOP in other turbos, but turned out not so on the PW118. Regardless, even after the all the PCVs were replaced, my airline actually made it SOP to use slow, smooth adjustments to the prop to avoid the possibility of it ever happening in their fleet, and is still in effect to this day. It sure ruins that "open the barn doors" expectation.

I can't say quick CL movement is a thing in turboprops as far as I know unless maybe they have some sort of FADEC type logic to moderate the actual change to prop pitch. We had a similar technique at both companies for anything involving condition lever movement. Slow and smooth was the goal and it really isn't a difficult thing to do. As far as energy management, you could still get it to slow down plenty fast without slamming the props forward, it's a prop after all. If you really needed to do that to bleed off speed, generally speaking you were already behind the airplane. Most of us take pride in providing a smooth and comfortable ride and taking care of our equipment so anything involving a "slam" of the CL's was generally regarded as bad technique. Our main issue was that the "fail safe" was an overspeed condition. For an airplane that already had stability issues when it came to yaw tendencies, plus big ol' props for it's size, anything degrading control was frowned upon. From our perspective we'd rather deal with an inadvertent feather should something fail than an overspeed because it maximizes controllability. I still fault the engineering decision for setting the system up for a worst case scenario rather than the "safest" in the event of a failure but I do agree that pilot technique certainly goes a long way towards maximizing the life span of parts and keeping the operation safe.

[Edited 2014-11-14 23:45:19]

[Edited 2014-11-14 23:48:22]

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 3): Icing up the Brasilia was a more nerve racking experience than the Saab. The airplane didn't like carrying ice. It would do it but not as well as the Saab and you had to keep some speed on it or it risked losing controlability.

Weren't you the one who posted the immortal line, "Don't fly slow, in the Bro, in the snow?" That still makes me chuckle every time I think of it.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8): Weren't you the one who posted the immortal line, "Don't fly slow, in the Bro, in the snow?" That still makes me chuckle every time I think of it.

Good memory, haha! I don't recall if that was me or another Bro driver from my company but that was certainly a common phrase around our pilot group.

We had what we referred to as the "Comair Box" that would sound a rather shrill alarm if the airspeed dropped below a certain point when ice accretion was detected if we didn't have the flaps out as a result of the Comair loss of control incident some years ago. Hence the phrase that we took to heart.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 6): This doesn't mean that they actually performed well. Even the ERs with PW118B engines still struggle in the summer. You'll get to your destination, but nowhere near full.

Oh, I agree, I was just comparing the EMB-120 to the SF340. I recall from one sales presentation that in some cases, a B1900 would carry more payload out of certain high altitude airports than the EMB-120 could. That was more than a little surprise to me.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 5): Brasilia were common in high altitude airports (DEN, etc.), but I only saw Saab 340s at the lower altitude airports.

IIRC, Saab developed a version called "Saab 340B Plus" and this variant was optimized for ops at high temperatures/altitudes with hot-and-high conditions. Was this variant really better compared to the Saab 340B?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 3): I've been fortunate enough to log a couple thousand hours in both types. From a pilot perspective they're a blast to fly. The Saab flew like a truck and even if your technique was solid it might punish you on landing because it had a very stiff main gear. It's autopilot was a rock star, and the airplane could haul more than its fair share of ice. Up front I found it more comfortable than the Brophus due to being slightly wider and having more forehead room. It also had a yaw damper that once turned on, would all but eliminate the need to use rudder during normal operation. It also was under powered for hot/heavy conditions. Single engine performance near MGTOW on a warm day was doable, but dubious. Depending on the props installed (Dowty-Rotol or Hamilton Standard) it wouldn't necessarily auto feather, but actually auto-coarsen. This meant you may not have a fully feathered prop after an engine failure and that difference was big. Manually feathering the prop was paramount for single engine performance and controllability. When compared to the Bro, the Saab burned slightly more gas under similar conditions but there was more airplane to haul around too. It couldn't always put a butt in every seat, and if there was much cargo/bags we were generally limited to 28-30 passengers so offsetting the higher cost wasn't always reliable from what I understand. No APU meant relying on ground air to condition the cabin, not necessarily the airplane's fault because ground services were hit or miss depending on the station. It's systems were better thought out but the electrical system was a bear. Something like 21 DC buses and another handful on the AC side. Ground power was a must or the batts would drain quickly. It did have a phenomenal safety record. Given the number of cycles the fleet flew and the number of fatalities, I'd put it against anything carrying passengers out there. I never once doubted that the airplane would get me home. It was an absolute tank. Overall the airplane was a sweetheart, I miss flying the Saab. The Bro was a handful to fly. It's a square airplane, so any power changes required re-trimming the rudder. If you thought about, or looked at the power levers, you had to re-trim the rudder. If you shifted in your seat, or a passenger farted, or the flight attendant served a drink, you had to re-trim the airplane. We joked that you could spot a former Bro driver a mile away because when they sit down their inside arm automatically reaches aft in search of the rudder trim. For whatever reason, the engineers that put the prop together designed it to always try and overspend on you. It required oil pressure balancing the forces to keep it from overspending. If you did have an over speed, losing control was a very real possibility and if I'm not mistaken there have been a handful of accidents as a result. Being somewhat lighter than the Saab and having a little more horsepower it performed better. At light-middle weights it wasn't unusual to keep up with jets in terms of vertical speed whereas the Saab was a slow climber unless it was light. Icing up the Brasilia was a more nerve racking experience than the Saab. The airplane didn't like carrying ice. It would do it but not as well as the Saab and you had to keep some speed on it or it risked losing controlability. There is a well documented Comair incident over Florida when they iced up and were too slow and the airplane departed controlled flight. If I remember correctly. There has been an accident or two from ice as well. That said, the Bro did land with much more consistency than the Saab. They both could use fairly short runways, but the be Bro routinely used a bit less under similar conditions and average braking efforts. Comfort wise. If you're over about 5'7" or taller, you're gonna have a bad time. It just wasn't built for tall folks and at 6'4" the front end wasn't comfortable. It had two types of pilot seats, if you had the older version the seats wouldn't sit low enough to keep the same sight picture as the newer model seats and it put your head awkwardly close to the overhead panel. The ram horn yoke had a tendency to hit your knees or the knees of the other pilot if their feet weren't out toward the rudder pedals. The tiller on the Saab was a consistent design but each airplane had its own feel on the ground. The Bro tiller wore your forearm out on a long taxi. In the cabin I found it louder than the Saab but much of that could be fixed by where you sat. Sit forward between the props and you'll be deaf at the end of the leg. Sit aft of the wing and it was reasonable for a turboprop. Saab had some sort of noise reduction, but I can't say it made a world of difference. A little, perhaps, but nothing earth shattering. Vibration wise, they both were a ladie's friend. They shook, rattled and rolled like you'd expect a turboprop to do. At cruise it sipped fuel, in the mid twenties at a reasonable cruise speed it wouldn't be unusual to see fuel flows in the 700-1000pphrange while cruising somewhat faster than the Saab. Oddly enough if ATC asked for "best forward airspeed" in the Bro it'd be consistently 230-240kts but the Saab could do 250 with more regularity in the terminal area. If memory serves, the Saab was consistently between 1100-1400pph on average. Fitting 30 folks in 30 seats was a rare feat as passenger weights increased, but we could usually do 27-28 unless we had a ton of bags or gas for an alternate. I knew the Bro was a safe airplane or it wouldn't be carrying the paying public, but there was a little more edge to it because of its handling characteristics and the faulty prop design. I knew it'd get me home but I also knew I had to be a little more on point should anything hit the fan. I'm glad to have flown it but I don't miss the airplane too much.

Very well written. I flew the 'A' model SF340 for a year and always wondered how it compared with the Brazilia which had a reputation for being a bit faster and more responsive.


I agree the Saab was a truck, not the most responsive but a good all weather aircraft, tough and could carry a lot of ice.
As you said the electrical system was ridiculously complicated and we could have used an APU. We did have a prop brake installed on the right ? engine that theoretically allowed it to be used as an APU but we never used it, I believe it shortened engine life and wasn't worthwhile.


The Saab was my the first Turboprop I flew extensively and It seemed like the space shuttle to me after flying cancelled checks in ancient, beat up twins, I liked it but I thought the Pilot seats were terrible. Incredibly uncomfortable on my back and I could barely walk after those long, grueling days.


Great memories  

I do know of any 340 which have the prop brake enabled. Overall a great aircraft, I had been flying it for almost seven years and can't tell you about any real downside of it. Electrical system is not really that complicated for use, in the end all you have is two inverter switches, two for battery, two for generator. System logic behind it is another story.. Oh and you can twist the nose gear 180deg during powerback if you're not careful with the tiller 
800-1000pph at 260-280 tas carrying 7000lbs of cargo always earned our salaries and when intake heater worked properly it was always a nice ride in the office.

Quoting Dufo (Reply 13): I do know of any 340 which have the prop brake enabled. Overall a great aircraft, I had been flying it for almost seven years and can't tell you about any real downside of it. Electrical system is not really that complicated for use, in the end all you have is two inverter switches, two for battery, two for generator. System logic behind it is another story.. Oh and you can twist the nose gear 180deg during powerback if you're not careful with the tiller 800-1000pph at 260-280 tas carrying 7000lbs of cargo always earned our salaries and when intake heater worked properly it was always a nice ride in the office.

Good write up, did you fly the A or B model ?


By 'intake heater' I think you're referring to the Engine Anti Ice ?
We used to call it the 'anti climb switch' because when activated they drew so much power it eliminated any chance of a further climb !


Not a great climber in general but a good solid aircraft that was pretty fast and efficient when level. I can see how it would be a very good freighter.


Was always curious what the -2000 was like, it seemed like an awesome turboprop with a very nice cockpit, loads of power and very fast, up to 370KTAS ?


Never heard from anyone that flew one though.

I have experience only with A models.
Intake heater as part of engine anti ice yes, the electrical part of it really likes to produce a master caution either due to overtemp or overcurrent. On a few occasions the cables burned thru the insulation, causing a not so pleasant smell in the cockpit and return back to base. Bleed air part (air valve) always works properly, except that it is a power thief as you wrote.
When heavy at high ISA and in icing conditions, don't expect to climb above FL150 if you stick to minimum allowed speed of 160 ias in climb. There are also several different engine contracts which give different allowed power settings but it hurts overhaul costs if you abuse it too regularly. Some companies used to fly at 850 deg C ITT regularly.. we try to avoid above 830 unless really necessary, even though power tables might tell you more, expecially at lower levels.

One of our ex captains flew the 2000 and from his words it was a great airplane, totally different to 340, but never really liked by the management due to complexity and costs.

Quoting Dufo (Reply 15): I have experience only with A models. Intake heater as part of engine anti ice yes, the electrical part of it really likes to produce a master caution either due to overtemp or overcurrent. On a few occasions the cables burned thru the insulation, causing a not so pleasant smell in the cockpit and return back to base. Bleed air part (air valve) always works properly, except that it is a power thief as you wrote. When heavy at high ISA and in icing conditions, don't expect to climb above FL150 if you stick to minimum allowed speed of 160 ias in climb. There are also several different engine contracts which give different allowed power settings but it hurts overhaul costs if you abuse it too regularly. Some companies used to fly at 850 deg C ITT regularly.. we try to avoid above 830 unless really necessary, even though power tables might tell you more, expecially at lower levels. One of our ex captains flew the 2000 and from his words it was a great airplane, totally different to 340, but never really liked by the management due to complexity and costs.

Interesting, I only flew the A model myself. We used torque power tables and had to adjust the power constantly during the climb, the engines seemed to be the weak point on the Saab, I think adapting the engine used for the Blackhawk helicopter was not a great idea and it was underpowered.



Did you use the CTOT system ? we stopped using it, again due to engine issues bit it seemed like a good idea in theory.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 16): Did you use the CTOT system ? we stopped using it, again due to engine issues bit it seemed like a good idea in theory.

Still do, on every takeoff. Never had a problem with it.

What is CTOT? That Swedish / GE combo sure does have some weird stuff to it...

It is a system which maintains knob selected selected torque value for takeoff. Similar to autothrottle but only for takeoff.

Quoting Dufo (Reply 17): Still do, on every takeoff. Never had a problem with it.

Interesting, our management seemed to have a phobia about using it, claiming it could cause engine damage. We used it once and I was very impressed with how quickly, and accurately it set the power.


I don't remember if it actually moved the power levers though ?

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 18): What is CTOT? That Swedish / GE combo sure does have some weird stuff to it...

Stands for 'Constant Torque on Take Off' if I remember correctly you can preselect the % of torque you want for take off, then, once activated it will automatically set that power setting on both engines (my memory is a bit foggy though)

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20): Stands for 'Constant Torque on Take Off' if I remember correctly you can preselect the % of torque you want for take off, then, once activated it will automatically set that power setting on both engines (my memory is a bit foggy though)

That's cheating. Closest thing we had on the Dash was the -200s with torque bugs, that only selected climb or cruise. Advisory only of course.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 21): That's cheating. Closest thing we had on the Dash was the -200s with torque bugs, that only selected climb or cruise. Advisory only of course.

Well, we basically never used it.


I jump seated on the Dash 8 once, was very impressed, it seemed like a very solid piece of kit.