Dash 8 gear problems ( Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@remoak: I don't think that is doing justice to the Q400. The basic design of the Q300 appears to be quite rugged and most of that has been taken to the Q400.
Most problems in the initial phase were with newly designed systems such as a new type of doors and the interfacing between a completely new avionics suite made by a company Bombardier was new in dealing with (AFAIK).
As for the gear, all of CATIA probably can't tell you where corrosion is going to happen in exposed parts. We'll see whether more greasing/checking of the broken parts would have helped or if it was simply poorly (cheaply?) designed.
SAS has not been that happy with the Q400 but most of the other operators seem to be quite content, now that the really frequent problems that arose shortly after entry into service have been weeded out.
There is no doubt that a "new big turboprop" (maybe the "Electra/Britannia 2010"
) could be much better designed than the Q400 which is a stretch of a stretch (but yet maybe the basis of another stretch). Unfortunately no one has ventured to design such an airplane and so we'll have to keep up with the Q400 if we want near jet speeds at turboprop fuel burns.
Most problems in the initial phase were with newly designed systems such as a new type of doors and the interfacing between a completely new avionics suite made by a company Bombardier was new in dealing with (AFAIK).
As for the gear, all of CATIA probably can't tell you where corrosion is going to happen in exposed parts. We'll see whether more greasing/checking of the broken parts would have helped or if it was simply poorly (cheaply?) designed.
SAS has not been that happy with the Q400 but most of the other operators seem to be quite content, now that the really frequent problems that arose shortly after entry into service have been weeded out.
There is no doubt that a "new big turboprop" (maybe the "Electra/Britannia 2010"
) could be much better designed than the Q400 which is a stretch of a stretch (but yet maybe the basis of another stretch). Unfortunately no one has ventured to design such an airplane and so we'll have to keep up with the Q400 if we want near jet speeds at turboprop fuel burns.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpine Flyer - when flybe ordered the Q400 at fire sale prices - and in so doing, saved the production from line from certain closure - they were advised that the first few aircraft could be delivered, but would have to be returned to the factory after a short time for "remanufacturing". Amongst the many, many problems that the three-month factory visit was supposed to fix, was the distortion that was occurring to the upper fuselage between the leading edge of the wing and the cockpit windows. This was happening because the structure was basically not strong enough to withstand the forces imposed on the stretched fuselage. Now, any vaguely competent engineer could have figured that out before any metal was cut on the prototype. But, because the aircraft was being built to a price - not a proper engineering standard - it was allowed to proceed to production. When the problems started appearing, the cost of the fixes was enormous. Just ask SAS. Fuel efficiency comes at a price. Now that flybe has committed to the type in such large numbers, they have no choice but to smile and sing the praises of the Q400, whilst behind the scenes there has been some serious blood-letting over the last five years as the Q400 proved to be thoroughly unreliable in the early days. That is the only reason that they seem "reasonably happy" with their purchase. They can't afford to appear anything else. Having spent more time on the things than I care to remember, I can honestly say that I never want to set foot on one again. Noisy, vibey, cramped and unpleasant...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpine flyer, I agree with your quote:
@remoak: I don't think that is doing justice to the Q400. The basic design of the Q300 appears to be quite rugged and most of that has been taken to the Q400.
I have flown the Q400 for several years (I no longer do), it is a fairly rugged aircraft, with (as most aircraft suffer) initial early tech problems, most of which were cured by reboot of the systems by crew.
@remoak: I don't think that is doing justice to the Q400. The basic design of the Q300 appears to be quite rugged and most of that has been taken to the Q400.
I have flown the Q400 for several years (I no longer do), it is a fairly rugged aircraft, with (as most aircraft suffer) initial early tech problems, most of which were cured by reboot of the systems by crew.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q300 was quite rugged. However, stretch that rugged airframe to the extent that the Q400 did, and you lose a lot of the inherent strength if you don't add additional metal. Bombardier tried their hardest to not add additional metal, as doing so would negate the selling points of the aircraft. They had to add some eventually, but only because they had no choice.
How do you reboot a bent fuselage? Or, for that matter, the undercarriage?
Speaking of which, the aircraft appears to be impossible to land gently. No wonder bits break.
How do you reboot a bent fuselage? Or, for that matter, the undercarriage?
Speaking of which, the aircraft appears to be impossible to land gently. No wonder bits break.
Originally Posted by remoak
Speaking of which, the aircraft appears to be impossible to land gently. No wonder bits break.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak,
are you saying that the airframe is unsafe?
If you are, be specific; you say that an earlier defect - which I was not aware of, even though I flew it - has been rectified. If a problem did exist with the airframe and it has now been rectified, what is your current example of "bent fuselages"?
If its "the gear failed" - we know that already, but you keep mentioning unsafe fuselages. What do you mean???
FB
are you saying that the airframe is unsafe?
If you are, be specific; you say that an earlier defect - which I was not aware of, even though I flew it - has been rectified. If a problem did exist with the airframe and it has now been rectified, what is your current example of "bent fuselages"?
If its "the gear failed" - we know that already, but you keep mentioning unsafe fuselages. What do you mean???
FB
Last edited by flyingbug; 27th Sep 2007 at 13:29. Reason: finger problems
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: devonshire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingbug- the fuse has been strengthened by a mod from bombardier and it was only on the very first aircraft and early SAS etc, as i remember doing the mods!!!! ever since that the fuse has been mod'ed at build, so absolutley no problems what so ever!!! Me thinks that remoak may have other issues with things!!!!!!!!!!!! the undercarriage is a seperate issue, with the vendor of the particular failed part working close with the operators as far as i'm aware. We certify these lovely Q400's and would not do so if WE didnt feel that us or our families, or anyone were'nt safe to fly on it!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks embrearnotworthy,
I thought the truth would be along the lines of your post; thank you for clarifying the situation re the fuselage. Whilst I know that there aren't any problems with the Q400 fuselage, I just wanted to know what the justification was for previous posts re "bent" fuselages - and the answer it seems is "none".
FB
I thought the truth would be along the lines of your post; thank you for clarifying the situation re the fuselage. Whilst I know that there aren't any problems with the Q400 fuselage, I just wanted to know what the justification was for previous posts re "bent" fuselages - and the answer it seems is "none".
FB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyingbug
I never said that the fuselage on the Q400 is currently bent or unsafe, I am saying that this situation did occur on the early examples and was subsequently fixed in the "remanufacturing" that took place later. So nowhere have I said, or am I saying, that the Q400 is fundamentally unsafe (ie when the airframe is brand new).
What I AM SAYING is that the airframe was clearly built to the maxim of the late John W Thorp, who said that an aircraft design should start out just strong enough to keep the rain out, and then be tested to see where it broke first, fixed, tested again, fixed, etc etc etc. The point is, that the Q400 fuselage, as designed, was never strong enough. One wonders what else was under-designed on that airframe, and has yet to come to light (hopefully not via a catastrophic failure).
The Q400 is like many modern aircraft that are designed to be fuel-efficient and therefore light. They are only just strong enough to do the job, and consequently as they get older, the break more often and more easily. A classic example would be the difference between the manufacturing philosophies of the BAe 146 and the Boeing 737. The 146 has never had a structural or equipment failure that resulted in death... compare that to the 737, which has had many of both and consequently a lot of deaths from those causes. One was built to a standard, one was built to a price. Of course, the 146/RJ is no longer in production, but that was essentially a political decision, rather then an economic issue. The RJX would have been a winner.
As I said earlier, as far as I am concerned, the Q400 is a lightweight design that has many compromises, and I, for one, have no intention of ever flying in one again. Horrible. If you like it/feel safe in it, by all means enjoy your time in it.
I never said that the fuselage on the Q400 is currently bent or unsafe, I am saying that this situation did occur on the early examples and was subsequently fixed in the "remanufacturing" that took place later. So nowhere have I said, or am I saying, that the Q400 is fundamentally unsafe (ie when the airframe is brand new).
What I AM SAYING is that the airframe was clearly built to the maxim of the late John W Thorp, who said that an aircraft design should start out just strong enough to keep the rain out, and then be tested to see where it broke first, fixed, tested again, fixed, etc etc etc. The point is, that the Q400 fuselage, as designed, was never strong enough. One wonders what else was under-designed on that airframe, and has yet to come to light (hopefully not via a catastrophic failure).
The Q400 is like many modern aircraft that are designed to be fuel-efficient and therefore light. They are only just strong enough to do the job, and consequently as they get older, the break more often and more easily. A classic example would be the difference between the manufacturing philosophies of the BAe 146 and the Boeing 737. The 146 has never had a structural or equipment failure that resulted in death... compare that to the 737, which has had many of both and consequently a lot of deaths from those causes. One was built to a standard, one was built to a price. Of course, the 146/RJ is no longer in production, but that was essentially a political decision, rather then an economic issue. The RJX would have been a winner.
As I said earlier, as far as I am concerned, the Q400 is a lightweight design that has many compromises, and I, for one, have no intention of ever flying in one again. Horrible. If you like it/feel safe in it, by all means enjoy your time in it.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting,
Isn't that because the dashes are used more on shorter runways.
Also a bit on extra thrust near touch-down helps things; but harder to justify during short-field landings.
.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's getting off the subject a bit, but "A classic example would be the difference between the manufacturing philosophies of the BAe 146 and the Boeing 737. The 146 has never had a structural or equipment failure that resulted in death... compare that to the 737, which has had many of both and consequently a lot of deaths from those causes." is a totally meaningless comparison.
Only 387 146/RJs were ever built and only 150 odd are left flying, as against 7000 737s ordered or delivered, so it is hardly surprising that the 737 has had more problems.
Back to the Dash 8. As a result of these two incidents a new inspection has presumably been put in place which will probably result in components being replaced before failure from now on. This is normal for lots of aircraft (except perhaps the 146 of which not enough were built for any design problems to show up - assuming we ignore engine roll back, of course). In this case it got a lot of publicity because of Joe Spotter and his camcorder, otherwise would have probably gone almost unoticed.
As far as landing the thing goes, doing as Flybe.com says will result in smooth touchdowns in the 400, and in the 300/200 and probably 100 as well. However, the long undercarriage legs have to be built quite stiff, so they suffer from "wheel spin up shock" (for an explanation refer to the F27 flight manual!) and also feel horrible if you land with any drift on, so dipping the into wind wing and landing on one wheel first will also help.
Only 387 146/RJs were ever built and only 150 odd are left flying, as against 7000 737s ordered or delivered, so it is hardly surprising that the 737 has had more problems.
Back to the Dash 8. As a result of these two incidents a new inspection has presumably been put in place which will probably result in components being replaced before failure from now on. This is normal for lots of aircraft (except perhaps the 146 of which not enough were built for any design problems to show up - assuming we ignore engine roll back, of course). In this case it got a lot of publicity because of Joe Spotter and his camcorder, otherwise would have probably gone almost unoticed.
As far as landing the thing goes, doing as Flybe.com says will result in smooth touchdowns in the 400, and in the 300/200 and probably 100 as well. However, the long undercarriage legs have to be built quite stiff, so they suffer from "wheel spin up shock" (for an explanation refer to the F27 flight manual!) and also feel horrible if you land with any drift on, so dipping the into wind wing and landing on one wheel first will also help.
Drifting even further off topic, it is interesting to note that the PSA BAe146 (where a recently sacked and disgruntled employee, who was riding on the jump seat, shot both pilots) was supersonic before it hit the ground.
It was still in one piece.
Like the BAC 1-11, the BAe146 is built like a brick-built sh*thouse!
It was still in one piece.
Like the BAC 1-11, the BAe146 is built like a brick-built sh*thouse!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab
Au contraire. There are many VERY high hour 146s around, and there have been a grand total of zero structural failures (including the supersonic one mentioned above). You do not need identical samples to make a valid comparison, as any inherent defects would have shown up on at least one 146 airframe by now, if there were any. The fact that no such defects have occured across all those airframes makes the point nicely. Now add up all the 737 issues that have come to light (losing large sections of fuselage and rudder hardovers to name but two that spring to mind)...
So... how many Q400s have been built? And how many defects have shown up already on what are, by 146 standards, very young airframes? Did the 146 ever require "remanufacturing" on the scale that the Q400 has? As for rollback, which is not an inherent design fault that can lead to any sort of mechanical failure, how many people have been killed or injured by it? Compared to some of the issues that Boeing have had over the years, rollback is no more than a minor irritation.
a totally meaningless comparison... Only 387 146/RJs were ever built and only 150 odd are left flying, as against 7000 737s ordered or delivered, so it is hardly surprising that the 737 has had more problems.
This is normal for lots of aircraft (except perhaps the 146 of which not enough were built for any design problems to show up - assuming we ignore engine roll back, of course)
Remoak,
I don't know much about 737s so I did a very quick search on the internet. I found two cases of structural failure, both on 737-200 aircraft, one which was extremely high cycles operating in a salty environment with deficiencies in the operators maintenance program, and one which appears to have suffered from corrosion due to the hold being repeatedly filled with fish!. There have been three events which can be blamed on the rudder actuator - and there has been a programme modifying all 737s still in service, plus crew training in unusual attitude recovery and "crossover speed" which should prevent any more.
These accidents have happened whilst the world wide fleet has accumulated 171million hours, according to boeing. That would give a figure for fatal accidents due to structural failure or loss of control which wasn't crew error as one in every 34.2 million flight hours. I haven't been able to find any figures for the fleet hours flown for the 146/RJ but based on the proportions of a/c manufactured for the two types it might be about 13.2million hours, so assuming the aircraft was no better than the 737 you could expect one fatal accident for similar reasons to occur to a 146/RJ sometime in the next 50 years.
Obviously all of that is absolute cobblers, as you can prove anything by statistics. But comparing individual airframe hours is meaningless - there may well be many high houred 146s about on which no problems have appeared, but equally there are many individually high houred 737s in service which have had no problems. But that doesn't mean that no 737s will suffer from any faults, nor does it mean that no 146s will, however much the fan club might like it to.
None of which is relevant to the dash 8. I know you don't like it so i'm not going to even try to convince you of it, but I would contend that it is perfectly adequate for what it does and it's build quality is probably no worse than any other regional aircraft currently in production.
I don't know much about 737s so I did a very quick search on the internet. I found two cases of structural failure, both on 737-200 aircraft, one which was extremely high cycles operating in a salty environment with deficiencies in the operators maintenance program, and one which appears to have suffered from corrosion due to the hold being repeatedly filled with fish!. There have been three events which can be blamed on the rudder actuator - and there has been a programme modifying all 737s still in service, plus crew training in unusual attitude recovery and "crossover speed" which should prevent any more.
These accidents have happened whilst the world wide fleet has accumulated 171million hours, according to boeing. That would give a figure for fatal accidents due to structural failure or loss of control which wasn't crew error as one in every 34.2 million flight hours. I haven't been able to find any figures for the fleet hours flown for the 146/RJ but based on the proportions of a/c manufactured for the two types it might be about 13.2million hours, so assuming the aircraft was no better than the 737 you could expect one fatal accident for similar reasons to occur to a 146/RJ sometime in the next 50 years.
Obviously all of that is absolute cobblers, as you can prove anything by statistics. But comparing individual airframe hours is meaningless - there may well be many high houred 146s about on which no problems have appeared, but equally there are many individually high houred 737s in service which have had no problems. But that doesn't mean that no 737s will suffer from any faults, nor does it mean that no 146s will, however much the fan club might like it to.
None of which is relevant to the dash 8. I know you don't like it so i'm not going to even try to convince you of it, but I would contend that it is perfectly adequate for what it does and it's build quality is probably no worse than any other regional aircraft currently in production.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS experiences well documented problem
Fire engines in attendance as SAS DASH lands. However landing gear door problem is reported as well documented and not dangerous as gear is confirmed extended and locked
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe Dash 8 gear problem at EDI 23/6
I read on another site that a Flybe Dash 8 (G-JEDP) had undercarriage problems arriving at EDI today. It landed safely with fire services on full alert.
Does anyone have further details?
Does anyone have further details?