De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by C-GGGQ »

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/de-havill ... ash-8-400/

While a new "Q300" seems to be something there is a market for, does anyone really think stretching this thing further is a good idea? 100 seats is a long Dash.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by goingnowherefast »

Geometry with the tail contacting the runway is going to be a major hurdle. I suppose they could just put most of the stretch behind the main gear, stick the extra wheel on the tail and call it a Dash 8 tail dragger.
---------- ADS -----------
  

PostmasterGeneral
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by PostmasterGeneral »

The existing -400 is already certified for 86 pax, how many more do they need? For the love of god scrap the “common type” bullshit and make it a “Dash 9” or whatever.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by goingnowherefast »

Here's an idea:
Dash 9 300 is the 50 seat version, "PW129ng"
Dash 9 400 is the 78 seat version, "PW150ng"
Dash 9 500 is the 100 seat version, "PW170"

That might be able to realistically work with a common type rating.
---------- ADS -----------
  

shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1596
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by shimmydampner »

goingnowherefast wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:54 pm
I suppose they could just put most of the stretch behind the main gear, stick the extra wheel on the tail and call it a Dash 8 tail dragger.
:wink: Just what all those 2000 hour captains need. It'll be a goddam ground loop apocalypse.
---------- ADS -----------
  

hithere
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:05 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by hithere »

Not to mention that AC Express carriers cannot operate a turboprop greater than 80 seats, according to the ACPA scope clause
---------- ADS -----------
  

dhc#
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 7:38 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by dhc# »

With Jazz operating what...25+ Dash 8 300s that are over 30 yrs old...the 'mini' -400 might be a good replacement...
---------- ADS -----------
  

tps8903
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by tps8903 »

dhc# wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:07 am
With Jazz operating what...25+ Dash 8 300s that are over 30 yrs old...the 'mini' -400 might be a good replacement...
I think both Encore and Jazz would be all over a 40-50 seat model Q400. The 100 seat....not so much
---------- ADS -----------
  

MD-2
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:29 am
Location: Calgary

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by MD-2 »

I can't see a 50 seat -400 being successful due to the purchase / operating costs compared to an ATR.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by fish4life »

Wouldn’t it be easier to just throw the q400 avionics package in the 300 classic dash?
---------- ADS -----------
  

GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by GoinVertical »

There are some systems, wing, and fuselage differences, that would make it hard/expensive to build them simultaneously I would say...

Chop two sections out of the 400 fuselage, replace the PW150 for something smaller than the 150 but newer than the 120 series, and you'll have yourself a 50 seat airplane with operating costs the same or less than the ATR.

A 100 seat airplane obviously isn't for regional carriers. I'm sure they'd love it in the Asian market, and maybe Porter would too.

But what if the fuselage is long enough to stick 78 seats in a 2 or 3 class configuration? Makes more sense than a CRJ900 for shorter routes, and a lot cheaper to operate.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tps8903
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by tps8903 »

GoinVertical wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:09 am
There are some systems, wing, and fuselage differences, that would make it hard/expensive to build them simultaneously I would say...

Chop two sections out of the 400 fuselage, replace the PW150 for something smaller than the 150 but newer than the 120 series, and you'll have yourself a 50 seat airplane with operating costs the same or less than the ATR.

A 100 seat airplane obviously isn't for regional carriers. I'm sure they'd love it in the Asian market, and maybe Porter would too.

But what if the fuselage is long enough to stick 78 seats in a 2 or 3 class configuration? Makes more sense than a CRJ900 for shorter routes, and a lot cheaper to operate.
Yeah, that's a good thought. The 100 seat Q400 in a multi-class configuration will be a 78 seat airplane again, that fits within most scope clauses. And then SpiceJet can but it and make it 120 seats. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Human Factor
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:55 pm
Location: Between a dock and a hard place.

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by Human Factor »

fish4life wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:21 am
Wouldn’t it be easier to just throw the q400 avionics package in the 300 classic dash?
Except that the -300 is now the property of Viking Air in BC, no?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Will fix airplanes for food.

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by goingnowherefast »

The tail dragger idea was a joke. Nobody would ever want to buy them or fly in them. Could you imagine walking up/down a hill trying to board? Need a level isle.

A 100 seat "Dash 9" would be mainly for foreign markets. The multi class 78 seat idea is good too, but the real seller will be Africa, India and China.

It would need to be a complete evolution of the design, a Dash-8ng if you will. I'm calling it a Dash 9 because it needs a major update to the point of a different type rating. The basic design is almost 40 years old, definitely time for an update if they want to be viable in the turboprop market and not give everything to ATR. What other 40 year old airliners are flying around? Aren't many. Needs to be largely composite, new engines, again the PW120 series engine is 40 years old!

Q400 avionics in a Dash 8-300 would be stuffing 20 year old avionics in a 40 year old plane. Far from modern, and not improving anything.

Definitely should be able to do respectable runway performance, say 3000' balanced field for the smaller version and a 300+kt cruise. Gotta compete with the ATR 42-600 STOL version too given the DeHavilland heritage.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by fish4life »

737 and 320’s are 60 and 40 year old designs flying on the same type rating. Now the MAX is an example that maybe pushing it 60 years is too much.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by GoinVertical »

As much as I think whoever comes out with a brand new turboprop in this category would win the market, in reality the money and orders just aren't there to support it.

If it's not a common type, it ruins the incentive for existing customers to buy it over the ATR. If it doesn't have a majority of common parts with the -400, it will be too expensive to build.

Given the number of classic Dash's reaching end of life, and ATR launching the ATR 42-600S, if De Haviland Canada wants to be successful they have to get a 50 seater in production relatively quickly.

Great point on the age of the avionics though - they would be smart to upgrade the -400 while they're at it.

Put new avionics, new interior, newer ANVS, in the 400, call it a 450. Shorten the fuselage and put whatever new 3000ish shp PW can come up with and call it a Dash 8-350.

And passengers can suffer through 17 inch wide seats and vibration-induced nausea for another 30 years :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
  

plhought
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Calgary

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by plhought »

Human Factor wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:07 pm
Except that the -300 is now the property of Viking Air in BC, no?
Longview Aviation Capital/Viking Air/De Havilland Canada basically all the same company nowadays.

CL215/415, DHC-1 to all the Dash 8s are all under one big tent.

Edit: Forgot about the Chipmunk.😜 Build me some new one's of those!
---------- ADS -----------
  

WestTexasDeathPencil
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:10 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by WestTexasDeathPencil »

GoinVertical wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:20 am
Shorten the fuselage and put whatever new 3000ish shp PW can come up with and call it a Dash 8-350.
On that topic, does anyone else recall the engine P&WC was developing not too long ago for the hundred seat market? Was supposedly going to be scalable from 4,500 to 7,000 SHP with up to 20% better fuel burn and halved maintenance costs compared to PW1XX series. They were forecasting its entry into service around 2023 - 2025, but I haven't heard anything about it in the past two years.

If it hasn't been shelved, they could re-engine the 400, and use a flat-rated variant for the fifty seat version. Around 3,000 SHP would give it a power to weight ratio on par with the 400 with similar if not better performance. That would be ideal if they're serious about re-entering the US regional market.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by goingnowherefast »

Not sure if a 7000hp engine will flat rate economically to 3000hp. It would be loafing along at too low power to be efficient. It would have to be a fairly different design. Akin to the PW120 is quite a bit different to the PW150, axial compressors and all.

I always thought the PW150 was easily modified into a 7000hp engine? I'm sure nobody would argue with reduced maintenance and 20% less fuel burn too.

17" seat width is fine for my skinny ass :smt040
---------- ADS -----------
  

WestTexasDeathPencil
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:10 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by WestTexasDeathPencil »

As far as I'm aware, P&WC stated that that PW150 could be scaled up to 7,000 SHP, but there wasn't enough demand to justify it at the time. By the time that it would've been financially practical to develop, it was already a ten year old design based on architecture which preceded it by fifteen years, hence where the new engine originated. After oil prices collapsed, interest in a hundred seat turboprop dried up, and ATR and Bombardier more or less abandoned their research.

The 3,000 SHP range is a bit of an awkward middle ground without much coverage from existing designs. The original PW100 series tops out just below that, and the PW150 is quite a ways above it. These designs could be modified to include it, although I'm not sure how efficient it would be given that they were never meant to cover that range in the first place. They could opt for a new design, but I'm not sure there's enough of a market to justify it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sstocker31
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by sstocker31 »

I hear Q400 guys all the time revising their TAS with ATC, so I'm wondering if how much they are throttling back, and why?
I'm thinking it's overpowered to compete with the jets and just not economical to use the power so company mandates economy power settings....anyone with answers??
---------- ADS -----------
  

Capt. Underpants
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by Capt. Underpants »

goingnowherefast wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:14 pm
It would need to be a complete evolution of the design, a Dash-8ng if you will. I'm calling it a Dash 9 because it needs a major update to the point of a different type rating. The basic design is almost 40 years old, definitely time for an update if they want to be viable in the turboprop market and not give everything to ATR. What other 40 year old airliners are flying around? Aren't many. Needs to be largely composite, new engines, again the PW120 series engine is 40 years old!
The DHC8 and the ATR42 were introduced at virtually the same time. First flight on the Dash was in 1983, one year later on the ATR.
---------- ADS -----------
  

kevenv
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by kevenv »

sstocker31 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:05 am
I hear Q400 guys all the time revising their TAS with ATC, so I'm wondering if how much they are throttling back, and why?
I'm thinking it's overpowered to compete with the jets and just not economical to use the power so company mandates economy power settings....anyone with answers??
I asked some pilots the reason behind this, it has to do with availability of their gate / ground crew at destination. They have a window that they are aiming to arrive within. Based on their departure time and winds aloft they will increase or decrease TAS to hit that window. I've seen as much as a 50kt reduction, though most often its around 30kts. Occasionally they will request an increase, but rarely.
---------- ADS -----------
  

rxl
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:17 am
Location: Terminal 4

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by rxl »

sstocker31 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:05 am
I hear Q400 guys all the time revising their TAS with ATC, so I'm wondering if how much they are throttling back, and why?
I'm thinking it's overpowered to compete with the jets and just not economical to use the power so company mandates economy power settings....anyone with answers??
Jazz usually plans 300-330ish true unless there’s a big wind or the flight is way behind schedule. If you hear pilots amending their filed true airspeed with ATS it’s usually to go fast and make up lost time enroute.
The Q is capable of 350-360 true unless it’s really warm at altitude.
Is it over-powered?? Depends on whether you are a pilot or an accountant. I would think the ATR is preferred by the latter.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rowdy
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5057
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: On Borrowed Wings

Re: De Havilland contemplates stretched, shrunken Dash 8-400

Post by Rowdy »

You hear the Encore guys amending and slowing down all the time. rarely hear the jazz machines doing it.

Two words. Block Growth.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”