Talk:Bombardier Dash 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Qantaslink as a primary user in the table?

By my maths (based on the figures below) qantaslinks has or had, 27 dash8's. So should they be included in the primary user table?

Also interesting that qantas is one of the only airlines i know of that serve meals in the dash 8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.133.149 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] landing gear

added cite to nytimes article about grounding of dash 8 fleet to operational section Toddself 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So if this is the case, why do I see Porter's Q400's on landing at TCC? The statement in the article needs to be more specific. Maury 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The aircraft that were in question were Q400s with 12,000 landings or more, a small percentage of the operational fleet. FWIW Bzuk 12:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC).
I added a little text to clear this up. Maury 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break even point

The info about the break even seems very suspiscious. Break even should depend on mission, fuel weight, and many more factors, and thus the very general statement requires at least a quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iediteverything (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result: Merge. - I have moved Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209 (the article with the largest edit history) to 2007 Dash 8 landing gear incidents, and will convert the other pages to redirects over the next few days. Any help on rewriting would be greatly appreciated. - BillCJ 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748, Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209, Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2867, and De Havilland Canada Dash 8#Notable incidents and accidents (partial) → 2007 Dash 8 incidents or Dash 8 landing gear incidents

  • I am proposing that the three crash articles and part of the Incidents section be merged into one new article. We would leave all the major incidents listed in the Incidents section on the Dash 8 page, but move all the minor landing gear-related incidents to the new page. Previously, merging the first two crash articles was proposed, and the contents are at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Q400. The plan is to update this sandbox article and move it to the new page if the merger is passed. If the crash articles remain as "keep", then I propose splitting of the landing gear-related section of the Dash 8 page, as it it quickly becoming a larger section each day. Because the three crashes are directly related to the landing gear issue, and were not catastrophic accidents, they are still both minimal content, and would be better off with all the landing gear-related material. - BillCJ 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for detailes on performing meregers.)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

[edit] Survey - Support votes

  • Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - There is already at least one article about this. I'm hoping someone in the press will also notice that these are mostly SAS Q400s. (Personally I find it interesting given claims about poor maintenance practices on the airline's part.) Anynobody 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Combining all the landing gear related articles into one, will make it easier to see the big picture. Also these different articles contain partially same info, which supports merging. However, this page should contain a clear indication that the linked page contains several similar incidents, not just one. If the merger takes place also article Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2867 should be merged. TimoTaalas 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added the Flight 2867 page to the proposal. And I'll definietly make sure the links make it clear it covers multiple incidents. Thanks for the reminder. - BillCJ 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -
  • These are all separate incidents, but they are pretty much part of the same story with the impact this had on the aviation industry. Since none of the articles have gained any great length, I think a merge to an article on all three incidents combined will be the neatest way to present it. Note that I changed all the "SK2868" references to "SK2867". The aviation-safety.net database says "2867", and the SAS timetable puts 2868 (and all even numbered flights on that route) as a northbound CPH-BGO flight, this one was going south. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC
  • Support - Makes for an easier read, IMHO. --RobNS 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - as per BillCJ nomination.MilborneOne 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Fragmentation of information is ususally a detriment to understanding. The idea of bringing the related incidents which are important but marginally notable individually together results in a definite improvement in the encyclopedic value of the content. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Alan, what's the best way to title the new article per the AATF guidleines? - BillCJ 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

  • Oppose -
  • Oppose: This article might become quite long and bulky if the separate incidents are merged into it. The incidents are quite important, as the latest incidents actually caused Scandinavian Arirlines (SAS) to make the unpresedented decision to permanently disconinue service with its Dash 8 fleet. An option might also be the creation of a singel article covering all incidents leading SAS to make the decision. --Camptown 14:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Note the text of the proposal "Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748, Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209, Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2867, and De Havilland Canada Dash 8#Notable incidents and accidents (partial) → 2007 Dash 8 incidents or Dash 8 landing gear incidents". The idea is to create a NEW article, not to dump all the accidents into this one. (That would, as you quite correctly say, be a bad idea.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Yet, the merger template currently used in this article suggests that the three articles should be merged to this article's subsection named notable incidents. If that is not what has been suggested, the template should be removed. --Camptown 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem is tha I could not find a tag that makes it clear that the result of the merger will be a new article. However, the template is the same on all the pages, but no one has assumes that the article would be merged TO either or all of those pages. As Sjakkalle pointed out, this merge section is fairly clear that I'm proposing a new page. I will clarify the proposal text to emphasise the new article, but that assumes other editors will read it carefully next time. - BillCJ 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Crashes are historical events worthy of their own article each. As long as they're well linked from other relevant articles, I find no reason for the merge. The unfolding of investigations, possible causes, theories from experts, and other facts surrounding a crash could easily fill an article, and to lump that all together could obfuscate understanding. --kevinthenerd 15:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • At this point, all 3 crash articles cover overlapping material. Alone, each incident is really fairly minor, and probaly wouldn't have an article at all if not for the extended ramifications of other incidents. All the causes are related, if not identical, and thus there would be even more overlapping material. - BillCJ 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Q500

Bombardier has announced plans to stretch the Dash 8 to 90-100 seats. 70.55.85.97 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for "Dash 8 Q500" turned up no official Bombardier press realease on this, nor anything on reliable news sources. I only saw some forum posts which speculated on the Q400X/Q500, but forums are not reliable sources. - BillCJ 05:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be an intelligent move for Bombardier. The Q-series is so efficient and fast for it's class, that a stretch variant that kept many similar features would be a wise move. If the Q-series moves into the 100-seat class, the efficiency of the plane would take over the short run market for medium capacity flights. For example, there are probably about three hundred people each day who want to fly to and from Houston, TX to Montgomery, AL. Instead of operating seven feeder flights on inefficient Embraer 140 and/or Embraer 145 jets, Continental could operate three flights to and from Montgomery with the Q500. Because of it's faster climb speed, higher (for a turboprop) speed, shorter runway capability, MUCH greater efficiency, and greater capacity, Continental could cut operating costs for that particular run by large margins. For more interesting facts about the Q-400's technical comparisons, click [1]. Flyallplanes (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming issues

In most recet material, the Dash 8 Q-x00s are known as the "Bombardier QSeries". Do we want to move the page to that title, or perhaps split off all the QSeries to that title? Or is "DHC Dash 8" still the better-known name/designation, and we should just leave well enough alone? Just asking. - BillCJ (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dash 8 name is better known, but the "Q-series" names are now the official ones. It's a toss-up on this one, well-known or official name. Flyallplanes (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing operators list

Unless someone strenuously objects, I am going to remove the detailed operators list. It is trivia that is not important to understanding the aircraft itself, and is subject to rapid change. Maury (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cruise Info

I noticed in the cruise chart, it states that the max cruise is 20,000 ft.But the other cruise states its 25,000 ft. Perhaps this is vandilism or a typo. If I'm wrong, whatever. Ilikepie2221 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely over 20,000ft. I know this is OR, but last time I flew on a Dash 8 we were cruising at 22,000 ft. --64.180.254.185 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure cruise is 25 000 ft for the Dash8, and I'm also pretty sure (though, i don't have a source) that the Q400 can cruise up to 28 000ft IF it's equiped with oxygen masks for passengers. Would think this is an option from Bombardier, but would be costly for airlines to get a minimal gain in cruise altitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.61.106 (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The normal max cruise altitude for all Dash 8's/Qx00's is 25,000 ft. The Q400's max is 27,000, but it requires dropdown oxygen masks that most airlines don't want (more for weight reasons than the cost of implementing them).
But could someone please fix up the max speed in the chart? First of all, the three models shown all have different max speeds. Second, the numbers are wrong anyway. 290 knots is NOT Mach 0.76 (it's not even close, it's Mach 0.51). Greg Salter (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
290kts could be mach .76 in an insane atmosphere, I suppose. But you're correct. The correct maximum cruising speed for the Q400 is mach .58 (360kts) 70.132.202.152 (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cost?

I've never been able to find the cost of the Q200, Q300, or Q400. Anyone have it (and maybe want to add it to the article)? Greg Salter (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Wideroe and airBaltic into SAS Q400 listing

Now that the SAS deal is done and they're buying new Q400's for their Wideroe and airBaltic subsidiaries, I'm merging those two into the SAS list and removing SAS's grounded reference, as they're not operating them anymore. Greg Salter (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)