reply to post by starviego
First of all....where is the source, for that post? (Because it looks a lot like it was a copy/paste).
Second, from the source (I assume) they said in part (and misspelled):
....(an Embrear 120 turboprop aircraft similar to the Dash 8)....
120 is nothing at all "similar" to a De Havilland Dash 8!! Unless you want to say,
"they both have two engines, and are powered by turboprop engines." And, they are both airplanes.
Embraer (EMB) 120:
De Havilland (now Bombardier) DHC-8-Q400:
Length: 20.00 m (65 ft 7½ in)
Wingspan: 19.78 m (64 ft 10¾ in)
Height: 6.35 m (20 ft 10 in)
Max takeoff weight: 11,500 kg (25,353 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney Canada PW118/118A/118B turboprops, 1,340 kW (1,800 shp) each ...
Length overall: 32.84 m (107 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 28.42 m (93 ft 3 in)
Height overall: 8.34 m (27 ft 5 in)
Maximum takeoff weight: 29,257 kg (64,500 lb)
Engines: Two Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp. PW150A
The engines/propeller combinations are quite different, too. Yes, the basic
engines are based on a Pratt/Whitney design....the PW-150
is just a "larger, beefier more horsepower" variant of the entire PW100 "series" of engines.
The propellers on the Dash-8 Q400 are SIX-bladed, built by GE, under the "Dowty" trade name. However, "GE" is only the "parent company", having
acquired Dowty Rotol at some point. Dowty is a long-established propeller manufacturer:
and, found this informative lnk:
The EMB-120 propellers are built by Hamilton-Standard (also a long-established propeller manufacturer, BTW):
NOW...what was your source, again? Oh, and...where in the NTSB report, the DFDR and CVR are any indications of the propellers causing a problem
the accident sequence started?
(I call the "start" of the accident sequence the point where control of the airplane was lost. As I said earlier, during the unusual attitudes the
sort of forces encountered certainly could
have caused the propellers to suffer mechanical damage...and even, perhaps, would have
resulted in the presence of flames. BTW, "flames" from a turbine engine does NOT mean it is "on fire". The way an engine works means, there is a
fire INSIDE all the time....visible flames can, under certain circumstances, be seen to emit from the exhaust system. A phenomenon called "compressor
stall" will cause this, for one. Bad/disrupted airflow into the intakes, for example....).
Oh, and BTW: How does any (IF it is even found to be true) mechanical
failure in the propellor or enigne fit in to this "conspiracy"??
Wasn't the original point of this thread to allege some sort of "hit" on the 9/11 widow??
You may as well claim it was a "hit" on the off-duty Colgan Air Captain who was riding as a passenger, in the cabin!!!!
edit on 14 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)