Talk:De Havilland Canada Dash 8/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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).

I guess you can but you should put 5 primary airlines in table and put Qantaslink as one of them. Piedmont Airlines had 44 dash 8's so removing them does not make any sense at all. You can put the Qantaslink at a 5th airlines in the primary user table. It should be good and I'll let you do that edit. Zizouz123 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. 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.)

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.

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)

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)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

military models

{{expand}} The E-9, CC-142, CT-142 should have spec sections added. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Any particularly reason why? MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

launch customer for 300

Bahamasair for some reason is noted as the launch customer for the 300. Time Air (now Jazz) was the launch customer.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%20-%201201.html

The first production airplane is still in service pretty sure it's C-GKTA.174.6.20.25 (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GKTA is a DHC-8-301 and is listed by TC as being serial number 124. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Split proposals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to split, with Operators being preferred. - BillCJ (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While this article is certainly not long compared to some other articles, I do believe it could use a split to give it some breathing room. There are two main possibilites, but there may be others worth considering. The main two ways are:

  1. By type - de Havilland Canada Dash 8, which would cover the 100/200/300 variants, and Bombardier Q400, which would cover the 400 series.
  2. Operators - List of Bombardier Dash 8 operators

Reasons for both options are given in the #Split into multiple articles? section above, so I won't repeat them here for now. THis is a formal proposal to split, but at this point I'm just gathering input on what would be the best option. - BillCJ (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that leaving all the types here, including the Q400 but splitting the operators into a separate article would provide the best option at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Both ways should work fine. I like the split by variant way better, probably cause I'm more used to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for further input from WT:AIR. - BillCJ (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A split with redirect to a list of operators would be fine. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
I might be fine with this --Trulystand700 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Basic price for Q400 is $30 Million USD. CFaria75 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC).

Accidents

The section has this edit note - PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE DETAILS, ESPECIALLY RUMORS, TO THIS SECTION. DETAILS CITED FROM RELIABLE SOURCE SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE LINKED ARTICLES.

I don't see why any further accidents should not be added, its not as if there aren't going to be any in the future, is it? Not all accident will get an article of their own, but any accident which causes substantial damage should be mentioned under type, airline and airport as appropriate. The recent accident in Mali is mentioned under 2009 in aviation and I will also add it to the accidents section of this article. In this case, it is not appropriate to add it to the United States Africa Command article as they don't really qualify as an airline and the aircraft was being operated on their behalf, not by them. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've totally missed the point. The note you quoted refers to accidents already listed which do have their own accident/incident articles, not those which don't. (I hope I've clarified the notes.) The incident still has to be somewhat notable, but not enough for their own aricle, to be listed here. However, by consensus, the minor landing gear incidents are covered at Dash 8 landing gear incidents, as there section was simply becoming too long. I've moved the latest one there. If it proves to be more major than it does now, then mentioning it here can be discussed later. Given the damage to the aircraft, sauch as losing the wing, it will probably be major, especilliy if there are grounding again. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that I need to create an article before it can be mentioned here? This was not a minor landing gear accident, and from what the source says it seems that there was an in-flight problem which meant that the aircraft needed to land asap. Something went wrong with the landing which lead to the aircraft being written off. This fact IMHO establishes sufficient notability for a mention here. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There already is an article for the landing gear incidents; we don't need more at this point. If you do list it, it should go in the landing gear subsection, not the main part. Have you bothered reading the other discussions on the matter? You are treating me as if I'm making this up to just be contrary. - BilCat (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Futher, an aircraft that is written off is probably notable enough for its own article per the AIRCRASH guideliens, but I don't knwo enough about the accident as yet to say. We need more info. GFor now, I think it's fine to remain in the landing gear article, not here, but we need more views to have a consensus. I'm not trying to be a dictator, but I am familar with why the notes and suggestions are set up the way they are, and that's to avoid needless duplication/redundancy. ANd noe of that was discussed in secret. - BilCat (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For others wondering, this is the 19 Nov. 2009 accident involving an emergency landing with a wing and landing gear failure. To me it seemed different from the 2007 incidents at first, but more info is needed to say. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
BilCat, this accident is not related to the three landing gear accidents, which were all sustained by a single operator - SAS. I could create an article on the accident, but I fear that it will be little more than a stub, which is why I've not done so - I generally try to create new articles at C class or higher. I don't think that this accident should be covered in the landing gear article for reasons stated above. The damage to the aircraft in this accident is far greater than that sustained by any of the SAS aircraft. Jacdec has further details and more sources. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If I'm reading correctly (with my limited French), the landing was off-field, i.e. not at an airport, and the aircraft collided with trees. Therefore it is not surprising that the u/c collapsed and a wing was torn off. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, none of that was in the ASN report, which is all that was initially cited. You can add it back for now if you want, but I don't think notability has been proven yet. It's just a crash landing with no fatalities, and I don't think write-offs automatically confer notebility, but I could be remembering wrong. (It's late, and the revised guidelines at AATF are much help at this hour!) - BilCat (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents, The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport is one of the criteria. If we can find a reliable English source, I'll add it back in the main accident section here. (English source not a requirement, just helpful for writing.) - BilCat (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've readded the accident. Maybe the edit note could be amended to say that only accidents that reach the guideline should be added? Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Autotrim

Does the Q400 series in particular have an autotrim system? Article contains very little of a technical nature. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It does, but it's triggered only when selecting flaps 15 -> 35. But is this really something we should put in the article? Ma.rkus.nl (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

25 or 30 degrees?

Is it true that the 400X version will have turboprop swept wings in Tu-95 style, to further increase speed and deal with CoG issues after a further fuselage stretch? Considering the Q400 already flies as fast as a Me-109G or P-51H did, that would make sense, but maybe it's just a rumor? 87.97.101.90 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cruising speed

Twice in this article the cruising speed is favorably compared to small jets (see "Regional Jet Competition"). It's not "close" as described - we're talking 414mph vs. about 535mph (mach .79) for a 737. A warning light goes off when I see a paragraph that begins with "According to Bombardier marketing..." Pessia (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Constant name changes of article

The "Q-series" (only introduced in 1997) and that is how Bombardier spells it, is a fairly recent name change that does not reflect the longer history of the type (1983+) under the designation: "Dash 8" which even predates its Bombardier period. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

It's not really that long: 1983-1997 is 14 years, and 1197 to 2011 is - wait for it - 14 years! Anyway, the Q-Series is really a subst of the Dash 8 family, and this article covers the whole family. Any moves to a new name need to be discussed first. Note that BZuk was right to revert the undiscussed move. - BilCat (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've now move protected the article. Any move will now need to be discussed via WP:RM and consensus gained before it can be done. Mjroots (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
BZuk, I'm confused by this edit summary of an apparent null edit, "Bombardier uses "Q-Series"". Then why did you move the article back to Bombardier Dash 8, if it's not called the "Bombardier Dash 8"?? I asume you were contesting my reverting the Lead title line back to the article's actual title, which is standard practice on WP. If you;d rather the title be "de Havilland Canada Dash 8", then please propose it. But please don't mess up the titles with something contrary to the naming conventions. :) - BilCat (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No, you've misunderstood the change, the editor who was making the changes was using "Q Series" while Bombardier uses "Q-Series" as the designation. The only point I was making was that there is a slight variation in the name Bombardier uses. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC).
Ah, I did say I was confused. :) "Q-Series" does appear to be the dominant form on the Bombardier websites, and is used right along side "CSeries". As to the article name, I still like my suggestions in the above sections of splitting the article. I think it solves the name issues nicely. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Q500 / Q400X

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)
(in French) http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/economie/200901/06/01-684804-bombardier-devra-sinspirer-de-lindustrie-automobile.php
(in French) http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/economie/200901/06/01-674479-et-la-cseries-elle.php
(in German) https://www.faz.net/d/invest/meldung.aspx?id=77999903
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/03/213038/canada-special-believing-in-bombardier.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/09/05/216565/bombardier-bullish-on-asia-regional-market.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/23/218828/atr-studies-new-larger-turboprop-family.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/14/219551/atr-floats-idea-of-stretched-model-to-tackle-90-seat.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/21/220495/2008-forecast-will-boeing-or-airbus-win-production-crown.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/05/219065/industry-backs-q400-despite-sas-withdrawal.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw050707p3.xml&headline=Bombardier%20adjusts%20Cseries%20design
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655707,00.html?iid=digg_share
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2008/db20080430_845779_page_2.htm
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=569623
76.66.196.229 (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2009 (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)

I agree. Don't call it Q500 though, because it hasn't been named yet, or when so, it may not be named that. Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just keep the part under Q400X, if you look at Bombardier website for the Q400, you really should stick with Q400X and not Q500 if Bombardier hasn't announced it. -Zizouz123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizouz123 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming issues

In most recent 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)


Keep it as both Bombardier Q Series and De Havilland Canada Dash 8 - it was developed by both manufacturers. Zizouz123 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

If the ATR 72 can go up to 23 000 feet I think the service ceiling for the Q400 is probably 25000 feet or something. we can try to go to the manufacturers website - it's reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizouz123 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

I think we should consider Wideroe to be a different airlines because SAS, they dont operate the type so let it be so SAS still as the grounded reference. First lets to some more research and talk on the topic - its our safest bet Zizouz123 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles?

Considering that the Saab 340 and 2000 have distinct Wikipedia entries (even though the 2000 is just a stretch of the 340), and the ATR 42 and 72 have distinct Wikipedia entries (even though the 72 is just a stretch of the 42), why do we have one big Dash 8 article? I don't see the difference. Greg Salter (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How would you split them? It's not as easy as the above examples, with 4 basic models, and then the non-Q and QSeries models too. I have considered covering the ondle molds at the old DHC Dash 8 page, and the neweres ones at Bombardier QSeries, but there is still slot of overlap between the models. I don't think any article split by models will satisfy everyone, as there is no clear-cut way to do it, while the article is not all that long. We do have the landing gear incident article, and could also split off the operators section, as it is quite lengthy. - BillCJ (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think there IS a clear-cut way, and it's the same way others have done it with the Saab & ATR models I've mentioned. it seems to me that the 100 and 200 series are essentially the same plane, the 300 is another, and the 400 is another. Updating the engine or adding noise reducing software doesn't make the planes different, but having a significantly different fuselage does. The CRJ articles are semi- like that; the 100 and 200 are treated as the same plane, while the 700 and 900 have their own article (and perhaps those last ones should be split too). Greg Salter (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I would support splitting out the 400 at this time, as I'll explain below. Btw, you might check the edit histories to see who did the majority of the work on the splits on the ATR (it was a 3-way, as the original page included the company!) and the CRJ. I've done a lot of splits and mergers (a few on the same articles!), so I have a good feel for what will make a good article. On the ATR and CRJ, it really could have gone either way, and I could make a good case for both options there. THe CRJ900/1000 may be about ready to be split, but I haven't looked it over in a while.
A good article to look at that I worked on for a long time is the SH-3 Sea King. It was originally at H-3 Sea King, and included all variants except the Westland-built versions. I created the CH-124 Sea King, Sikorsky S-61 (civil), and Sikorsky S-61R (Jolly greens and Pelican), and then refocused the article to cover the primary SH-3 models. Anyway, I'm not trying to brag here, but just give you an example of some spilts in a different type of article. Anyway, spliting and merging is just plain FUN to me!
One of the primary factors in considering how and when to split is content, mainly is there enough content in the article, or available sources, to expand both split articles to a decent size, and to have a chance at GA or FA staus. On the 8-400/Q400, I do think the content is there, and will be in the future, especially as the Q400NG progresses. THe remainder (-100/200/300) will ber pretty static, since (I think) none are in full production. THis means a fairly stable article once all avaliable sources have been gleaned. Another point to consider is if one variant (or variant family) is out-weighing the other in coverage, pictures, specs, etc. Sometimes by splitting out the major variant, it allows that others room to grow. For example, assuming I've counted correctly, 7 -400/Q400 pics in this article, and 7 of all the other variants. THat says alot baout which variant has the most coverage, but it's not the only factor.
Finally, I'd recommend reading the proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Notability guidelines for a handle on how the WP:AIR project tries to deal with variant splits. Guidelines are jsut that, and this is just a proposal, but it will give you some further things to consider. - BillCJ (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I dont have strong views either way I just looked at the type certificate and all the models are on the same type certificate which would indicate keeping them together. Perhaps if the users were split off then the article would be a reasonable size. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The type certificate is definitely a factor to consider, but I wouldn't consider it the only deciding factor. Splitting off the operators is also worth considering. However, Greg seems to have lost interest in the issue (or simply forgot about it amidst a myriad of other WP tasks), and I'm OK with leaving the article as-is for now. - BillCJ (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Use in Flight Sims

The section about this was removed i would like to state that it seems to me that it did belong in the articleT18 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


The ATR 42 and 72 are considered to be different aircraft. The Q Series is considered to be a family of aircraft. It's like seperating the 737-100 from the 737-800 - doesn't make any sense. Zizouz123 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated Q400 NextGen cockpit photo

Propose that the editors of this page update the Q400 cockpit photo, replacing the current 12-year old cockpit photo of new Q400 NextGen turboprop sourced from [1]Photos from Bombardier can be used for non-commercial and educational purposes, such as Wikipedia. Mwellis77 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Those images are not appropriate for Wikipedia, as any media here must "not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially", see Wikipedia:Non-free content. The vast majority of Dash 8 aircraft have been built with older cockpits, so showing an older model is also fine, although inclusion of the latest flight deck could be included if a free image be found. Arsenikk (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I've found and added an appropriate Q400 flight deck in addition to the existing -300 one. Arsenikk (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Also "The Dash 8 has the lowest cost per passenger mile of any regional airliner of the era." which era is this sentence talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.111.213 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

new users of this aircraft citation attached

http://www.spicejet.com/newspage.asp?strNews=Q400_HYD_Operations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.152.185 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bombardier Q400?

Speaking of the Q400, this article's lede doesn't explain clearly enough whether or not it is the same as the Dash 8. If it's not the same, we need a distinction. If it is the same, we need a better explanation in the lede as to why there are separate product names. We might want to add Q400 to the first line of the article, or even change the title of this article to Bombardier Q400. Whoever knows the answers to all this, please advise and/or edit per WP:BOLD. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear in the intro: "Models delivered after 1997 have cabin noise suppression and are designated with the prefix, "Q". Production of the Series 100 ceased in 2005, and the Q200 and Q300 in 2009. Bombardier is considering launching a stretched version of the Q400." Greg Salter (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply but as an aviation relative outsider (though a mid-term wikipedia editor) i came to this and was baffled because Dash 8 isnt mentioned in recent literature that i read. Given as you say the Q series has been current for 15 years, isn't 'Dash 8' an outmoded term? Could a title change to 'Bombardier Q series' or similar be helpful? -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that would only cover the Q200, Q300, Q400, not the earlier non-Q series. This article covers all of them. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Landing Gear

The section on this aeroplane's chronic landing gear problems ends with "the preliminary Danish investigation determined the latest Q400 incident was unrelated to the airline's earlier corrosion problems" - what earlier corrosion problems? The article doesn't mention them. Corrosion problems with the airline, or the airliner? In fact the article doesn't explain why the first few landing gear incidents happened at all; there is an explanation in the separate article that was created above, but this is shoved off where people aren't likely to read it. What went wrong? Why does so much of the text read like a puff-piece? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Crash

Feb 12, 2009, 10 PM EST. News: A Dash-8 Q400 operated by Colgan Air, crashed near Buffalo New York killing 50 people onboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.111.140 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume this is old news relates to Continental Airlines Flight 3407 which already linked. Unless another one has crashed? MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's the same. BTW, maybe this is linked to the series of accidents SAS had with the plane earlier? Are there problems in Bombardier's quality control perhaps? At least I don't think I'll ever want to fly this plane type again. Offliner (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The landing gear was subcontracted, and a problem with SAS's maintenance regime, so how is that related to Bombardier's QC? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Other airlines had similar problems as well. Offliner (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Offliner, as this is clearly a different problem than the landing gear issues previously encountered, why don't we wait and see what the NTSB finds as the cause, instead of speculating. Could be airfoil design, de-icing system problems, mechanical, airline maintenance, pilot error, or maybe just "one of those things". Let's wait and see. Greg Salter (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jan 29, 2014 - Air Greenland Dash-8 runs off runway in Ilulissat, Greenland [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.10.160 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dash8/
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.aerospace-technology.com/news/newsbombardier-rwandair-announce-delivery-of-first-dual-class-q400-nextgen-aircraft-4188092
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous inferred conclusions from sources

I think there are some issues regarding the gear problems and the associated investigations. I wrote OhanaUnited, but if he doesn't reply, I am writing here so someone can fix them if it is necessary. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have explained the issue on hand to your satisfaction. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bombardier Dash 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked, although http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_1/3_1_2_5_3.html may not be the ref intended. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Bombardier Dash 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How much is a Q400?

Infobox say 35M, spec section say 27M, was it different model or inflation or different currency?C933103 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.bombardier.com/en/corporate/media-centre/multimedia-library/details?categoryID=L3-Bombardier%20Q400%20NextGen
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:De_Havilland_Canada_Dash_8/Archive_1&oldid=1136396043"