Originally Posted by
hans brinker
Not an aircraft designer, or engineer. Have flown the F50/DHC8 for years, and spent plenty of time in the
JS of the ATR. I honestly believe it is the sheer amount of material. Every part of the F50 felt sturdy and over designed. those double articulated door hinges for the right and aft doors where amazing. Every thing I touched on the DHC8 I was afraid I would break it. ATR was even worse, plastic fantastic.
Makes for better fuel economy and cost to run. Nobody ever asked the pilots what aircraft the company should fly....
interesting thoughts from you and interesting insight....I appreciate it.
One can only wonder if Fokker was still around today, if they would of made a newer version of the F50 - made it lighter. It would of increased the cruise speed for example. I guess heavy aircraft is good in one sense and in other ways not so good.
Probably the reason why the F50 wasn't popular in the USA, companies saw the downside: 20-30 odd knots slower compared to most turboprop aircraft in its size (or slightly smaller) where as in Europe, the F50 was really popular, so was the Dash 8 as well.
Originally Posted by
hans brinker
Well, the way I normally said was flew like a truck. Rotate definitely required both hands. Engine failure required so much rudder pressure I would normally use both legs, full aileron into dead engine, so uncross armes and hold the wheel upside down. Extend flaps and don't trim the wheel 3 times around and you need both hands to keep the nose down. Flew the Dash 8 at the same time, and was so much easier to control, but the cockpit was lousy.
F50 Cockpit design is still better than anything else I have seen.
Surprised you say this. I've heard many F50 pilots say it's an easy aircraft to fly but the way you describe it - it's like a wrestling match lol.