AVCANADA

kinetic energy

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy
which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined
as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given
mass from rest to its stated velocity.

U-all gotta remember that Cat & I were trained & flew in the days when you had to land in the first 1000' of the runway,

I got it from someone that was on the apron that morning that they touched-down past Foxtrot (<2000' remaining)... for what its worth...

U-all gotta remember that Cat & I BLA BLA BLA

And "U-all" gotta remember that lots of airplanes got wrecked back in the day by guys landing short, long, sideways, etc etc.

Cat, what were you taught in Toulouse when you spent some time in the 'Bus sim? Put it down on the numbers, or else go around?

What does my Airbus training have to do with flying airplanes off airports?

There was no off airport training done at Airbus that I know of.

Is landing at CYTZ considered "off airport"?

I thought it would make more sense to compare airliners to airliners (and since the mighty Q-400 falls under TC's 705 subpart it would flown using the same performance calculations as an airliner), instead of DC-6's,

I thought it would make more sense to compare airliners to airliners (and since the mighty Q-400 falls under TC's 705 subpart it would flown using the same performance calculations as an airliner)

he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour

If my copilot misses the 1000' mark at Fort Simpson, Inuvik, or Yellowknife, he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour, and threatened with no take-offs or landings for the next 5 years. A simple "mental-discipline" adjustment is all that is required.

We have reached a new high in a deep thinking post.

Sorry if I used big words and upset your tummy.

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:

(Image of jet 1/5ish the size of subject turboprop)

Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

you weren't making a direct comparison

I had to read that about 6 times to figure out that you weren't making a direct comparison between the L-39 and the Q400 in terms of kinetic energy on landing.

37. Which of the following is the least correct answer:

a) The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.

b) Coriolis force is responsible for wind backing with
increasing altitude in the southern hemisphere.

c) None of the above.

d) All of the above.

And "U-all" gotta remember that lots of airplanes got wrecked back in the day by guys landing short, long, sideways, etc etc.