Q400 Bombardier loses wheel on landing

[Chesty Morgan]

Now where did I use the word "permanently"?

You didn't, I would have quoted it if you had. You did say however, that Bombardier recommended grounding the entire fleet. They didn't. So I was qualifying my statement and clearing up what was your rather misleading allegation.

Anything that people buy is therefore wonderful.

Now where did I say wonderful? Generally though people do buy things that they know work and, in business, make money. That is how things become popular. The Q400 makes a lot of money and you can't deny that.

Yeah until an engine fails and you have to go around...

So we should never do gear down ferries?

suffice it to say that all the 146 standby crews were permanently employed flying up and down the country standing in for tech Q400s.

Or maybe someone didn't have access to the relevant data.

Or maybe someone feels the need to exaggerate that relevant data so that it fits his argument. Permanently...really? No.

I'll leave you to your Q400 love-fest.

It's not a love fest. I don't even fly it anymore but I don't believe that it deserves the baseless reputation perpetuated by people like you. Remind me again how much experience you have on the Q400.

[remoak]

One minor point before I leave you to it:

So we should never do gear down ferries?

You do gear-down ferries EMPTY...

[Chesty Morgan]

And we will never be required to perform a single engine go around with the gear down unless we are empty?

I don't know how the certification process works but surely considering a worst case scenario, OEI - gear down- MAUW, would be advisable.

[Clandestino]

It's quite refreshing to have PPRuNer that is passionately hating the aeroplane that is not Airbus.

Originally Posted by Remoak

I still think that it is an under-engineered, badly designed POS, designed to the same principles that led to the demise of the British aircraft industry (ie use as little metal as possible and spend as little on development and testing as you can get away with).

Excuse me, but we're talking about Bombardier (nee DeHavilland Canada) DHC-8 400 here and this birdie doesn't fall very short of being full-metal aeroplane. Have you ever seen AOM 12.1.4.2.? It's made of aluminum, steel and titanium with composites used just in some fairings and panels. Also it was certified by a few aviation authorities so you might as well go on fuming about certification criteria being inadequate or cut the POS story. Bear in mind that on average day worldwide Q400 fleet makes more than a thousand take-offs and landings and if aeroplane were really POS than its pilots would have to be supermen to prevent themselves from becoming headlines every couple of days.

[nick2007]

designed to the same principles that led to the demise of the British aircraft industry (ie use as little metal as possible and spend as little on development and testing as you can get away with).

If, by "using as little metal as possible", you mean "lightweight metallic structures":
Considered changing to a different industry?

Otherwise -
If, by "using as little metal as possible", you mean "composite structures":
See Clandestino's response.
Use of composite structure in the DHC-8-400 is generally limited to:
Leading edges.
Fairings.
Some control surfaces.
Landing gear doors.
Hatches.
Interior panels.

In this regard, it's no big change from the DHC-8-100, 200 or 300 (same Type Cert), and ofr that matter, no different from design practises employed by most manufacturers of similar-sized aircraft.
Again, considered changing to a different industry?

In any case, what you call "the demise of the British aircraft industry", I would call the "rationalisation". Britain still has a strong involvement in aerospace through BAE Systems and Airbus, even though some people might say otherwise. The number of companies has reduced through mergers and takeovers, however the same process has taken place all over the world.

[remoak]

If, by "using as little metal as possible", you mean "lightweight metallic structures":
Considered changing to a different industry?

I have no idea what that means.

See Clandestino's response

I have no idea what he/she/it is on about either.

what you call "the demise of the British aircraft industry", I would call the "rationalisation". Britain still has a strong involvement in aerospace through BAE Systems

You must be living on another planet. Maybe Australia qualifies as one? Britain, once the dominant force in aircraft manufacture, now just makes bits for Airbus Industrie. They are as involved in aerospace as Shane Warne is in the Australian test side.

[Cloud1]

For goodness sake what is with the quoting all the time and the nitty picking at comments.....the Q400 is a great little aircraft. Remoak all you have to do is look at the number of flights operated daily (too many for me to quote) and you can see that it is as reliable as any other aircraft.

It has had a few minor niggles which if maintained poorly will continue to affect the aircrafts performance. If maintained correctly however there is no reason why they cannot perform to a high standard albeit with the odd tech issue which I think you will find can cause disruption with any aircraft type be it prop or jet.

Lets move on to something else, I cannot help feeling that this thread has past its sale by date

[MarkD]

I don't know about Third World airlines but Porter have been building a very solid rep here with their Q400 fleet as a business airline. I guess it helps that the final assembly plant is only a few kms north if any of them break.