Porter has their first Q400

Fresh Prince of King Air · Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:20 pm

I read the article on CBC.ca and went to airliners to see if there were any pics up yet but couldn't find anything...

Has anyone seen it yet?

C-GPFG · Post by **C-GPFG** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:38 pm

They have just confirmed for the CNE Air Show.

W5 · Post by W5 » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:36 pm

http://www.contrailsphotography.com/cop ... =7&pos=132

B-777 · Post by **B-777** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:31 pm

man that is an ugly paint job.
Sorry i had to say it, i am glad those guys exist, don't get me wrong.
i know lots of people there, and i am glad they found what they like, but that paint job is ugly.

oates76 · Post by **oates76** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:26 pm

It's a little JetBlueish. Cool to see their first plane though, I hope it works out for them.

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:25 pm

ugly paint job?
man...what an ugly plane

flystraightin · Post by **flystraightin** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:31 pm

ohh man, I like that livery! We get the QX Q400, its an awesome plane. Its fast, roomy and very quiet.

gasper · Post by **gasper** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:24 am

Classy Paint Job!

B-777 · Post by **B-777** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:17 pm

may it looks good from the inside with Gass Cockpit...and fast.
but it is just a dash 8.
ugly and stretch....typical Bombardier, let's designe a plane 40 years ago and stretch it, more and more and more...

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:31 am

777

look how long Boeing used the 707 airframe (E-3 etc), or Lockheed the Electra/Orion, or the BAe Comet/Nimrod... they're all at it mate.

[edit: hope it should be obvious but the Nimrod ref was made before the RAF crash in Afstan rather than because of it.]

C-GPFG · Post by **C-GPFG** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:40 pm

The inside sure does smell nice...all leather seats.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:38 am

Now this is an ugly paint job...sexy plane though!

http://www.contrailsphotography.com/cop ... =7&pos=129

Buster

popo · Post by **popo** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:27 pm

So, when it is going to start fying? that shinny Q 400?

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:55 pm

Safety issues loom if airport expands
Sep. 4, 2006. 01:00 AM

Opponents miss the point

Letter, Aug. 31.

Every thinking person knows that the air, water and noise pollution from the Toronto Port Authority's airport expansion plan will sound the death knell for waterfront rejuvenation. You can have a busy waterfront airport or a rejuvenated waterfront, but not both.

But there is another reason why this incredibly destructive plan needs to be stopped — the safety of passengers and nearby residents and workers.

Current U.S. Federal Aviation Administration standards call for a combined total of 8,000 feet for runway and runway safety areas to safely handle Bombardier's Q400, the plane to be used in the current expansion plan. The main runway at the island airport offers a combined total of less than 4,600 feet. No margin for error means an error is almost certain to happen eventually. A very large Q400 will end up sunk in the harbour or a flaming wreck in a downtown neighbourhood.

There is a small window of opportunity to stop this incredibly destructive plan that relies on massive public subsidies to aid a lone promoter's dream of combusting millions of litres of toxic aviation fuel within the GTA's most important regional park.

People need to email Stephen Harper that he should get with Toronto's vision of a clean, green, rejuvenated waterfront.

Marc Brien, Research Co-ordinator, CommunityAIR,

Toronto

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:08 pm

Where do these people come up with these numbers!?!?!?!?

From the Bombardier site:

Airfield Performance:

FAR takeoff field length
(SL, ISA, MTOW, HGW) 4,600 ft 1,402 m

FAR landing field length
(SL, ISA, MLW, HGW) 4,221 ft 1,287 m

Takeoff field length for 500nm sector
(ISA, 70 Pax, IGW) 3,720 ft 1,134 m

Landing field length for 500nm sector
(ISA, 70 Pax, IGW) 3,380 ft 1,030 m

I'm assuming these numbers are the runway length required and not the actual take off distance. Anyone care to confirm?

http://www.q400.com/q400/en/specifications.jsp

Valhalla · Post by **Valhalla** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:12 pm

Wow, 8000 feet for a Dash-8?? What FAA recommendation was that? There is plenty of safety margin built into the 4000 foot runway length at the island airport. Maybe CommunityAir should devote their energy to a more meaningful cause than shoveling bullshit.

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:19 pm

Here's the letter I just sent to the Star:

Sir

Marc Brien's letter (September 4) was deeply disturbing in that should we take it at face value, two shocking conclusions can be drawn. The first is that Transport Canada would knowingly approve any passenger air service using aircraft and airports that are unsuitable for that service. The second related to the figure of 8,000 feet of runway quoted by Mr. Brien. Adherence to this would make the Q400 approval of October 2001 granted for London City Airport in Great Britain, an airport much more restricted by buildings than the Island Airport is, deeply unsafe given their 4,000 or so feet of usable runway. It would also question the current and planned services operated there by various airlines using that aircraft.

I look forward to Transport Canada responding to Mr. Brien's allegations, as they should have done on the many previous occasions CommunityAIR has made them. I look forward to Mr. Brien explaining how an overrun such as Air France 358 would have been less safe to bystanders by ending up in Lake Ontario as opposed to a short distance from Highway 401. I look forward to Bombardier explaining how Mr. Brien can quote 8,000 feet as a mandatory figure while their website says 3,720 feet at Porter's 70 passenger specification. I also look forward to a commitment from both the GTAA and the Port Authority to installing Engineering Materials Arresting Systems at their respective airports, as London City Airport has done.

Yours sincerely,
(EI-EIO)

[damn - didn't see that typo in EMAS)

1000tolevel · Post by **1000tolevel** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:21 am

Under CAR's, don't you have to be able to land and stop within 70% of the runway available to be dispatched?

C-GPFG · Post by **C-GPFG** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:33 pm

It's a great looking plane...here's some shots from the air show...

Nightflight · Post by **Nightflight** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:47 am

cameltrader wrote:Classy Paint Job!

I second that. From the comments it might not be to everyone's taste, but it is indeed very classy and tasteful. Just the image I' sure they are trying to portray.

The_fly_guy_in_the_sky · Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:32 pm

It is just a matter of Time before those planes are sold to Jazz. Porter made boatloads of money just by stopping jazz from going to the island. Especially since it's the old air ontario boys at it...they are in it for the monopoly game affect. They'll have Jazz painted on the side....and I can't wait for that day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone care to comment

squawk 7600 · Post by **squawk 7600** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:26 am

no, not really.

Fresh Prince of King Air · Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:47 pm

Air Ontario boys? Are ya sure about that......

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:10 pm

C150heavy see here:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/money/national/ ... r-air.html

Fresh Prince of King Air · Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:33 pm

I don't care what cbc says... Robert wasn't part of Air Ontario..

Porter has their first Q400

Porter has their first Q400

Q 400s