Eagle Air 1900
Kiwi PPRuNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: rockingham, western australia
Age: 42
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i saw one on approach to christchurch
airport the other day, they are weird
looking contraptions, there are bits and
pieces hanging off everywhere.
airport the other day, they are weird
looking contraptions, there are bits and
pieces hanging off everywhere.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are rather dark down the rear of the cabin, and have small windows that are positioned below head height when sitting, have alos heard that the cockpit is awkward to get into, but at least they go well. 
Confectionary Transfer Technician
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Island
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard from a fairly reliable source in Air Nelson that they were sucking more fuel than they expected on the shorter runs, going so far as to say that the Saab was more economical 
, If I'm talking a load of bollocks please correct me 
, If I'm talking a load of bollocks please correct me
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far Canard,
Speeds ar much the same as the metro, the metro works better(less fuel burn, better speed) in icing conditions and at lower altitudes (no ice vanes on the metro).
From a pax point of view, the 1900 provides better head room, and not so annoying on the ears.
The 1900 has a trim wheel, the metro does not, the 1900 is a real gem to land, the metro can be a challenge.
Metro is easier to taxi, can be done on one engine, uses a lot of battery on start.
Easier to get in and out of the metro cockpit.
The air con on the 1900 is nice.
Systems between the aircraft are similar.
DO NOT try and stop the blades on the metro when you shut down, wait until the have stopped spinning, on the 1900 its a free turbine so you open the door and stop the props soon after shutdown.
Blue line,
The SF340 empty weight is greater than the MTOW of the 1900, it has two 1750 shp engines, compared with the 1280 shp on the 1900.
You need to burn fuel to get that amout of aeroplane off the ground.
The fuel burn per pax is more than likely better on the SF340, but that is economies of scale, the 744 would be better still.
Not much if any speed dfference on short legs.
I let you draw your own conclusions.
Z
Speeds ar much the same as the metro, the metro works better(less fuel burn, better speed) in icing conditions and at lower altitudes (no ice vanes on the metro).
From a pax point of view, the 1900 provides better head room, and not so annoying on the ears.
The 1900 has a trim wheel, the metro does not, the 1900 is a real gem to land, the metro can be a challenge.
Metro is easier to taxi, can be done on one engine, uses a lot of battery on start.
Easier to get in and out of the metro cockpit.
The air con on the 1900 is nice.
Systems between the aircraft are similar.
DO NOT try and stop the blades on the metro when you shut down, wait until the have stopped spinning, on the 1900 its a free turbine so you open the door and stop the props soon after shutdown.
Blue line,
The SF340 empty weight is greater than the MTOW of the 1900, it has two 1750 shp engines, compared with the 1280 shp on the 1900.
You need to burn fuel to get that amout of aeroplane off the ground.
The fuel burn per pax is more than likely better on the SF340, but that is economies of scale, the 744 would be better still.
Not much if any speed dfference on short legs.
I let you draw your own conclusions.
Z
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: The Orion Arm
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BL - the "reliable" source probably wasn't particularly reliable, unless s/he has been misquoted. The sector fuel is very high on the 19D, and it does approach the Saab, but ONLY if you run the engines flat out at low level on short sectors. The only reason it approaches the Saab at these times is that the Saab engines are wound right back just after take-off, in order to preserve the life of the engines. They'd only last half the time on the wing otherwise. The point is, Saab operators have learnt to operate the Saab efficiently, just like EAG will with the 19D, by NOT routinely running the engines flat out at low levels on short sectors. 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 20deg N, 35deg C
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent. Now I know how to treat the 1900's on the WN-WB legs, and save the company gas .....turn them into Bandits ..... "cruise at180kts max!" <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: The Orion Arm
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TP, not sure where you are coming from. There isn't any problem on that route - the 19D will still go very fast at low level with the engines wound back, so no, you won't have to pretend its a Bandit - unless ATC want you to - and judging by your name, who knows?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Lil' ol' control tower in Kiwiland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinny
Been elsewhere for a while?! Long time no hear!
See you still poking the borax!!
When will those pedal'rs learn that on a typical WN day it's better to be watching than driving!
[Edited for spelling - <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ]
[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Visual Approach ]</p>
Been elsewhere for a while?! Long time no hear!
See you still poking the borax!!
When will those pedal'rs learn that on a typical WN day it's better to be watching than driving!
[Edited for spelling - <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ]
[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Visual Approach ]</p>
