Horizon Air, the third level/communter arm of Alaska Air touts theor Q400s as “green” and says because of that it will only operate that type in the future. It will be getting rid of its RJs.
-Are Q400s really any greener than RJs?
-or is it PR spin for having a common low cost type?
I’ve flown the Q400 on hour-long routes, and while I’m not a fan, they’re not terrible either. (Better than SAAB 340s I had to endure in the past which I never found comfortable even on 45 minute trips).
BTW: a former co-workers husband does maintenance on the type and has very little good to say about them.
By: Primate - 6th November 2010 at 10:13
Q400 will burn about 1.1 tonnes per hour in the cruise. If we fly the Q400 at an intermediate cruise setting (which is what we are doing now) then this figure can be as low as 780kgs per hour and even better at LRC
How does FF during LRC compare to MRC?
Is LRC often or always preferred?
The RJs on takeoff will burn about 5 tonnes per hour, the Q400 will burn about 1.6 tonnes per hour.
How about reduced thrust procedures?
By: Deano - 3rd November 2010 at 00:40
RJs will burn about 2.5 tonnes per hour in the cruise.
Q400 will burn about 1.1 tonnes per hour in the cruise. If we fly the Q400 at an intermediate cruise setting (which is what we are doing now) then this figure can be as low as 780kgs per hour and even better at LRC, also even better now the winter months are drawing in.
The RJs on takeoff will burn about 5 tonnes per hour, the Q400 will burn about 1.6 tonnes per hour.
The Q400 is about as economical as it gets.
By: KabirT - 2nd November 2010 at 22:41
The Q400s are touted to be the worlds most environment friendly aircraft. Although I haven’t got much more details than that but I am sure there are going to be technicalities that will back that claim and thats its not just a PR gimmick.
Sign In
November 2, 2010 at 9:31 pm