F50 Questions
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heard that Alliance were sending an F50 with lower MTOW (under 20 tonnes so no security required) into MHU a year ago, but then it got canned.
Think it was meant to be flying from ADL to MEB & to SYD via MHU on weekends.
Mt Hotham has not had any commercial flights for a few years now, after QF pulled out. QF used Dash 8-200s & -300s.
Think it was meant to be flying from ADL to MEB & to SYD via MHU on weekends.
Mt Hotham has not had any commercial flights for a few years now, after QF pulled out. QF used Dash 8-200s & -300s.
heard that Alliance were sending an F50 with lower MTOW (under 20 tonnes so no security required) into MHU a year ago, but then it got canned.
Think it was meant to be flying from ADL to MEB & to SYD via MHU on weekends.
Mt Hotham has not had any commercial flights for a few years now, after QF pulled out. QF used Dash 8-200s & -300s.
Think it was meant to be flying from ADL to MEB & to SYD via MHU on weekends.
Mt Hotham has not had any commercial flights for a few years now, after QF pulled out. QF used Dash 8-200s & -300s.
Also what would need to happento make the F50 be under 20 tonnes (MTOW). I think the MTOW for an F50 is 20,820kg
Perth Airport Spotter's Blog
Western Australia's Aviation News & Movements.Dec 21, 2016
JMC Investments Fokker 50 VH-FNB departs Australia on delivery flight : -End of an Era
VARA Fokker 50 VH-FNB c/n 20107
Flight 'SYU1608'
YPPH - WIHH
Photos: Mark Lynam
copyright 2016
JMC Investments Pty Ltd Fokker 50 VH-FNB c/n 20107 "seen here above" departing Perth Airport (YPPH/PER) Western Australia for the very last time.
FNB departed at 08.54hrs operating as flight 'SYU1608' flying non-stop to Halim Perdanaksuma Intl Airport (WIHH/HLP) arriving at 14.48hrs (LT) after an elapsed flight time of a staggering 7hrs.21mins, on delivery to new operator in Africa. Hexcode: 7C1B25
Below is a summary of departure dates & flight numbers of all former VARA / Skywest / Ansett Australia operated Fokker 50s. Note: Dates are when flights departed ex: Australia.
VH-FNA departed 09/12 as flight 'SYU1606'
VH-FNB departed 21/12 as flight 'SYU1608'
VH-FND departed 11/11 as flight 'SYU1605'
VH-FNF (5Y-FJE) departed 06/06 as flight 'SYU1602'
VH-FNH departed 20/12 as flight 'SYU1604'
VH-FNI departed 11/12 as flight 'SYU1609'
VH-FSL departed 02/07 as flight 'VH-FSL'
Last edited by Saintly; 27th May 2018 at 13:53.
Many years ago Airlines of SA ferried an F27 from GOV to ADL in 6 hrs 25 mins when ADL had a requirement of 30 mins holding due thunderstorms in area. PER-MEL nonstop was also done by the F27 VH-FNU.
PER-MEL nonstop was also done by the F27 VH-FNU.
The F50 ferry flight from Perth to Bali had no fuel tanks in the fuselage, all fuel was in the wings. I think the high gross weight version (20,820kg) had more fuel tanks installed in its wings. These high gross weight versions were the ones Skywest used.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fokker 50 will just about get to 260 Kts TAS (fully loaded at the right level). It burns about 600 kgs per hour whatever level you are at. And it's a very honest, simple aircraft with no real vices apart from having to press ASEL every time you selected a new level. And you never changed vertical mode as you reached your selected level. It was ahead of its time because of the PEC's (Propeller Electronic Control) and EEC's (Engine Electronic Control). To take off you pushed the levers to the detent. For climb you just pressed CLB on the Power Management Panel (or ERP). You cruised when you could no longer climb at 600 fpm. To descent, you allowed 3 miles per thousand and pulled the power back to about 30% torque. The autopilot was pretty good and CAT II ops. very straight forward. Circuits were also simple and flying inside the bug smashers was also easy. It required little runway (LCY was good fun) and did it's job. And as Chadzat says, you can go a long way in one. But the ATR 72 and Dash 8-400 would blow it into the ground on speed, fuel burn per payload. A King Air would also beat it on speed. The 20,820 was a typical MTOW for most operators although some did fly at an artificially lower weight to avoid airways charges, landing and parking fees.
PM
PM
I think the Brzilia is even quicker then the F50. F50 has more powerful engines but the reason being - its heavier. The Brasilia is sort of like a sleeker aircraft....the nose says it all...nice and pointy.
Don't know about "Shed”
ATC in Brisbane used to call the Sunnies 330/360 the Shed until Sunstate Management decided it was an unkind description and asked them to refer to it as the Shorts!
The beginning of PC.
There was also the supposed exchange in the USA between an aircraft and ATC.
TWR: “You’re number two to the Shed. You still have it in sight?”
A/C: “Well.. ah.. we did until it flew over the trailer park! Then we lost it!”
TWR: “You’re number two to the Shed. You still have it in sight?”
A/C: “Well.. ah.. we did until it flew over the trailer park! Then we lost it!”
Just had a thought......Dehavilland and then Bombardiar made the 72-seat Dash 8-Q400, and this aircraft had higher cruising speed (up to 360 knots) then the 50-seat Dash 8-300 aircraft. If Fokker was still around these days...do any of you think that they could of made an aircraft that was an upgrade from the F50 such as a 70 odd seat turboprop with higher cruise speed such as the Q400?
And going on from my question above...do you think in ten to 15 years time we will see a civilian turboprop aircraft made that genuinely approaches jet speeds such as 400 knots for example?
So far we have the Q400 which gets to 360 knots...but no other passenger turboprop cruises quicker.
There is of course that turboprop with the props at the rear (that italian plane), which is quicker then the Q400...but I dont count that aircraft as a passenger turboprop.
And going on from my question above...do you think in ten to 15 years time we will see a civilian turboprop aircraft made that genuinely approaches jet speeds such as 400 knots for example?
So far we have the Q400 which gets to 360 knots...but no other passenger turboprop cruises quicker.
There is of course that turboprop with the props at the rear (that italian plane), which is quicker then the Q400...but I dont count that aircraft as a passenger turboprop.
Just had a thought......Dehavilland and then Bombardiar made the 72-seat Dash 8-Q400, and this aircraft had higher cruising speed (up to 360 knots) then the 50-seat Dash 8-300 aircraft. If Fokker was still around these days...do any of you think that they could of made an aircraft that was an upgrade from the F50 such as a 70 odd seat turboprop with higher cruise speed such as the Q400?
And going on from my question above...do you think in ten to 15 years time we will see a civilian turboprop aircraft made that genuinely approaches jet speeds such as 400 knots for example?
So far we have the Q400 which gets to 360 knots...but no other passenger turboprop cruises quicker.
There is of course that turboprop with the props at the rear (that italian plane), which is quicker then the Q400...but I dont count that aircraft as a passenger turboprop.
And going on from my question above...do you think in ten to 15 years time we will see a civilian turboprop aircraft made that genuinely approaches jet speeds such as 400 knots for example?
So far we have the Q400 which gets to 360 knots...but no other passenger turboprop cruises quicker.
There is of course that turboprop with the props at the rear (that italian plane), which is quicker then the Q400...but I dont count that aircraft as a passenger turboprop.