DHC-8-400 Combine announced
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
-
leftoftrack
- Rank 8

- Posts: 826
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm
DHC-8-400 Combine announced
50 pax combi announced for the Q400
Dam auto correct topic title is supposed to say Combi
Dam auto correct topic title is supposed to say Combi
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
There's an 86-seat version?
Encore's seats are already like riding on wooden benches...
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
Interesting to hear some airlines were asking Bombardier to restart the Q300 line, making the Q400 with a combi version seems to be their answer to these requests.
The FWD cargo compartment is an udder and complete waste of space on the Q400, so getting rid of it and adding a few more rows makes sense for some operators, as long as they don't bulk out on luggage in the aft baggage compartment.
The FWD cargo compartment is an udder and complete waste of space on the Q400, so getting rid of it and adding a few more rows makes sense for some operators, as long as they don't bulk out on luggage in the aft baggage compartment.
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
Our 400's are typically close to the forward limit- and that's with a very cavernous fwd bag compartment with just a few crew bags in there. I wonder what adding another 380-760 of people would require in the back end to make things work (besides ballast).
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
What I find interesting, is that at a typical pax load will default to having the plane nose heavy (forcing the fa's to move people back to the middle or aft sections ), all the while, the system knows the plane sits nose heavy empty, 
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
It will be interesting to see how airlines will manage that when cargo load is light. I imagine a few sandbag ballast will be kept at stations.dhc# wrote:What I find interesting, is that at a typical pax load will default to having the plane nose heavy (forcing the fa's to move people back to the middle or aft sections ), all the while, the system knows the plane sits nose heavy empty,
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
I'm surprised no one beat me to it but I think I've found a picture of it.
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
Canadian North will be all over this I think. When they replace all of their 732's with the new 733's, what are they going to be flying into those remote communities with gravel strips that are usually flown with 732 Combies? It'll be a bit of a compromise but there's not much of a choice. Or is there?
-
leftoftrack
- Rank 8

- Posts: 826
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
Horizon would be another potential customerMartinB wrote:Canadian North will be all over this I think. When they replace all of their 732's with the new 733's, what are they going to be flying into those remote communities with gravel strips that are usually flown with 732 Combies? It'll be a bit of a compromise but there's not much of a choice. Or is there?
It took longer than I thought it would takeahramin wrote:I'm surprised no one beat me to it but I think I've found a picture of it.
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
I've heard Canadian North are already looking 737NGs for the range. Does anybody know if they have had problems with range on the 300's?
I think Canadian is in denial that a turboprop will have to replace the aging 200's. Unless the Canadian government plans to pave the runways in places like Cambridge bay. The Q400C would be a good measure but obviously it would require more frequency.
I think Canadian is in denial that a turboprop will have to replace the aging 200's. Unless the Canadian government plans to pave the runways in places like Cambridge bay. The Q400C would be a good measure but obviously it would require more frequency.
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
I know companies like perimeter have problems with the 300's getting too tail heavy with a light pax load and lots of freight when combi'd I wonder how 10 000lbs of freight would balance in the Q? Also I would imagine with the merger it will be more ATR 72 combi's like First Air has with the nice big cargo door.
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
I'm pretty ignorant on this, is there no chance (because its so prohibitive) that there will ever be another large jet certified for gravel ops? Is there anything smaller?
-
leftoftrack
- Rank 8

- Posts: 826
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
The 146 is I believe. Don't think there is any combi version and they to are getting long in the tooth
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
I think part of the problem is the high bypass engines are probably a lot harder to protect from sucking up gravel
-
thirdtimecharm
- Rank 3

- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:32 pm
- Location: Rankin
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
Does Canadian North or First Air still fly scheds anywhere on gravel? I thought Cambay and Kug were turboprop routes?
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
5T goes to ycb and yco with the -200
7F used to (still does?) go to yrb with a regular charter
Yoa and dk2 were both served by -200's, but now I think Ledcor has the dk2 contract with a 146
Mary River gets the -200 from Nolinor
Raglan has their own -200 I think
Plus whatever ad hoc charter stuff happens: alert, nanisivik, hall beach, etc
7F used to (still does?) go to yrb with a regular charter
Yoa and dk2 were both served by -200's, but now I think Ledcor has the dk2 contract with a 146
Mary River gets the -200 from Nolinor
Raglan has their own -200 I think
Plus whatever ad hoc charter stuff happens: alert, nanisivik, hall beach, etc
-
thirdtimecharm
- Rank 3

- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:32 pm
- Location: Rankin
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
Any word when 5T gets their first -300 combi?
Re: DHC-8-400 Combine announced
if operators want a 300 series it is to have a less expensive plane. Smaller engines and lower purchase price.
Paying 26M for a 400, when a 737 200 is 2-3M is a big difference.
The distances are so huge up north that sitting at 25,000 feet in turbo prop really isn't the answer on these flights. You need the altitude and speed of a jet. I think peoples max tolerance of turboprop is around 90-120 mins. I've done tons of 120 min flights in turbo props as a pax and it gets very old in hurry.
Sitting at 20-25,000 feet your smack in the clouds all the time too.
the solution might not be a western made aircraft for our north, and something from over the hill in Russia. Who else has conditions like us?
Paying 26M for a 400, when a 737 200 is 2-3M is a big difference.
The distances are so huge up north that sitting at 25,000 feet in turbo prop really isn't the answer on these flights. You need the altitude and speed of a jet. I think peoples max tolerance of turboprop is around 90-120 mins. I've done tons of 120 min flights in turbo props as a pax and it gets very old in hurry.
Sitting at 20-25,000 feet your smack in the clouds all the time too.
the solution might not be a western made aircraft for our north, and something from over the hill in Russia. Who else has conditions like us?
Don't be disgruntled....move on!





