Flybe close to firming Q400 options!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe close to firming Q400 options!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown on the Q400, it is an extremely capable and comfortable short-haul aircraft which dispells many of the myths of flying on turboprops.
Hope this confirmation of options comes to fruition and well done Flybe for correctly daring to choose the Q400 over the far less cost-effective RJ's.
Hope this confirmation of options comes to fruition and well done Flybe for correctly daring to choose the Q400 over the far less cost-effective RJ's.
....or what about some Avro's, there are a few sitting around (ironically at EXT) at the moment.
OK, it's another 146, but without some of it's issues (ie, RVSM compliant AFAIK) and commonality must be a plus.
And they are a bit newer aswell.
OK, it's another 146, but without some of it's issues (ie, RVSM compliant AFAIK) and commonality must be a plus.
And they are a bit newer aswell.
EXT is a storage airport too, and even though i'm sure JEA enginerring does some upkeep on the stored RJ's / 146's i don't think they're anything at all to do with flybe.
The company has 6 RJ100's on lease to replace our 146-200 series. They are ex-turkish airlines i believe and the first 2 should be in SOU by early summer season.
As for 737 / A319 ......... still no word.
BPM
The company has 6 RJ100's on lease to replace our 146-200 series. They are ex-turkish airlines i believe and the first 2 should be in SOU by early summer season.
As for 737 / A319 ......... still no word.
BPM
The Avro RJs parked at Exeter are RJ70s & RJ85s. Too small to replace a 146-300. Besides, some of them seem to be on the move. Euromanx & the Bahrein Defence Force are helping to diminish the store.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe will be phasing out the 146-200s this year and replace them with RJs, and the 146-300s will be phased out in about 3 years time, and also replaced with RJs.
The Q400 will grow to about 40 aircraft and thus continue to be the dominant type on the books.
As for larger types, they are wet leasing three 737s from Astraeus in March to test the water on some longer routes to the Med. No future decisions have been made about the permanancy of these routes, or the choice of aircraft should these routes prove worthwhile.
The Q400 will grow to about 40 aircraft and thus continue to be the dominant type on the books.
As for larger types, they are wet leasing three 737s from Astraeus in March to test the water on some longer routes to the Med. No future decisions have been made about the permanancy of these routes, or the choice of aircraft should these routes prove worthwhile.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good news for the workers up the road from me who make the Q400 - with the CRJ line under pressure from the Jungle Jets the turboprop line seems to be the best part of the order book right now.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hate flying on the dash 8, especially the long Q400. Hate the reverse thrust in mid-air coming into land, hate the feeling of nose-diving towards the runway, tail high and nose down... very strange sensation especially in high crosswinds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as for the noise, its seems louder than a dash 8-300. An hour is the most i'd like to be on one. And the toilet... i couldnt even pee into the bowl because it was so difficult and small
Can someone clarify the safety record of the dash 8. I'd much rather fly a jet.
as for the noise, its seems louder than a dash 8-300. An hour is the most i'd like to be on one. And the toilet... i couldnt even pee into the bowl because it was so difficult and small
Can someone clarify the safety record of the dash 8. I'd much rather fly a jet.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nakata77
how do you compare the dash 8qs to other props you've been on, or have you only been on dh8? Especially since Bombardier are touting the cabin noise reduction thingy, and that PW150 is less noisy! I've only been on one dash but that was a -100 which isn't quite the same thing.
Asking for the Dash's safety record seems like you're looking for excuses to dislike the aircraft. flightsafe.co.uk seems to have the data if you feel strongly enough to pay for it.
how do you compare the dash 8qs to other props you've been on, or have you only been on dh8? Especially since Bombardier are touting the cabin noise reduction thingy, and that PW150 is less noisy! I've only been on one dash but that was a -100 which isn't quite the same thing.
Asking for the Dash's safety record seems like you're looking for excuses to dislike the aircraft. flightsafe.co.uk seems to have the data if you feel strongly enough to pay for it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nakata77 - reverse thrust on a prop????? that'd be interesting to see!..........Not sure what you mean by this?
I find the Q400 absolutely fine...sure i'd prefer a jet but i'll happily get on a prop, especially if it means I only have to drive to my local airport, rather than half way across the country to a catchment area that can support jet traffic to the destination I want to go to!
Afterall, that is the point of the Q400 and plenty of people are beginning to appreciate that.
I find the Q400 absolutely fine...sure i'd prefer a jet but i'll happily get on a prop, especially if it means I only have to drive to my local airport, rather than half way across the country to a catchment area that can support jet traffic to the destination I want to go to!
Afterall, that is the point of the Q400 and plenty of people are beginning to appreciate that.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um, yes. We don't use max reverse in-flight! That would only be used if absolutely necessary on landing!
That 'noise' you hear on finals is the condition levers being put up to max - although some operators land with the props at 850rpm. And the high-angle would be the use of Flap 35. Having flown it for well over a year now, I've actually yet to hear of pax complaining of the nose-down sensation!
It is much quiter than the 300, and I'd rather be on the 400 anyday.
And as for peeing in the bowl - if you have that much trouble aiming, I wouldn't like to share your bathroom!
That 'noise' you hear on finals is the condition levers being put up to max - although some operators land with the props at 850rpm. And the high-angle would be the use of Flap 35. Having flown it for well over a year now, I've actually yet to hear of pax complaining of the nose-down sensation!
It is much quiter than the 300, and I'd rather be on the 400 anyday.
And as for peeing in the bowl - if you have that much trouble aiming, I wouldn't like to share your bathroom!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nakata77 - you ask for the safety record of the Dash8 - I wonder what you think that will tell you?
The fact that one type may have been involved in more accidents that another does not imply there is a safety issue with it since accidents can be caused by many things. If you don't like turboprops then that is your view you then have to decide if you can fly an alternative routing with a jet. However, you should be aware that turboprops are cheaper to operate than jets of a similar size - due to lower fuel burn, lower weights and therefore lower landing and navigation fees, lower crew costs etc etc - so just because you don't like turboprops is not a good reason for an airline to put on a jet.
The fact that one type may have been involved in more accidents that another does not imply there is a safety issue with it since accidents can be caused by many things. If you don't like turboprops then that is your view you then have to decide if you can fly an alternative routing with a jet. However, you should be aware that turboprops are cheaper to operate than jets of a similar size - due to lower fuel burn, lower weights and therefore lower landing and navigation fees, lower crew costs etc etc - so just because you don't like turboprops is not a good reason for an airline to put on a jet.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all the comments made.
It seems that the 'reverse thrust' i felt in approach is the change in angle of attack of the prop blades. Just hate the sensation, really makes me feel like the plane is gonna suddenly loose control. You can really feel the slowing motion in mid-air. A sensation i've never felt on any other turboprop or jet. coupled with the nose -down attitude it made me disorientated.
It seems like i just need to get used to the different sensation. Doesn't anybody else feel it a bit weird compared to other aircraft?
I have flown Twin otters, Islanders, Shorts before and never noticed it.
Thanks though for all the explanations, really helped.
It seems that the 'reverse thrust' i felt in approach is the change in angle of attack of the prop blades. Just hate the sensation, really makes me feel like the plane is gonna suddenly loose control. You can really feel the slowing motion in mid-air. A sensation i've never felt on any other turboprop or jet. coupled with the nose -down attitude it made me disorientated.
It seems like i just need to get used to the different sensation. Doesn't anybody else feel it a bit weird compared to other aircraft?
I have flown Twin otters, Islanders, Shorts before and never noticed it.
Thanks though for all the explanations, really helped.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Work associated address
Age: 42
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think the rapid slowing down on approach is so the Q400 is one of few TP's that can keep up with modern jet traffic into airports.Many a time have I heard 146's into BHD complaining about being stuck behind ATP's when they were operating!!
As for the Q400 I've flown on it few times,I do find it uncomfortable from the actual seat side of things,otherwise noise is minaml even beside the props when i compare to previous types I've been on.Thankfully tho one doesn't have to spend to much time in them.
Finally on the business economics they have been a superb purchase for FlyBE and sad as it may sound I do wish after doing my fATPL to be flying one of them from BHD!!
Regards
As for the Q400 I've flown on it few times,I do find it uncomfortable from the actual seat side of things,otherwise noise is minaml even beside the props when i compare to previous types I've been on.Thankfully tho one doesn't have to spend to much time in them.
Finally on the business economics they have been a superb purchase for FlyBE and sad as it may sound I do wish after doing my fATPL to be flying one of them from BHD!!
Regards
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nakata77 - er82 is correct. The DHC8-400 has 3 propellor rpm settings - 1020rpm for take off, 900rpm for climb, and 850rpm for cruise. The climb setting of 900rpm is bypassed for various reasons.
With regard to your point about the unease you feel due to the increase in rpm from 850 to 1020 on the approach, you have my sympathy. The reason this is done is in case the aircraft has to carry out a missed approach. During such a manoeuvre, the aircraft may need maximum power in a worst case scenario, and this is achieved at 1020rpm. Some DHC8-400 operators around the world have a modification to the Go Around button, so that when pressed during a missed approach, the props immediately increase from 850 to 1020. This modification allows them to carry out normal approach and landings with the props at a more comfortable 850rpm. Unfortunately, our powers that be must have decided that this optional extra was not required, so 1020rpm must be selected manually on every approach, just in case of a go around.
With regard to the nose-diving sensation, again you have my sympathy. When we first got the 400s, the normal landing flap setting was 15 degrees, and with a landing speed equal to 1.3 x stall speed. This meant that landing in icing conditions (an extra 15-20 kts) at GCI (the shortest runway we use) put the fear of god into some. It was therefore decided that on runways of less than 1800m, a flap setting of 35 degrees would be the mandatory setting, which reduced the landing speed a little bit. However, it was also realised that the landing speed should actually be 1.23 x stall speed, and as this slowed the touchdown by up to 12 kts in some circumstances, the reduction in speed offered by flap 35 over 15 became less important, but the 1800m runway rule has somehow stayed in place.
However, some of our pilots choose to land at all our destinations with the flaps set to 35, and when the flaps are moved from 15 to 35, this causes the marked nose down pitch that you find so uncomfortable. Personally, I found flap 35 landings as uncomfortable as you do, so chose to land in this configuration only when I had to.
With regard to your point about the unease you feel due to the increase in rpm from 850 to 1020 on the approach, you have my sympathy. The reason this is done is in case the aircraft has to carry out a missed approach. During such a manoeuvre, the aircraft may need maximum power in a worst case scenario, and this is achieved at 1020rpm. Some DHC8-400 operators around the world have a modification to the Go Around button, so that when pressed during a missed approach, the props immediately increase from 850 to 1020. This modification allows them to carry out normal approach and landings with the props at a more comfortable 850rpm. Unfortunately, our powers that be must have decided that this optional extra was not required, so 1020rpm must be selected manually on every approach, just in case of a go around.
With regard to the nose-diving sensation, again you have my sympathy. When we first got the 400s, the normal landing flap setting was 15 degrees, and with a landing speed equal to 1.3 x stall speed. This meant that landing in icing conditions (an extra 15-20 kts) at GCI (the shortest runway we use) put the fear of god into some. It was therefore decided that on runways of less than 1800m, a flap setting of 35 degrees would be the mandatory setting, which reduced the landing speed a little bit. However, it was also realised that the landing speed should actually be 1.23 x stall speed, and as this slowed the touchdown by up to 12 kts in some circumstances, the reduction in speed offered by flap 35 over 15 became less important, but the 1800m runway rule has somehow stayed in place.
However, some of our pilots choose to land at all our destinations with the flaps set to 35, and when the flaps are moved from 15 to 35, this causes the marked nose down pitch that you find so uncomfortable. Personally, I found flap 35 landings as uncomfortable as you do, so chose to land in this configuration only when I had to.
Last edited by flybe.com; 27th Jan 2005 at 16:23.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks very much flybe.com. I now feel kind of at ease, although the fact that you also feel uncomfortable at 35 degrees flap isnt a great comfort! I have to fly flybe again in a coulpe of weeks an hoping for the 146. What is the actual stall angle in a Q400?
I'm sure like the pilots flying them, I will get used to the sensation. Thanks again.
I'm sure like the pilots flying them, I will get used to the sensation. Thanks again.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombardier/flyBE have today confirmed that the airline has ordered 20 Q400's in a 78 seat configuration. The order will take the airlines Q400 fleet up to 41 aircraft when all aircraft have been delivered.
The deal is said to be worth 485million USD.
Deliveries will be over a four year period.
The deal is said to be worth 485million USD.
Deliveries will be over a four year period.