The problem isn't with the autopilot per se, it is more a case of engineering and design compromises to keep a common type-rating with the 100/200/300 series aircraft. The "Q" is a bastardized airplane, and for all it's performance and economics it falls short of what was typical for Bombardier for their attention to detail.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
9L Q400 question
- Thread starter dcfu69
- Start date
- Watchers 15
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
The problem isn't with the autopilot per se, it is more a case of engineering and design compromises to keep a common type-rating with the 100/200/300 series aircraft. The "Q" is a bastardized airplane, and for all it's performance and economics it falls short of what was typical for Bombardier for their attention to detail.
Negative snap.
I gotcha.
dcfu69
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Posts
- 116
just saw the memo for Egpwizz mode 6 callouts for the q. And yes.. we know the pay BLOWS on the dash. Colgan MEC keeps boasting how they are going to have a contract by the end of the year! I don't buy it but apparently everyone sporting those stupid "contract 2010" stickers do. My question is this: How the HELL are we going to get a contract is LESS THAN 2 YRS if 9E still does not have a contract?. We are basically under the same mgmt as 9E and yet we are going to get a "industry standard" contract before they do?! wtf? I think that most of our MEC is working hard and doing a great job to do get the contract ASAP.. but i'm not holding my breath.
Horizon Pilots:
How is the MX at Horizon on the Q400? It seems that the ones over here are always breaking down for a variety of reason. I'm sure it has a lot to do with a crappy mx dept. here. Thank for any response... back to IAD life for me
Horizon Pilots:
How is the MX at Horizon on the Q400? It seems that the ones over here are always breaking down for a variety of reason. I'm sure it has a lot to do with a crappy mx dept. here. Thank for any response... back to IAD life for me
JetSpeed219
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Posts
- 473
They break down A LOT at Horizon too. An RJ pilot was saying how 40-50% of his trips on reserve are to rescue a broken 400.
They do break a lot over here at QX but that is because it is a sh!t plane. Our mx dept is pretty dang good, but now our heavy checks are being outsourced, so I am sure the 400 will break more.
As far as the autopilot and yaw damper go, they are ok. It would be better if it wasn't such an rudder wh-re and the yaw damper actually put some trim in for you. It could also use a half-bank button. Nothing like cruisin along and have the autopilot put in 22 degrees of bank to get you that 10 degree heading change.
As far as the autopilot and yaw damper go, they are ok. It would be better if it wasn't such an rudder wh-re and the yaw damper actually put some trim in for you. It could also use a half-bank button. Nothing like cruisin along and have the autopilot put in 22 degrees of bank to get you that 10 degree heading change.
The 200 variant Q400's are a lot better on the MX than the original ones, which are mostly what Horizon has. We were lucky to have a good combination of the new airframes and a good MX department and as a result most month had the highest operational reliability of any Q operator in the world. Not really any better or worse than an RJ.
The new variant aircraft make a massive difference!
cale
The new variant aircraft make a massive difference!
cale
Thurman Merman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Posts
- 177
You can half bank the turn, just lead with the heading bug slowly, yeah it sucks but it's better than doing a snap roll at 270.
As for MX issues, I was at Colgan and part of the Initial Cadre that brought those beasts on line. Even the 402's had their share of MX issues, mostly pull circuit breaker and reset. A lot of the problems arose from the 402's having new software and slightly different logic. They are a great airplane for the mission but you have to baby them. I fly the older 400 and 401 models along with 1 new Next Gen in Japan and we don't have near as many problems as Horizon or Colgan. The difference with the Japanese is, they don't cinch on MX. They actually perform preventative MX, and our dispatch reliability is probably in the 90's. A good example of this, If a part requires changing after 5000 hours, they change it in 3000. I've never carried more than one MEL, and can count on 1 hand how many times I've had an MEL. I have had twice where the APU was MEL'd, but at every station before the props stopped spinning, they were hooking up external power and air. The next day the APU was fixed.
When you leave the Saab, you'll miss "FLYING" the Saab but you'll enjoy not having to get creative with the load sheet and actually be able to take bags, gas, and butts. Also, the AP is sloppy on the Q, just because the darn thing is so long and squirly, the Saab AP was great, rock solid, auto trim on the rudder. You could be inverted in a category 5 hurricane upside down, throw on the AP, the ol' girl would right herself and keep on truckin'. The Q, if you hit a light speed bumb, "George" will thumb his nose and refuse to fly.
As for MX issues, I was at Colgan and part of the Initial Cadre that brought those beasts on line. Even the 402's had their share of MX issues, mostly pull circuit breaker and reset. A lot of the problems arose from the 402's having new software and slightly different logic. They are a great airplane for the mission but you have to baby them. I fly the older 400 and 401 models along with 1 new Next Gen in Japan and we don't have near as many problems as Horizon or Colgan. The difference with the Japanese is, they don't cinch on MX. They actually perform preventative MX, and our dispatch reliability is probably in the 90's. A good example of this, If a part requires changing after 5000 hours, they change it in 3000. I've never carried more than one MEL, and can count on 1 hand how many times I've had an MEL. I have had twice where the APU was MEL'd, but at every station before the props stopped spinning, they were hooking up external power and air. The next day the APU was fixed.
When you leave the Saab, you'll miss "FLYING" the Saab but you'll enjoy not having to get creative with the load sheet and actually be able to take bags, gas, and butts. Also, the AP is sloppy on the Q, just because the darn thing is so long and squirly, the Saab AP was great, rock solid, auto trim on the rudder. You could be inverted in a category 5 hurricane upside down, throw on the AP, the ol' girl would right herself and keep on truckin'. The Q, if you hit a light speed bumb, "George" will thumb his nose and refuse to fly.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
