ATR vs Dash 8 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

used2flyboeing

12th Apr 2005, 17:58

Dash - 8 is one of the safest turboprops ever made - it has fantastic short field performance, I witnessed a demo at Yankee stadium where a D-8 landed on the diamond,periouted & took off again outof the stadium. THe ATR was initially plagued with aileron / icing problems hence the addition of vortex generators to "patch" the aileron effectiveness when iced up.. That being said - the newer ATR's are much improved with composite materials & noise cancellation technologies. Most thought the turboprop would have been a dead issue by now because 1) public perceptions of safety of jets over turboprops & 2) the comparable cost of jets IE 737s, A320 & MD-80s can be had for a song after the collapsing asset values following 9-11. However, with the new Embraer ERJ-170 - a mini-777 for 24 million - I wonder how long turboprops can hang in there ..... smashing bugs ..??

MarkD

12th Apr 2005, 18:59

There are still a lot of fields not long enough for jets, are certified but with hard to achieve conditions (LCY), or not allowed RJs for political reasons (YTZ).

Dash8-400's runway length is on the longer side compared to earlier Dashes but since it carries 70 pax not surprising. Both it and ATR42 had various issues on entry to service so I doubt either manufacturer can get much mileage on that score.

Where Q400 scores is speed, at 360kt it's 75kt faster than the Q200/300 (q400.com) because of the PW150A engines. Bombardier claim a negligable difference in range over 60 minutes between Q400 and RJ85/735 and a 25,000 ft ceiling.

ATR42-500 manages 300kt cruise at 17,000ft (from ATR's website) with PW127s.

holyflurkingschmitt

12th Apr 2005, 21:02

You don't want either of them!! fly a Jetstream 41 fantastic bit of kit!!!

HFS:ok:

Approaching Minimums

13th Apr 2005, 12:32

I suppose the regional jet "boom" is coming to end and turboprops will be more common again. It is a clear fact that even newest small regional jets simply can't achieve as low operating costs as turboprops on shorter sectors. In fact, turboprop market has shown already signs of better future. Many regional jet operators, especially in the US can blame only themself of the current poor economical situation, as they got rid off very economical turboprops and acquired new ERJ145/CRJ200s few years ago just to notice that those good old turboprops were much more economical.

I have experiences as a ground crew of ATRs and Dash 8Q400s... In my opinion ATR and especially the new -500 series is a little bit better product than Q400. The ATR is a real workhorse, extremely reliable even in harsh winter conditions (-200, at least) and very economical. The biggest advantage of especially ATR72 is that it has two cargo compartments. If the flight seems to be tail heavy you can easily put some cargo/baggages to front cargo compartment to achieve better C/G and stay inside the envelope.

In case of Q400 the biggest issue is with payload and C/G limits. It is quite long aircraft and the only cargo compartment is in the back. This means that there is huge moment arm and you are easily out of the acceptable C/G envelope. If the plane is full it is hard or almost impossible to get all the luggages in due the C/G restrictions. You can't even think about to put some mail or cargo in there!

The other disadvantage of Q400 is the APU... it is perhaps the most unreliable APU what I have seen. Therefore many airlines use rather ground power as power shortages from APU are too common. The Q400 had a lot of technical problems earlier and airlines blamed that Bombardier was too slow to correct those quirks and offered too little help for the airlines... Same thing was with CRJ700. However, Bombardier has now achieved to fix most of the problems and reliability is far better, but I'm not too impressed even today of Q400 reliability especially in winter conditions... The advantages of Dash are slightly better range and cruise speed.

As a pax point of view, I prefer ATR72-500 over DHC8 Q400 anytime altough both are good aircrafts. Slightly less vibration and noise in ATR cabin.

I'm also under impression that the operating costs of ATR72-500 are lower and it is slightly more economical than Q400, but I could be wrong...?

Best Regards,
-AM-

MJR

13th Apr 2005, 12:57

Thanks for the replies.

Will an increase in fuel prices, improve the viability of regional turbo-prop operations?

cheers

MJR

used2flyboeing

13th Apr 2005, 15:45

Unducted fan is always more reliable than the ducted fan that is characteristic on jets ..but then there is the blade out concerns, passenger perception of throttle perturbations, noise & vibration ..

ZFT

14th Apr 2005, 02:12

used2flyboeing

<<I wonder how long turboprops can hang in there>>

With +48 ATRs sold in 2005 already including 10 with a new full EFIS flightdeck, quite a long time I would suggest.

Q400s also seem to be selling well.

Chocks Away

14th Apr 2005, 05:21

the only cargo compartment is in the back. - Dash 400.

Not so. There is a cargo compartment up the front, opposite the Port side airstair door, which comes as an option. Many Airlines have taken that option due to the C of G probs you mentioned, with out it.

:ok:

LEM

14th Apr 2005, 08:33

Hi ZFT, including 10 with a new full EFIS flightdeck
I can't find any picture on the web about this, but I'd like very much to see this... could you provide us more info?
thanks

F111

14th Apr 2005, 10:19

Hi holyflurkingschmitt,

I have just sent you a PM regarding the J41.

Cheers

ZFT

14th Apr 2005, 22:14

LEM

The Turkish aircraft will have a full EFIS flightdeck similar I believe to the A310 layout. It’s still at the design stage, but 6 EDUs seems to be the favoured design.

error_401

15th Apr 2005, 15:51

ATR's are good for cargo. Have the large door already and some :} fancy a 3 m cargo conversion door.

ATR = less fuel but also less speed

DASH = faster, higher

ATR probably more into the cargo business and short flights while the DASH is more the passenger aircraft and can sustain slightly longer distances.

TURBO PROPS
Try to fly from EDDK (Cologne-Bonn) to LSGG (Geneva) with 40 PAX and a burn off of more or less 1 ton in a Jet.

If fuel prices will continue to go up - and IMHO there is no reason for them not to we may see some very nice flying offices with full EFIS advanced noise reduction etc. in the future.

dv8

16th Apr 2005, 09:32

used2flyboeing

witnessed a demo at Yankee stadium where a D-8 landed on the diamond

Do you have a link to that story?

skywaytoheaven

16th Apr 2005, 17:54

Well I fly the Q400 and am regulary flying with Captains that used to fly the ATR. Virtually all of them regard the ATR as the better machine (much to my disgust), usually with reference to the flightdeck, which is apparently more 'pilot friendly' on the ATR with Airbus style switchlights and a radar that works properly! However they all concede to the superior performance of the Q400!

Approaching Minimums

16th Apr 2005, 18:27

There is a cargo compartment up the front, opposite the Port side airstair door, which comes as an option. Many Airlines have taken that option due to the C of G probs you mentioned, with out it.

Thanks for correcting me, that is a good solution for those balance problems indeed. Unfortunately some airlines have found it better to use that space as a coat room for business class passengers :uhoh:

Best Regards,
Approaching Minimums

Clandestino

19th Apr 2005, 14:21

Those ATR's with full EFIS flightdeck would be nice to see... but if my memory serves me right, A310 has CRT EADI and EHSI, flanked by EM circular ASI, ALT, RMI and VSI and that's exactly what we have on ATRs since the first one took off from TLS. Now as 3yr ATR f/o I've always envied Dash8 drivers for their APU. And if some guy can confirm that dash's loo can be used on the ground, engines stopped, I'll just go green with envy...

FougaMagister

19th Apr 2005, 14:33

Clandestino, I can indeed confirm that the Dash8 loos can be used on the ground with APU or GPU on - that's usually where the CPT can be found on turnaround...

The Dash, while it has excellent performance (very close to some RJs), still has reliability issues - they do go tech quite often. While I don't work on ATRs, those that I see on turnarounds here don't ever seem to go tech (but I'm sure it must happen every now and then).

The Dash8Q-400, as has been said, can be quite tricky to trim properly with the tail compartment empty and/or a light PAX load (even using compartment 5 by the front galley), so sometimes we may have to put on ballast.

Cheers :cool:

LEM

19th Apr 2005, 20:09

Clandestino, if I remember correctly the loo thing was an issue on the 300 and 320 only.

Working nice on the 500 and 700. ;)

Captain Stable

19th Apr 2005, 20:39

Clandestino, ATR toilets can also be used on the gound - 72-212 onward. Not sure about 42's - certainly not -300, but I am sure -500's you can.

The reason there's no APU is simply weight & balance. The tailcone was originally designed to hold an APU, but they found you couldn't trim it out. Hence H mode.

LEM

20th Apr 2005, 09:00

Hi Captain Stable, first time I hear this!
I have some difficulty in believing it, althought you certainly know what you are saying.

ATR difficult to trim with some added weight on the rear? :confused:

Isn't the real reason economical?
H mode is a bright idea to save money.

Just request parking into the wind, if strong! ;)

Capt. Glenn Quagmire

21st Apr 2005, 10:16

Used2flyBoeing,

I think that the demonstration that you saw of the plane landing on a baseball field was a DHC-5 Buffalo which has a spectacular short field performance. Never flew a DHC8 but you just can't convince me that it can do what the buffalo can

Same manufacturer tough

Quagmire

LEM

22nd Apr 2005, 07:42

I have also seen a video of a Buffalo breaking in two, trying to do the same... :}

DH1

26th Apr 2005, 14:02

Quagmire

You're correct, it was a Buffalo. It was in the early '70s I think and there was a demo in New York of what they would do in a major emergency.

DeHavilland Canada sent a contingent, landing a Buffalo in a baseball stadium and taking off again (impressive since home plate to the outfield fence is just over 300 ft!). They also had a Twin Otter land on a dock.

Another DHC stunt was landing a DHC-4 Caribou on an iceberg. Probably the most dangerous one they tried.

The DeHavilland pilots would demo short field performance by putting the props into Beta (reverse thrust) on approach and come in very steeply. You had to time it just right to get the energy back up for the flare. The famous Buffalo crash at Farnborough was an example of getting it wrong.

The real controversy about that one was that 3 people ran out of the aircraft - the pilots had taken a pax! I heard the Captain was later seen scratching a living by ferrying single engine Cessnas across the Atlantic.

Empty Cruise

26th Apr 2005, 16:34

Hi gents,

Excellent debate - much more civilsed than the A vs. B slaggeing matches that sometimes erupt :}

The ATR toilets can be used on ground w/ external DC power or in H-mode, either from factory (72-212 onwards) or as a retrofit (also avbl. for the 300/320 series.)

The FWD RH cargo compartment is only found on the -211, along with the LH airstair door. V. handy configuration - but the airstair contraption I've seen leaves much to be desired. It's not part of the door, but rather fixed to the fwd LH bulkhead (where the FWD F/A seat slides into locked position when not in use). The stairs are a bit heavy & cumbersome for the lightweight F/As, but can be extended/retracted in less than a minute once you get used to work with it :ok: On a 20-min. turn-arounds with a full plane-load of pax, it's a nice thing to be able to disembark & embark through 2 doors i.s.o. 1.

Finnair have found the perfect use for the FWD LH door - have an adapter on the airbridge and a small gantry with handrails that extend from the bridge & onto the cabin floor :D

The Dash - have only flown it as pax, but cabin looks a bit more modern, though noise levels are a tad higher, especially in the -300's. The APU concept is nice from an ops point of view, though it obviously adds to maintenance costs. Re APU - well, if mass & balance was a factor - why is it then that you - with even pax distribution in cabin - get a desireable trim if you split the bags 1/2 and 1/2 after putting the 1st 250 kg. in the aft hold??? 250 kg. sounds like exactly what a decent APU for an ATR would weigh. But then again - you could probably not get away with that while in the 50-seater configuration, where volume in the FWD hold leaves much to be desired :yuk:

Oh yeah - and on that note - why don't all ATR's come with a TRU as standard :{ :rolleyes: :confused: :{

Brgds from a (hopefully) ex-ATR dude :)
Empty

SKY's4ME

7th May 2005, 13:05

I have been interested in the ATR developments recently. Seeing alot of the ATR aircraft in Dublin they look like more of an aircraft than the Dash, maybe its because of its larger width of the fuselage that gives it very 'curvy lines' (very important!)

Alot of comments aswell as mentioned above as it being very Pilot friendly.

The Dash Q400 though dispite its introductory problems offers a more jet like service but in a turbo prop.

-Good to see a proper topic being discussed-

barit1

7th May 2005, 13:36

I have also seen a video of a Buffalo breaking in two, trying to do the same...

That would be Farnborough, early 80's IIRC.

"Still a bit late on the flare, old chap..."

A chunk of Hamilton Standard landed in an unoccupied car hundreds of metres away.

barit1

7th May 2005, 20:03

DHC-5D Buffalo Farnborough '84 (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Commuter%20Demo%20crash.mpg)

And those rugged Canadians all walked away from it.

SmolaTheMedevacGuy

11th May 2005, 13:14

I remember correctly the loo thing was an issue on the 300 and 320 only.

Yeah, learned it the hard way when was new to the type :}

flyinGuppy

12th May 2005, 15:06

The Q400 is also able to carry a little more payload, 8747kg while ATR72 carries 7350kg

If you can get a full payload in it, maybe the dash can make more money.

SATA Air Açores witch now flies 4 ATP and a Dornier 228 (used to fly to Corvo, witch has a 800 meters runway) Is thinking about changing is fleet to a mix of different size dash8s. The ATR was also on the run, but for some reason the company is more likely to go with the bombardier aircraft.

The typical SATA flight is a 25-35 minute jump, these flights usually carry lots of cargo, and some of the islands have quite short runways 1300 to 1400 meters.

Maybe the dash is better fitted to this kind of operation, but as far as I know, no decision was made yet

RM

AtoBsafely

13th May 2005, 10:07

I've flown Dash 1/300 and am now on the Q400 in Japan. I've never flown the ATR, so I won't try to compare. Here's my 2 yen:

Q400 balance - here we regularly have 74 pax and 100lbs freight, so we fly with about 3000lb ballast in the aft baggage compartment, and that solves all the balance problems.

Q400 reliability isn't bad, but it needs quite a lot of attention and preventative care from maintenance, especially compared to the earlier models.

Dash 100 has good field performance (200 is even better), but isn't quite STOL. A critical field is about 2500ft.

All dashs are tough to land nicely. You have to be perfectly aligned with the runway and put it down gently to be smooth (a wet surface helps a lot). However, once you've got it on the runway it sticks, and stops quickly.

Trislander

13th May 2005, 11:19

Hi guys,

I can only give my views as a cabin crew/pax perspective. I work on the Q400, but have positioned on both the Q300 and ATR-72.

I love the Q400, but I'm going to try and give an un-biased view! I find that the Q300 is much quieter than the Q400, but find the ATR-72 noise levels higher still, I guess that this is due to the fact that the -72 I have flown in did not have any kind of noise attenuation system. The Q400 though has a very different feel to the Q300 in that it feels like a more 'going places' aircraft rather than the 'short hop' feel of the earlier Dash/ATR models. I guess this is down to the powerful engines and resultant higher cruise speed. It also has better cabin service facilities like a full-size rear galley and fwd galley facilities allowing for a proper 2-crew cabin service operation. The rear pax door and built-in steps also makes boarding/disembarking much quicker. The cabin is also very modern looking and has several nice touches.

I do think though that the ATR has a better undercarriage for smoother landings but I've heard the wider wheelbase of the dash undercarriage makes for more stable crosswind conditions. Bumpy landings in the Q400 are commonplace!!

I personally think also that the Dash has nicer lines, although I did say I'm slightly biased!

There are probably many great points about the ATR of which I have no knowledge, so would welcome any other views about the ATR from a cabin point of view, I'm not interested in a slagging match!

Happy flying, whether it be Dashing or ATR'ing! :ok:

p.s. I believe DHC once landed a DHC-7 in a stadium then took off again, I'm sure I have a picture somewhere. Bear with me...

Clandestino

14th May 2005, 22:18

Excellent debate - much more civilsed than the A vs. B slaggeing matches that sometimes erupt
IMHO there are not many of us who get emotionally attached to either ATR or dash as these birdies are seen just as first steps into airline careers, not something we'll fly till retirement. Just wait and see our posts when we move into flying something heavier.

Empty Cruise

15th May 2005, 12:29

Clandestino,

Yeah, know where you come from :D - hopefully able to call meself a 737-pilot come tuesdays LST :\

However, I liked the ATR quite a lot (but wouldn't describe myself as emotionally attached :p ) - it's a tough plane that will allow you to operate into & out of a lot of interesting places. Doesn't handle very well, mind you, but in a strong gusting x-wind on a 30-m-wide wet rwy, it does what it says on the tin & allows you ample margins for operation in marginal conditions. So a fan all the same.

And I hope not to get emotionally attached to the Boeing either :}

Brgds,
Empty

LEM

16th May 2005, 09:13

Doesn't handle very well
NOT true.

LEM

aeroconejo

16th May 2005, 21:34

it is true.....the thing handles dreadfully

aero:ugh:

Captain Stable

17th May 2005, 02:03

I disagree - the ATR handles very well indeed. A little heavy on the ailerons, perhaps, but a good, stable aircraft that flies well, is forgiving and is easy to land well. I had some good times in them.

skywaytoheaven

17th May 2005, 15:05

So we are none the wiser! Maybe the 72 handles better than the 42 or vise versa.

Empty Cruise

18th May 2005, 14:36

OK, ok - perhaps "doesn't handle that bad" had been a better choice of words :}

Indeed, Captn S, it is a joy to operate. But the 42 force harmony is a bit off the mark, and the turbulence response - well, it has a high aspect ratio, so can hardly be any better for the profile chosen. But I vividly recall the first time I flew the thing - going through a bit of turbulence with a lot of shuddering involved. I was a bit flabbergasted, had flown 8 ton aircraft that were rock solid in almost any wx - now, moving to a 17 ton a/c, I had to start working again when in manual :D.

I agree on the ease of handling, it is indeed forgiving & gives you plenty of margin for error & is easy to land. But that also applies to a C182 :p :D And skywayto... is right on the spot - a 72 for me anyday!

However, the examiner was careless enough to let me through that LST - so I might never get another crack at the ATR :(

Brgds from
Empty

Fropilot

1st Jun 2005, 21:39

I think both aeroplanes are good depending on each airline's requirements. As an ATR 42 driver the biggest advantage of the ATR 42 over the Dash 8-300 for example is the baggage capacity. Our ATR 42s have about 1700kg of baggage capacity versus about 1000kg for the D8, and in my part of the world that is the winning advantage. But I see that the Dash 400 has now got more bagage capability, I think that will make the Dash 8 more competitive. One last thought the ATRs are much lighter than similar or comparable Dash 8s.

Mister Geezer

1st Jun 2005, 21:48

ATR seems to be unstable in strong crossswinds.

SKY's4ME

2nd Jun 2005, 14:13

The ATR is alot more unstable on the ground compared with the Dash, as mentioned earlier this is due to the undercariage positions on each Aircraft with the ATR having less U/C span than the Dash.

From flying in both the ATR in the Air is alot more stable compared to the Dash, and from a pax point of view the ATR has alot more space.

Kensiko

17th Oct 2006, 16:57

I know the DHC-8 100's and ATR42 300's have gravel cert, what about the rest?

Dixons Cider

18th Oct 2006, 11:36

ATR 42-500 has gravel mod also.

re the handling of an ATR. In the air fine, nothing to add to the previous comments. On the ground with a crosswind is a different matter due to the high wing and narrow track undercarriage.
It requires good coordination of aileron input, particularly if there is a handover of aileron control during the T/off or Landing ie the CM1 is pilot flying.

Dixons Cider

18th Oct 2006, 11:52

Actually, let me elaborate on my previous post for the benefit of the non ATR types...

There is no nose wheel control via the rudder pedals, she's tiller only, and there is no tiller on the F/o's side.
So in a x/wind scenario with CM1 as the pilot flying
- t/off roll starts with CM1 on the tiller and CM2 using aileron in an attempt to maintain wings level, or perhaps some aileron into wind in anticipation
- through 70 kts or thereabouts, there is a control handover whereby the CM1 comes of the tiller, takes aileron control, and maintains directional control with rudder only.
- the same in reverse order would occur on landing.

Its this aileron handover that has to be well drilled/briefed, because it can get a tad ugly if momentarily there is nobody on the ailerons and they neutralise, she can tend to lift a wing easily. For this reason I sometimes felt it was better to have the F/o as pilot flying in a good crosswind - if he was up to it!!!

I envied the PW 150's on the Dash 8-400. ATR also suffers for the lack of an APU. Otherwise, a great aeroplane, if not a tad ugly!

Alpine Flyer

18th Oct 2006, 11:54

All Dash 8s have very redundant electrical systems which allow loss of any 2 out 4 generators with all electrical capability remaining. I always found that reassuring and almost as good as the -7 where you had 4 generators each :)

Also all the Dashes have more or less fully dual redundant flight controls with alternate cable runs for 1/2 elevator and ailerons/spoilers. How do the ATRs compare on that?

As for controly harmony, the -8-100 and -8-300 are quite nice while the -400 has oversensitive power levers and a rather "stiff" feel in the ailerons.

One big drawback about the -400 is that deHavilland didn't use a lot of the potential contemporary avionics technology would offer in order to keep it as close as possible to the -100/-300. The flight warning system with almost no concept of priority and no inhibition of minor alerts during critical phases of flight is definitely outdated. The Fokker 50 was better on that 20 years ago.

Does the ATR have some kind of thrust rating/automatic power setting system? The -400 has it and it works nicely but the -300 requires constant checking and re-setting of torque up to top of climb.

As for ratings, the -300 and -400 can be flown with alternating proficiency checks. At our company people get the initial rating on either type and then add the other after app. 400 hours.

Dixons Cider

18th Oct 2006, 13:21

Alpine..

The ATR has a "power management system". Consists of settings for T/off, MCT, and Cruise.
PL's set into a detent, the "notch", and power settings controlled thereafter by the PMS switch.
The PL's are retarded out of the notch on descent to control speed, all the way down to landing.

Re electrics, cant remember exactly, 2 DC gens and 2 ACW gens that can power DC systems via TRU's. Good level of redundancy but as to a direct comparison to the Dash - dont know.

Only DH product I've flown was the twotter, and that was BLARDY MARVELLOUS!!

FougaMagister

18th Oct 2006, 21:16

The ATR 72-200 (and all -500 series) have a number of notches for CLs (Condition Levers) and PLs. Set MAX RPM on the CLs, set 101.2% torque on take-off, then retard CLs to 86% and TQ to 90% during the climb sequence. The CLs don't need to be moved for the rest of the flight. Even if not pushed to MAX RPM during before landing checks, they would go to that position on a go-around when PLs are advanced to the GA setting (ramp) provided the PWR MGT system has been set to the TO position (also part of the before landing checks).

It's an semi-autothrottle in all but name... The principle of these notches (like a lot of the design philosophy of the ATR) is quite close to the A320, designed around the same time and assembled on the other side of TLS airport.

As for the supposed "lack" of an APU, I find the H mode/prop brake on the ATR a clever design that does away with the need for, weight, extra complexity and unreliability of the Dash 8's APU and is useful to allow quick turnarounds (if obviously a bit on the noisy side - but it's only used for a few minutes until a GPU is plugged in). The ATR also makes a very good cargo feeder aircraft, with a cargo door fitted as standard and enough cabin diameter to accept cargo containers (which unless I'm mistaken, the Dash 8 can't do).

Can't comment on the Dash 8's handling, but the ATR handles just fine on two engines. When on one, then it's workout time in roll!

To correct a previous post, the ATR wasn't retroffited with vortex generators following airframe icing issues (the Roselawn crash), but with larger-chord de-icing boots to prevent a ridge of ice accumulating behind them.

Cheers :cool:

ICT_SLB

19th Oct 2006, 01:21

I know the DHC-8 100's and ATR42 300's have gravel cert, what about the rest?

The 400 was certified for gravel runways a couple of years back. Hydro Quebec required it for their Northern ops - sorry don't know about dash 8 300's.

nugpot

19th Oct 2006, 06:49

The 400 was certified for gravel runways a couple of years back. Hydro Quebec required it for their Northern ops - sorry don't know about dash 8 300's.

Gravel kit available for -300 from Bombardier. Two of our a/c were fitted a while ago.

I have never flown a ATR, so I can't compare, but the DH8 does exactly what it advertises - everytime. We currently require 10 pax to break even on most of our routes on the -300.

Bolty McBolt

19th Oct 2006, 08:08

As PAX

Had the most uncomfortable flights ever on Dash 8s hopping around canadian ski feilds, I sat in seat 2 A every flight 7 in total and the prop vibration was unbearable.

Flown on ATRs with the "simitar" blades very smooth even when in seats adjacent engines/prop.

But if i had to fly in a turbo prop, show me the Saab any day :ok:

Alpine Flyer

19th Oct 2006, 08:28

As PAX
Had the most uncomfortable flights ever on Dash 8s hopping around canadian ski feilds, I sat in seat 2 A every flight 7 in total and the prop vibration was unbearable.

There's a huge difference between older Dash 8s and the Q series as the latter has the active noise and vibration suppression (ANVS).

As a passenger you can spot the ANVS system by it's small microphones/sensors scattered around the cabin (look like very small "eye" type rivets, usually brass coloured). Alternatively, look for some big lettering on the outside saying it's "QUIET" ;)