Renowned Maritime Patrol Aircrafts-I
Saab 2000 vs Bombardier Dash 8 (Q-Series)
When we jump in comparison table, we talk about major aspects rather than the typical known aspects which could be neglect able. Some aviation writers will deny or disagree with me but in my opinion it is the fact behind my comparison baes lol. That’s informal but a little picky aspect. People don’t want to know what they already know. They need some acknowledgeable tidbits of aviation. Which should be interesting while reading. One who is reading must not be bored from the phrases that generally writers use and they knew it before.
It’s time for another X vs Y assessment. This time round though, it isn’t between airbus and Boeing, but the globe’s two most popular nearby turboprop planes, The Saab 2000 and Bombardier Dash-8 Q400. Contrary to this, I am going to nutshell the tidbits of the comparison of these two renowned birds. I can put ATR 72 in this discussion (a little bit) but I won’t because I think ATR need discussion from another angle.
In general traits, Saab 2000 MPA (Military Propeller Plane):
Ø can fly 499 nautical miles farther at 1,549 nautical miles
Ø can cruise 2,260 feet higher at 31,000 feet
Ø Can attain a 150 knot (173 mph) higher max. cruise speed at 370 knots (426 mph)
Ø Is 24,865 lbs heavier at 50,265 lbs.
Ø seats 33 extra passengers at 50 passengers
While Bombardier Q400 (Turboprop-powered Narrow-body Commercial Passenger Plane):
Ø is $15,000,000 extra expensive at $27 million
Ø can fly 427 nautical miles farther at 1,362 nautical miles
Ø can cruise 2,000 toes better at 27,000 feet
Ø Can reach a 99 knot (114 mph) higher max. cruise velocity at 360 knots (414 mph)
Ø produces 6,642 greater hp at 10,142 hp
Ø is 27,947 lbs heavier at 64,500 lbs.
Ø seats 37 greater passengers at seventy four passengers
Ø Has a zero. Thirteen toes taller cabin at 6.forty ft.
Well, generally the question arises always be that who is competing in respect of performance. Mostly, I found opinion among aviation guys that the traits, armaments and performance are all similar. In concern of commuter turboprops, both are capable to cruise at 400+ mph. Though, Saab is old bird. Our misfortunate aspect, Saab changed into constructing it whilst the call for turboprops turned into low and needed to forestall production; an upgraded model would be a fantastic competitor for the Dash-8 Q400.
I scrolled on the internet and found one man who was claiming that he flown the Q400 and he loved it. Further he said that as a prop, it is an incredible aircraft, brilliant takeoff overall performance, and nearly as fast as an RJ. Moreover, in concern of Saab 2000, His saying was that it looks like an amazing bird though and that I do like Saabs, however my vote goes to the Q400. So that’s individual opinion. But in general aspect and generally what few people believe is that Saab 2000 have an incredible impression of power on takeoff. They say that Q400 also seems to have lots of strength (however no longer as apparent as the Saab 2000).
In respect of phenotype compatibilities and in general public opinion, The Saab 2000 have secure leather seats and passengers generally liked the 1-2 seating. One should even in shape a carry-on bag into the overhead packing containers (which run down one aspect of the plane only, above the 2-abreast seats) which could did not healthy at the now-retired LX EMB-145s. While In concern of Q400, It contains a broader cabin with 2-2 seating seems more spacious although the seats themselves are probably slightly narrower. Seats on most if not all Dash 8s don’t recline but still seem quite comfortable, and at least those operated by LH Regional (Augsburg Airways) seem to have even more seat pitch than LH’s own 737s and A319/320/321s. Meanwhile, in terms of competition, the Saab seats only 50 versus 74 on the Q400. The Saab 2000 would compete better with a Q300.
In further contrast with the Saab 2000, its superior most effective when used on routes less than 800nm. It consists of 10 more than the 2000 and is only barely slower however it burns more gasoline another time and that one cannot imagine the usage of it above 800nm may be of any advantages as that’s jet territory. Plus I study somewhere that you have to by no means fly your aircraft kind further than 10× it is pax capability. How actual is that? If that’s the case, who then needs the Q400s extra variety abilities? If any pilot already mounted ATRs on -300nm routes with Saabs on +300nm routes as much as 600-700nm and then use the dash to dash over 700nm routes which have underneath 80pax. However not unusual sense says it might not be really worth it. Moreover, due to the fact one may say that Saab is too small for what it provides and needs an excessive amount of gas. Infect, Its’s cheap, this is authentic and additionally no longer that gradual but the first-rate preference appears to be the Q400 for short haul flights. So in comparison the Q400 for routes; 500 nm plus a few up to 800 nm. Overall and depending on the gasoline charge. One can suppose they might be identical.
The Q400 is greater costly, burns more fuel but has decrease test-charges and is faster. For the reason that you may create very dense flight plans, it can be, that the q400 is a little bit more price effective (once more, depending at the gasoline fee). So what we can say at all is Q400 is clearly better, but comes much later and is more expensive. It is faster, so spends less time to fly the same route. So it burns more fuel per hour, but about the same or even slightly less for the same flight. Same deal for the Saab. Differences are that Saab has 5 min longer turns, and the configurations are probably 48/2 for Saab, 60/3 for ATR72, 64/3 for Q400. Plus whatever differences there are in purchase/lease price, and availability.
In concerns of fleet types, One RT Professional said that it’s not that you need more than 20 in a fleet and then they’re worth it. If you stick to 3 or less fleet types, you should have no problems. If you have 4 or more fleet types, it gets more expensive the bigger your airline gets. You need to have a really good reason to run more than 3 fleets. Those reasons are normally because you’re doing fleet replacement in a longer game, or you need to get planes faster in order to expand more aggressively, and the extra growth speed, extra revenue outweighs the extra costs.
What that mean that if you are going to run a fleet of efficient turboprops, you should start with the short routes, every plane should fly 3-4 times/day to start with. But as you expand, you should include all the 40+ pax routes out to the planes max range, because they are worth flying. After all these debates and study, one can acknowledge the fact PAX LIMITS is the real game. The biggest lesson is TO ALWAYS CHECK THE PAX LIMITS. That’s Essential.
Conclusion must be that, It’s have to be remembered, the Q400 become designed as a jet aircraft substitute; now not as a mere turboprop and using Q400 is not a question of economy, it’s a religion lol In informal language. While Saab lives its life.