Dash 8 VS jet (question)
Brent Murphy
Please could someone answer this question of a friend of mine. She is
having an arguement with her friend about the dash 8 plane.
She maintains it is intrinsically more dangerous and overall a poorer
aircraft for passenger
travel when compared to a conventional jet plane (eg boeing,airbus etc.)
If anyone in the know could highlight ANY ro's and con's of each and give
their opinion, I would really appreciate it.
Thank you
Brent Murphy - South Africa
email: bmu...@ilink.nis.za
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, "Brent Murphy" <bmu...@ilink.nis.za> said:
>Please could someone answer this question of a friend of mine. She is
>having an arguement with her friend about the dash 8 plane.
>
>She maintains it is intrinsically more dangerous and overall a poorer
>aircraft for passenger
>travel when compared to a conventional jet plane (eg boeing,airbus etc.)
[Note: I'm speaking as somebody who worked for deHavilland Canada for a
couple of years, and whose father worked for the same company for nearly 30
years]
Turboprop commuters are great planes for short hauls with not every high
loads. They're very fuel efficient and quiet. The ones from deHavilland also
have the advantage of having a good rate of climb (due to their STOL
heritage), which makes them good neighbours.
They have a few disadvantages, though - they tend to fly lower than jets, for
example. This means they spend more time at the altitudes where icing is a
problem. Many of the recent crashes of turboprop commuters have come about as
a direct or indirect result of icing. They also don't have as much excess
thrust as a jet, which means that they may not be able power out of a problem
(icing, loss of one engine, etc) as well as a jet.
Another possible problem is that pilots on commuter airlines generally have
less experience than the ones in big airlines. However, comparing pilots
flying turboprops versus ones flying small regional jets, I guess we're going
to have to wait for the results of the American Airlines negotiations to see
if the regional jets will get the pilots still earning starvation wages while
working their way up, or the ones making good money because they've "made
it".
Given the choice as a passenger between a Dash-8 or a Canadair Regional Jet,
I'd probably still pick the Dash-8. It's a nicely built aircraft, it's
cheaper to run so the tickets would be cheaper, and it's quieter so you can
get a flight at night.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com), Rochester Flying Club
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/rfc/">RFC Web Page</a>
RFC is selling two of our PA28-181 Piper Archer IIs. See web page for details.
Michael Oxner
On 16 Mar 1997 16:21:32 GMT, "Brent Murphy" <bmu...@ilink.nis.za>
wrote:
>She maintains it is intrinsically more dangerous and overall a poorer
>aircraft for passenger
>travel when compared to a conventional jet plane (eg boeing,airbus etc.)
Being an avid Dash 8 fan, this may be a little biased.
Over short hauls(say, less than an hour's flight) I hear the Dash 8
would be more cost effective. Other things to consider, of course,
would be the lay of the land. For example, in the Maritime Provinces
of Canada, the runways tend to be shorter than some jet operator like
to see, so that makes the Dash 8 even better looking. There are many
times in the winter months when a jet pilot won't even think about
landing, such as on an ice-covered runway that's only 5,000 feet long.
The Dash 8 could use the same runway with a stiff crosswind(which is
sometimes the case if the airport is to be used at all).
The other fact is that airlines that have replaced turboprop service
with jet service have seen a slight increase in business. It seems
that the flying public would prefer jets to airplanes that, I've heard
one person say when the Dash 8 first flew, "Are so old that they still
use propellers."
The Dash 8 makes many runs through my neck of the woods every day and
there's no airplane I'd rather be in if my flight encountered icing
conditions. 90 degree crosswinds and tailwinds of 15 knots are
routinely handled, shorter runways are used and the airplane provides
excellent efficiency on shorter routes. All factors that make an
airplane great from an operator's point of view. Now all you have to
do is consider your passengers...
The good news is that you're likely to get into airports in adverse
whether. With such a slow flying speed on short final, I have seen
Dash 8's land in thick fog when the jets(except those with CAT II ILS
certification) couldn't get on the ground. This means that as a
passenger, you may be more likely to get where you're going. On
shorter routes, you see very little time savings. For example, a Jet
travelling a flight of about 90 NM will do it in about 20 minutes,
wheels up to wheels down. A Dash 8 can do the flight in about 28
minutes. Not much difference, so the passenger doesn't lose much time.
As far as comfort goes, there are some turboprops that are notorious
for limited space(The Jetstream series, for example). The Dash 8 has a
large cabin for a regional turboprop, although there are a few with
more space for each individual, like the Dornier 328.
I still have to say the Dash 8 is more favorable over the jet in most
cases. But that's opinion based on my own experiences and my
environment as well.
Mike Oxner
pac...@nbnet.nb.ca
Dave Sutton
> ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:
> Another possible problem is that pilots on commuter airlines generally have
> less experience than the ones in big airlines.
Let's see.....
10,000 hours of flight time, with 9000 hours on autopilot
and 1 landing per every 3 hours of flight time
OR
5000 hours of flight time with 2000 hours on autopilot and
1 landing per every 40 minutes of flight time....
Which represents more 'real' experience??
Having flown with both Regional Turboprop pilots
and with Jet guys (I have done both jobs) I would have
to say that the BEST pilots I have flown with have been
the regional pilots...they just do more 'flying' and less time
watching George fly. In addition, they fly FAR more approaches
and spend FAR more time in the weather.
Come on here guys, the Regional Airlines represent FAR more than
a stepping stone to a 'Real' job, they are a career track in
themselves. Just because a pilot is a regional pilot doesn't mean
he has not 'Made it'...I knew plenty of guys at the regional where I
worked that had 20 years of experience at that company and were
perfectly happy making a few dollars less and spending more time
at home.
**********************************************************************
* David Sutton, Red Star Aviation pil...@planet.net *
* Personal: HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/ *
* Red Star: HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html *
* Russian Aviation Page HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html *
**********************************************************************
AliceGj
>Yup...take Horizon for example. Their Dash-8's have Flight Dynamics
>HUD displays and fly Category III operations (That means zero-zero,
guys..)
Uh, no. Only Cat III C allows zero RVR. Cat III A and B need a non
zero RVR, specifically around 700 and 600 feet respectively, depending on
the airport and aircraft. I don't know of any published Cat III C
approaches in the
west. Even San Francisco, fog capital of the world, has only A and B.
Alice
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, Dave Sutton <pil...@planet.net> said:
>Dash-8? Nothing second rate about this airplane. It's a small Boeing.
Boeing just about destroyed deHavilland Canada. Please don't mention Boeing
in the same breath as DHC around my father. Thank god for Bombardier.
Dave Sutton
> So...@not.here (Michael Oxner) writes:
> The good news is that you're likely to get into airports in adverse
> whether. With such a slow flying speed on short final, I have seen
> Dash 8's land in thick fog when the jets(except those with CAT II ILS
> certification) couldn't get on the ground. This means that as a
> passenger, you may be more likely to get where you're going.
Yup...take Horizon for example. Their Dash-8's have Flight Dynamics
HUD displays and fly Category III operations (That means zero-zero, guys..)
I was sitting at Sun Valley ID with my jet, lamenting the weather
which was so poor that we couldn't DEPART. I heard a noise
and wondered what in the devil it was..It was a Horizon Dash landing
out of a Microwave approach (MLS) using the HUD for CAT III MLS (!!).
Sun Valley, FYI, is a one-way in, one-way out airport. BUT the Dash
was able to fly a far steeper approach than the jets, and was able to
fly a privately commisioned MLS _the wrong way_ coming DOWN the
valley...pretty impressive to say the least. The MLS allowed a very steep
curved glidepath that winds through the steeply descending valley, and the
missed approach is out the valley mouth into the flatlands south.
I had flown the Dash-8-100 and liked it a lot...Remember, troops, that a
turboprop is just a extremely high bypass turbofan without a nacelle
hiding the fan from public view.. Remember the MD-80 variant with
the experimental Ultra high Bypass ratio jet?? It was just a big pusher turboprop...
Dash-8? Nothing second rate about this airplane. It's a small Boeing.
Dave Sutton
> ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:
> In a previous article, Dave Sutton <pil...@planet.net> said:
> Boeing just about destroyed deHavilland Canada. Please don't mention Boeing
> in the same breath as DHC around my father. Thank god for Bombardier.
I meant that from a systems viewpoint. Cockpit design, etc. For instance,
switches forward for 'on' and aft for 'off'. Looks funny on the overhead
panel when the switch is really 'down' as you look at it, but is 'on' since
it is forward...a Boeing thing familiar to any B-driver.
I turned a few switches 'off' and not on for the first month
on the beast myself....mostly landing lights :-)
Have no clue about politics RE: Boeing VS Bombardier, but the aircraft
is designed to a very high standard.
Dave Sutton
> ali...@aol.com (AliceGj) writes:
> >Yup...take Horizon for example. Their Dash-8's have Flight Dynamics
> >HUD displays and fly Category III operations (That means zero-zero,
> guys..)
> Uh, no. Only Cat III C allows zero RVR. Cat III A and B need a non
> zero RVR, specifically around 700 and 600 feet respectively, depending on
> the airport and aircraft. I don't know of any published Cat III C
> approaches in the west. Even San Francisco, fog capital of the world, has only A and B.
I was simplifying the system for public consumption...
(I have been Cat-2 and Cat III A qualified myself...)
I didn't think it important to break it down into 'all'
of the subcategories...Suffice it to say the Dash does
a VERY good job of all weather ops.
We used to practice 'emergency' Cat III C approaches in the
simulator for the Dash-8. The glideslope system is auto-attenuating
based on Radar Altimetry, so the slope doesn't go nuts at the last
few feet. We would fly stabilized to 50 feet, halve the power there,
halve the power again at 20 feet, and close the power at 5 feet.
The nose pitches up and up to keep the slope, and the thing will
land on the fixed distance markers on the centerline every time.
(never tried it for real, not even on a deadhead leg ;-)
I WOULD stake my life on this procedure if I 'had' to....
Thanks also for the advice in private email RE: the Sun Valley MLS.
Since it is a private approach, I have never seen the approach
plate for it. It's a straight-in approach, not a curved azimuth MLS
(although the MLS system is capable of that as well...)
If anybody has a plate for the Sun Valley MLS, email and
I'll give a FAX number, would love a copy of it..
Dash-8 drivers code words for the day: FARIN & SORLEG
If you know what THESE words mean then we can REALLY
talk about the Dash-8's...
Any takers for the above test?? (Except dash8???)
Pacifier User
Dave Sutton (pil...@planet.net) wrote:
:
: Dash-8 drivers code words for the day: FARIN & SORLEG
:
: If you know what THESE words mean then we can REALLY
: talk about the Dash-8's...
:
: Any takers for the above test?? (Except dash8???)
Dave, we use FIBARP & LOGERS but we had the "G" deactivated on all our
Dashes due to we never needed that short of performance, even at SUN :-)
aw...@pacifier.com
Paul Tomblin
>> Boeing just about destroyed deHavilland Canada. Please don't mention Boeing
>> in the same breath as DHC around my father. Thank god for Bombardier.
>
>
>I meant that from a systems viewpoint. Cockpit design, etc. For instance,
>switches forward for 'on' and aft for 'off'. Looks funny on the overhead
>panel when the switch is really 'down' as you look at it, but is 'on' since
>it is forward...a Boeing thing familiar to any B-driver.
Hmmm. Since the -8 was in production long before Boeing stuck their
interfering noses into the Canadian aircraft business, I wonder if this was
common to all deHavilland aircraft, or if it was changed after Boeing took
over? Any Dash-7 or Twotter drivers know?
(My dad was Chief of Chemistry and Non-Metallics, so he's not one I could ask
about the inside of the cockpit. Although he can tell you every composite
panel on the airframe, and how much it saved over the equivalent metal one.
And how long they spent with the chicken cannon verifying that they'd hold up
to a standard bird strike.)
Roy Smith
> Boeing stuck their interfering noses into the Canadian aircraft business
What in particular did Boeing do to deserve such hostility? Other than
build a good product and sell it with much success, to the disadvantage of
their competitors who were unable to compete in a global market?
I might point out that many of newest New York City Subway cars I ride in
are built by Bombardier, who seem to have stuck their interfering noses into
the US rail car business. And some of the electricity which makes those
cars move was probably generated by Hydro Quebec, who seem to have stuck
their noses into the US power business (and just about destroyed LILCO).
Should we move this to rec.aviation.politics.nafta? :-)
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Copyright 1997 Roy Smith
For-profit redistribution prohibited
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, r...@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) said:
>ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:
>>>> Boeing just about destroyed deHavilland Canada.
>> [...]
>> Boeing stuck their interfering noses into the Canadian aircraft business
>
>What in particular did Boeing do to deserve such hostility? Other than
>build a good product and sell it with much success, to the disadvantage of
>their competitors who were unable to compete in a global market?
Because deHavilland had THREE good products that were selling well when Boeing
took over. Boeing killed two of those products, the Twin Otter and the Dash
7, and killed development projects that were designing stretched and follow-on
versions of the Dash-8. They also alienated lots of top people at DHC, and
caused lots of good people to quit. They did *nothing* to improve
deHavilland, and basically mined it for money for a couple of years, tried to
turn it into Seattle North, and then gave up, reneged on the loans that the
Canadian government gave them to buy the company, and took the money and ran.
>I might point out that many of newest New York City Subway cars I ride in
>are built by Bombardier, who seem to have stuck their interfering noses into
>the US rail car business. And some of the electricity which makes those
I'd also point out that Hawker Siddley Canada was making rail cars for the New
York City subways for 25+ years. Bombardier did nothing to change the balance
there.
Paul Considine
Hi,
I fly the Dash-8-100/300 in Australia, and we operate these aeroplanes over
a variety of stage lengths.
Our shortest is 194 nm, and our longest is 770 nm, when the loads permit,
we fly the 300 on the longer flights with a big fuel load and get there and
back wothout stopping for fuel.
All the strips we go to are dirt, no navaid mining strips, and only 1 has
fuel facilities. Summer temps into the high 40 C - 46 -47 C is not
uncommon. even in winter we sit around ISA + 10-15, summer is ISA+25 ish
I am interested to see what you sort of operations you use your dashes for,
I suspect that the Canadians would roll their eyes if they really knew what
we did with their aeroplanes - as far as the distances we cover I mean!
We also have the UNS-1B in our -300's and -200, so I am interested in what
nav gear you have got in your aeroplanes.
For information we are the biggest dash-8 operator in Australia, with 2 x
315, 3 x 103, 4 x 202 ( 3 of the -202's are maritime patrol aeroplanes)
Cheers
Paul
Pacifier User <aw...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<5gp6k4$ib4$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
Pacifier User
Paul Considine (pa...@space.net.au) wrote:
: All the strips we go to are dirt, no navaid mining strips, and only 1 has
: fuel facilities. Summer temps into the high 40 C - 46 -47 C is not
: uncommon. even in winter we sit around ISA + 10-15, summer is ISA+25 ish
We have 23 -100's at Horizon. They will be replaced with -200's over the
next couple years. We fly them in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and
British Columbia. Not nearly the adverse conditions you fly in! All hard
surface runways with instrument approaches. The most unusual approach
being the MLS to Sun Valley, Idaho (Friedman Memorial Airport). Gear down
and flaps 35 at 15,000 ft msl, then down 6 degree glide path to airport
elevation of 5,315 ft. We have special authorization for up to 20 knots of
tailwind at Sun Valley on that approach. Other than that, it's pretty much
normal stuff.
: We also have the UNS-1B in our -300's and -200, so I am interested in what
: nav gear you have got in your aeroplanes.
Ours have Bendix/King KNS-660 Rnav and Flight Dynamics HUD. I'm not sure
what FMS will be installed in the -200's when we get them but UNS-1B
sounds familier.
Gary Neff
Then, there're the guys that fly jets for regional airlines. :-)
Gary
In article <5gjfoj$e...@jupiter.planet.net>, Dave Sutton <pil...@planet.net>
wrote:
>> ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:
>
>> Another possible problem is that pilots on commuter airlines generally have
>> less experience than the ones in big airlines.
>
>
>Let's see.....
>
>10,000 hours of flight time, with 9000 hours on autopilot
>and 1 landing per every 3 hours of flight time
>
>OR
>
>5000 hours of flight time with 2000 hours on autopilot and
>1 landing per every 40 minutes of flight time....
>
>Which represents more 'real' experience??
>
>
>Having flown with both Regional Turboprop pilots
>and with Jet guys (I have done both jobs) I would have
>to say that the BEST pilots I have flown with have been
>the regional pilots...they just do more 'flying' and less time
>watching George fly. In addition, they fly FAR more approaches
>and spend FAR more time in the weather.
>
alb...@summit.net
In Article<5goou2$j...@jupiter.planet.net>, <pil...@planet.net> writes:
> Path: news.summit.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-13.sprintlink.net!jupiter.planet.net!usenet
> From: Dave Sutton <pil...@planet.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
> Subject: Re: Dash 8 VS jet (question)
> Date: 19 Mar 1997 13:15:46 GMT
> Organization: Dave Sutton, Red Star Aviation
> Lines: 53
> Message-ID: <5goou2$j...@jupiter.planet.net>
> References: <19970318022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hack-10.planet.net
> X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.)
> Dash-8 drivers code words for the day: FARIN & SORLEG
>
> If you know what THESE words mean then we can REALLY
> talk about the Dash-8's...
>
> Any takers for the above test?? (Except dash8???)
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> * David Sutton, Red Star Aviation pil...@planet.net *
> * Personal: HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/ *
> * Red Star: HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html *
> * Russian Aviation Page HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html *
> **********************************************************************
SORLEG? HOW ABOUT "LOSER" ... SINCE THE "G" IS DISCONNECTED ANYWAY.
jvidal
F=Flaps; A=AntiSkid: R=Rudder; I=InbSpoilers; N=Normal Brakes
S=Steering; O=Outb Spoillers; R=Rudder; L=Landing Gear; E=EmerBrakes;
G(100srs)=Ground spoileers
Joao Vidal
DHC-8 driver Schreiner/Sabena
alb...@summit.net wrote in article
<NEWTNews.859182...@albert.summit.net>...
begin 600 PH-SDR.jpg
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
:[,T=>[U1<\[_`*C4?_?@45A45KR>9ES'_]D8
`
end
Dave Sutton
Hey there!! This guy knows.
Now, the Question that the answer is for, is the following:
What hydraulic systems run off of #1 and from #2 engine pumps:
In other words, what do you LOSE when you lose #1 or #2 engine.
Number 1: FARIN
Number 2: SORLEG
And you BETTER know this, since landing without brakes
is a bitch!! (yes there is a procedure to use a secondary system..)
The Dash-8 has more hydraulics than you can shake a sorleg at...
See ya,
Pacifier User
Dave Sutton (pil...@planet.net) wrote:
: ...since landing without brakes is a bitch!! (yes there is a procedure
: to use a secondary system..) The Dash-8 has more hydraulics than you
: can shake a sorleg at...
except when you have a massive fire on the #2 side and lose the both
systems (including emergency brake).....your speed arriving at the gate
is a little higher than normal, then you put a big scratch in the
airframe! :-)
aw...@pacifier.com
Dave Sutton
Sounds like Henson at BWI a couple of years ago..
Or when, like a certain guy I know, you decide to make a single
engine taxi without flipping the switch and find yourself without
brakes and under the canopy of the passenger terminal with the
cockpit roof dented down and the cockpit door jammed. :-)
The copilot got a bit claustrophobic and tried to get out through
the windshield with the crash axe..he succeeded in hurting
himself when the axe bounced off of the (birdstrike proof)
acrylic windscreen and hit him in the head. Dummy.
I was flying for a competing carrier in the same area when this
happened and it was the source of much amusement. Later
we merged with this same carrier and were not impressed by the
fact that the guy hadn't been fired, and in fact was management!!
Steve Watkins
Dave Sutton wrote:
> I was flying for a competing carrier in the same area when this
> happened and it was the source of much amusement. Later
> we merged with this same carrier and were not impressed by the
> fact that the guy hadn't been fired, and in fact was management!!
>
Yeah, Dave, next time you see him he'll probably be working for the
FAA ;-)
Steve Watkins
Pacifier User
Not only that, he'll be that airlines POI!!!!
Steve Watkins (USFMDNRGremo...@IBMMAIL.COM) wrote:
: Dave Sutton wrote::
Dave Sutton
> : Dave Sutton wrote::
> : > I was flying for a competing carrier in the same area when this
> : > happened and it was the source of much amusement. Later
> : > we merged with this same carrier and were not impressed by the
> : > fact that the guy hadn't been fired, and in fact was management!!
> : >
> :
> : Steve Watkins (USFMDNRGremo...@IBMMAIL.COM) wrote:
> : Yeah, Dave, next time you see him he'll probably be working for the
> : FAA ;-)
> :
> : Steve Watkins
> aw...@pacifier.com (Pacifier User) writes:
> Not only that, he'll be that airlines POI !!!!
Well, I hate to say it, but the most limp-wristed weenie that ever
was a Captain at the outfit became a Fed locally but they
wouldn't let him inspect the airline (conflict of interest) BUT
it was fun to work with him on GENAV questions, since you
could always remind him of his transgression in a prior life...
I'm sorry to say he was moved to another district though..he
was actually a decent Fed..
Our POI was a great guy, also an Aerobatic Competency
Evaluator...Since I always flew airshows I got along with
him great.
Pacifier User
Dave Sutton (pil...@planet.net) wrote:
: Our POI was a great guy, also an Aerobatic Competency
: him great.
Same at Horizon, our POI is a real nice guy and very sharp too.
We took delivery of our first -200 a couple weeks ago. It's in the shop
getting HUD install and finishing touches before it comes to PDX. It will
be nice to have Dornier speed with DeHavilland reliability.
aw...@pacifier.com
Dave Sutton
> aw...@pacifier.com (Pacifier User) writes:
> Same at Horizon, our POI is a real nice guy and very sharp too.
'Most' of them are...
> We took delivery of our first -200 a couple weeks ago. It's in the shop
> getting HUD install and finishing touches before it comes to PDX. It will
> be nice to have Dornier speed with DeHavilland reliability.
> aw...@pacifier.com
This is a 100 fuselage with 300 engines?
Is it 'really' that fast? It wasn't yet built when I
left the Dash program. EFIS too?
HORSEPOWER, we need more HORSEPOWER!!! :-)
Pacifier User
Dave Sutton (pil...@planet.net) wrote:
:
: This is a 100 fuselage with 300 engines?
: left the Dash program. EFIS too?
Yes, 37 seats with the bigger engines....
I don't have the URL here, but the Bombardier (sp?) web site has the specs
on it. Oh, we're also getting active noise reduction installed.
I don't know what avionics it has either (sorry, I'll have more info
later).
Did you have ZNTOL or DDTOL restrictions where you flew the -100? We sure
do, but that will almost be completely eliminated with the -200 (talk
about happy dispatchers!).
tony
aw...@pacifier.com