Our flight evaluation occurred at the Bombardier Flight Test Facility in Wichita, Kan. Our host for the flight was Wally Warner, the Q400 chief test pilot. Accompanying me on the flight was Capt. Jack Jarvis (Piedmont), a Dash 8 pilot with more than 12,000 hours in type.

We were part of a group of eight airline pilots brought out by Bombardier to fly the Q400. The airplane for our flight was No. 4001, the first assembled Q400, and was a fully configured aircraft being used for stability and control flight testing.

The 70-seat Q400 is large and roomy; it spans 93 feet 3 inches, is 107 feet 9 inches long, and stands 27 feet 5 inches tall. The Q400 has two FADEC-controlled Pratt & Whitney PW150A engines, each rated at 4,580 shaft horsepower (normal takeoff power). The six-bladed Dowty propellers are 13 feet 6 inches in diameter. The Q400 sits 2 degrees nose-low on the ground to meet evacuation certification criteria (distance from door to ground for evacuation; no slides are installed).

I took the left seat for our flight evaluation. I found the cockpit rather difficult to enter because the seat installation lacked a J-track to move it out of the way of a wide center console. Once seated, however, I found the cockpit had a rather comfortable and cozy feel.

Our ramp weight was 54,000 pounds; maximum ramp weight is 60,250 pounds (63,250 pounds for the high-gross-weight version). Our fuel load was 9,270 pounds (the maximum is 11,830 pounds, or 1,740 U.S. gallons). Maximum landing weight is 59,750 pounds for the basic version and 60,500 for the high-gross-weight version.

The cruise speed of the Q400 is a significant 100-knot (true airspeed) increase over its predecessors. This maximum cruise speed, however, is obtained at 17,000 feet, not at high altitude. Warner pointed out that for fuel economy, airlines would most likely operate the airplane at its maximum altitude of FL270, where it cannot obtain this cruise speed.

Warner started both engines in sequence (right to left) using external power. Three rather good-sized batteries can be used to start these large engines. An optional APU can also be used to start the engines.

To start the right engine, Warner hit the start switch and almost immediately selected the fuel lever to "on." The ITT began to rise at 15 percent Nh (high-pressure turbine), which took 10 seconds to achieve, and peaked at 416 degrees C. The starter disengaged at 51 percent Nh. The time from initiation of start to starter cutout was 25 seconds. The engines idled at 64 percent Nh, with a propeller RPM (Np) of 210, an ITT of 360 degrees C, and a fuel flow of 350 pounds per hour per engine (ppe).

The day was nice for flying--clear skies, with the wind from 150 degrees at 10 knots and the temperature 50 degrees F.

After engine start, Warner pushed a button to conduct the autofeather test. This test checks the autofeather system through the FADECs and electronic propeller controls without a passenger-annoying change in prop rpm.

After completing the before-taxi checklist, Warner advanced the props to the ground idle position, and the noise noticeably increased. I released the lock on the parking brake T-handle and began to taxi out to Runway 19L.

For our weight, we could have used a takeoff flap setting of 5, 10, or 15 degrees. For 54,000 pounds, the V speeds for flaps 5 were V1/Vr, 121 knots, and V2, 131 knots. For our takeoff flap setting of 10 degrees, V1/Vr was 113 knots, and V2, 122 knots. If we had selected 15 degrees, V1/Vr would have been 108 knots with a V2 of 116 knots.

The flaps-up climb speed was 151 knots. If we had to return immediately, we would use a Vref of 117 knots for a landing flap setting of 35 degrees.

Because the stall and performance work had not yet been completed at the time of our test flight, these V speeds contained an additional 5 knots as a safety precaution.

I set the electronic bugs using a knob on the forward instrument panel. Only two bugs can be set, and this can be reasonably done only with the left hand. This is a little awkward during flight because one has to change hands while flying to set the bugs.

We were now ready to taxi, and I had to apply just a little power to start the aircraft rolling. The Q400 uses a "taxi-by-wire" steering system. The system has a rather flat response up to 25 degrees of turn and then ramps up the turn rate. This "knee," or change in turn rate, makes it difficult to smoothly make a wide turn. The turn rate tends to get just a little jerky through the "knee." A future modification in the steering system will correct this.

I taxied out to Runway 19L at Wichita, an airport I was familiar with, having worked in Cessna Aircraft's flight test department during my furlough from United. As I taxied out, I found the carbon brakes to be quite smooth and effective. Most of the Dash 8 pilots present for the evaluation, having been used to steel brakes, mentioned that the carbon brakes felt soft and took a little getting used to. I have noticed that this is a common response from pilots who are transitioning to carbon brakes from using steel brakes.

We used a standard 90 percent torque setting for takeoff. If we experienced an engine failure, the autofeather system would increase torque on the good engine to 100 percent.

Just before takeoff, we moved the spoilers to the flight position. This causes the spoilers to extend and perform a system self-check. When takeoff power is applied, the spoilers retract. They automatically extend with weight on the wheels. The spoilers are hydraulically powered, as are the elevator and rudder. The aileron design has remained a manual, fully reversible flight control.

I taxied onto the runway and applied takeoff power. The rudder, which has 7 degrees of nosewheel steering authority, provides directional control during takeoff. The tiller is also available for directional control.

As the engines rapidly accelerated, the propellers stabilized at the takeoff setting of 1,020 rpm. Fuel flow was 2,280 ppe, and Nh was 90 percent. The aircraft pitch and roll response on takeoff had a comfortable "large aircraft" feel.

At 400 feet AGL I lowered the nose, called for the flap retraction on the speed schedule, and accelerated through 151 KIAS. The propellers were set to the climb setting of 900 rpm and we were climbing at 2,200 fpm with a fuel flow of 2,000 ppe.

One of the major objectives of the Q400 program is maintaining a common type rating so that flight crews can fly the complete family of Dash 8 aircraft without needing to obtain an additional type rating. This goal can result in an interesting mix of technology.

The Q400 has replaced mechanical instruments with LCD displays; but to maintain commonality with the older design, the LCD displays show round dial instruments. The size of the screen limits the instrument depiction and unfortunately results in instruments being depicted smaller in size than the replaced round dials. To break with the 1980 instrument display, an optional primary flight display is available.

While a map display was not available on this test aircraft and we flew in the CDI mode, the production version will come with a map display on the ND.

The avionics suite is still under development, and I was able to see some of the problems that the engineers are working on. One problem is that the heading and altitude knobs on the autopilot mode control panel of the test aircraft have identical shapes. This deficiency will be corrected.

Also, the LCD screens, while very bright and readable, tend to jump in illumination as the brightness of the sunlight in the cockpit changes. Finding and correcting these and other deficiencies is one of the reasons for the flight test program, and the test pilot is critical in preventing less-than-optimal designs from entering the final production version of the aircraft.

Two general climb options are available--a slow climb mode of 160 KIAS and a fast climb mode of 210 KIAS. I was climbing at 160 KIAS with a pitch attitude of 15 degrees nose up with a climb rate of 3,300 fpm and a fuel flow of 1,950 ppe. I found the roll rate during climb to be respectable and the flight controls to be very well harmonized.

A small knob on the center pedestal provides rudder trim while a rocker switch is used for aileron trim. Elevator trim is activated through a conventional thumb switch on the yoke. This switch, however, is not so conventional for Dash 8 pilots, who are used to moving a trim wheel adjacent to the throttle quadrant. Minor changes like that can be significantly uncomfortable. While I was comfortable with the trim knob, Capt. Jarvis missed the large mechanical trim wheel.

We passed 10,000 feet MSL, and I lowered the nose to increase the climb speed to 210 KIAS. Passing 12,000 feet, we were indicating 209 KIAS, with a climb rate of 1,500 fpm, 75 percent torque, an Nh of 92 percent, and a fuel flow of 1,580 ppe.

The FADEC engine controls make power management simple. The thrust levers are placed in the desired torque detent, and the condition levers are placed in the appropriate detent for the desired Np. Passing FL180, we were climbing at 206 KIAS and 1,500 fpm with a fuel flow of 1,380 ppe. Passing FL200 feet, our climb rate was 1,300 fpm with a fuel flow of 1,290 ppe.

The cockpit visibility was very good, but I looked in vain for a sun visor. On this airplane, sun visors are an option, not standard equipment--they definitely need to be standard equipment!

At FL220, our climb rate was 1,400 fpm with a fuel flow of 1,240 ppe at a max climb power of 61 percent.

We were climbing at 900 rpm, but we had the option of selecting 850 rpm if we wanted a somewhat slower but quieter (in the cabin) climb.

Climbing through FL230, I started to reduce climb speed to 180 KIAS and leveled off at FL270. This action gives the maximum torque appropriate to the selected propeller rpm, altitudes, and temperatures with the throttles in the rating detent. Once level, I retarded the condition levers from the max climb detent of 900 rpm to the max cruise detent (850 rpm).

Our time from takeoff to reaching FL270 was 19 minutes, we consumed 1,050 pounds of fuel, and we traveled 64 miles downrange. We stabilized at 210 KIAS, with a TAS of 324 knots and a fuel flow of 1,000 ppe. I performed a few 60-degree steep turns and found the aircraft to be very maneuverable.

Next I wanted to look at the airplane's descent capability. Although the Q400 does not have speed brakes as such, it has the typical turboprop advantage of being able to substantially increase drag with the props in flat pitch, or "disking," when the power is reduced. I started with an initial pitch attitude of 7 degrees nose-low, which resulted in an initial descent rate of 5,400 fpm at 260 KIAS with an idle fuel flow of 360 ppe. I kept the airspeed at the barber pole (Vmo/Mmo limit) during the descent.

When I intentionally pushed past the barber pole, up to 286 KIAS, the airspeed needle turned red and I heard the overspeed warning, which to me, sounded more like a gear warning horn. This is not a complaint against the Q400, but I think aircraft warnings should be at least somewhat standardized. For an overspeed I have, in various flight tests, heard aural speed warnings, repetitive chimes, clackers, beeps, and horns.

I leveled at 15,000 feet to perform some clean stalls. Our weight was now 52,480 pounds, and I slowed until the stickshaker activated at 107 KIAS. Stall buffet occurred at 102 KIAS. A stickpusher will be installed on the Q400, but because the stall testing was still ongoing, the system was not yet operational.

Next I performed a stall with 15 degrees of flaps and a 20-degree bank, and the stickshaker activated at 91 KIAS. In the next stall--performed with gear extended, flaps at the landing setting of 35 degrees and Vref at 112 KIAS--the stickshaker activated at 80 KIAS.

In all the stalls, the aircraft was very responsive, and control was positive in both pitch and roll. The aircraft tends to wallow a little as the power comes up, which is typical for a turboprop airplane as the propellers speed up unevenly. The flaps extend smoothly without much ballooning and have very little rumble even when fully extended to 35 degrees.

In the last stall--performed at a flap setting of 15 degrees with the gear down and Vref at 117 KIAS, the stickshaker activated at 93 KIAS. This Vref speed did not have a 5-knot safety factor.

For a single-engine approach, a flap setting of 15 degrees is used to ensure adequate climb performance in the event of a go-around. I set up an approach with a Vref of 117 KIAS, flaps 15, and gear down. I started a go-around, and Warner pulled an engine to zero thrust. The Q400 was very controllable and required a determined lowering of the nose to maintain V2 in the climb. We were climbing at 900 fpm single-engine, and I did not have to apply excessive force to the rudder.

We were now ready to return to the airport. While we were heading back at 200 KIAS, I performed a few 60-degree bank-to-bank rolls to measure the roll rate, which turned out to be a respectable 30 degrees per second. The ailerons, though not boosted, are assisted by powered roll spoilers. The control force required to get full aileron deflection was rather high.

Coming back to Wichita at 5,000 feet and 200 KIAS, we were indicating a fuel flow of 1,050 ppe. Again, the Q400 handled very well.

We were vectored for an ILS approach to Runway 19R. The weather was still good with the winds now from 190 degrees at 15 knots. I slowed to 160 KIAS and called for the gear. I found the trim to be just a little slow at approach speeds. Our Vref for our weight of 51,980 pounds and flap setting of 15 degrees was 116 KIAS.

Coming down final at 121 KIAS, our descent rate was 500 fpm with a fuel flow of 830 ppe, and an Nh of 75 percent. As the props were advanced to 1,020 rpm, the jump from the previously set 900 rpm was very noticeable and would be disconcerting to passengers. Bombardier is well aware of the problem and is working on a solution.

On my first landing, I performed what I considered to be a typical flare to a pitch attitude of 6 degrees nose-up, and I noticed that Warner seemed just a bit concerned. I found out why when he told me that we would hit the tail bumper installed for flight testing at 8 degrees nose-up. After all the wheels were on the runway, I applied full reverse, and the aircraft slowed quickly. Brake application was smooth and effective.

I exited the runway, and we taxied back for a flaps 15 takeoff. Normally flaps 5 would be used for takeoff, but to make the task a little more demanding for an engine-failure performance test, we chose a setting of 15 degrees. For our takeoff weight of 51,500 pounds, V1 and Vr were 106 KIAS and V2 was 113 KIAS. We set the props at 900 rpm, and normally we would increase prop speed to 1,020 rpm on the good engine if an engine failed.

At V1, Warner simulated an engine failure, and I climbed at 1,200 fpm initially with a fuel flow of 2,190 pph on the good engine. We began to clean up the aircraft while climbing through 400 feet AGL and started a turn to downwind. The Q400 climbed and handled well on one engine. The approach speed, Vref, would be 116 KIAS with flaps 15. I called for the gear and flaps and started a turn to final.

On final, the fuel flow was 1,130 pph on the good engine at 33 percent torque. I was about 10 knots fast on final and pulled the power to idle just a little early. I don't fly turboprops all that often, and I forgot that when one pulls power to idle, the props go to very flat pitch and the aircraft starts to decelerate rapidly. I remembered this fact just as I pulled the power to idle because Capt. Jarvis made a quick "Oh boy" comment. Realizing what I had done, I very carefully milked the remaining aircraft performance to obtain a reasonably smooth landing. I used full reverse on the good engine until reaching 60 knots and encountered no directional control problems. The Q400 is the first Dash 8 series airplane in which attaining full reverse during the landing roll is possible.

Now came Capt. Jarvis's turn to fly. The Q400 now weighed 51,130 pounds, and we taxied back for a flaps 5 takeoff. At this weight, V1 and Vr were 117 knots, and V2 was 128 knots. The takeoff rpm again was 1,020, with 90 percent torque. With a fuel flow of 2,200 ppe and a takeoff roll of approximately 3,000 feet, we were soon airborne with an initial climb rate of 3,300 fpm. Capt. Jarvis cleaned up the aircraft and climbed out at 180 KIAS with a climb rate of 2,600 fpm.

Capt. Jarvis flew out to the test area to evaluate the general handling characteristics of the aircraft. He commented that the Q400 had a heavier feel in pitch and roll than the Dash 8-200 that he was used to flying. Warner commented that Bombardier had to stiffen up the Q400's controls because the Q300 exhibited almost neutral stability during 1.13Vs sideslips. The heavier control forces were necessary to ensure positive aircraft stability as well as enhanced flight-control harmony.

Capt. Jarvis also noted a few minor differences between the Q400 and the
-200, such as electric versus manual trim and a small split slip triangle replacing the large inclinometer on the attitude indicator.

After the area evaluation we returned for a full-stop landing. I had hoped that Capt. Jarvis could fly several patterns, but we were running out of time. We set up for a flaps 15 landing at a weight of 50,680 pounds. For this weight, our Vref was 115 knots with an approach speed of 122 knots. One nice feature of the Q400 is the increase in the maximum flap and gear speeds over those of previous models of the Dash 8, whose lower speeds do not provide for approach-speed compatibility with most jet aircraft.

The wind was now from 190 degrees at 12 knots, and our fuel flow was 1,000 ppe with a torque of 18 percent. Capt. Jarvis made a very nice landing. I guess 12,000 flight hours in type does count for something.

I was happy later to hear other experienced Dash 8 pilots mention how the stiff gear prevented smooth landings; having an excuse is always good. Warner commented that the long, straight main gear strut resulted in a rather stiff gear; hence, the greater effort required to produce smoother landings. The landing gear shock strut characteristics do not prevent smooth landings--they just make the task more challenging.

The other pilots who evaluated the aircraft also commented about the lack of feel in the flare because the elevator was now hydraulically powered. Bombardier powered the elevator to allow a greater range of aircraft CG and to meet control force certification requirements for tailplane icing.

Capt. Jarvis taxied the Q400 back to parking. During our 2-hour 9-minute evaluation, we had consumed 3,650 pounds of fuel.

A total of eight pilots evaluated the Q400 in this demonstration program, and probably the most notable comment from the group was their perception that transitioning to this aircraft from the earlier models of the Dash 8 would be easy. They all felt that they would have no difficulty flying a mixed fleet of Q100 through Q400 aircraft. Probably the only negative comment was that, after flying the Q400 with the advanced FADEC engine controls, some of the group might not like flying an airplane with less sophisticated engine controls. All in all, everyone was well pleased with the aircraft.

The Q400 is an impressive extension of a very well received and capable line of Bombardier aircraft. The cockpit display symbology, while rooted in a 1980s design for commonality, is capable of displaying improved flight instrument presentations with minimal modifications. The Q400 will complement the existing Bombardier product line and, pending FAA certification and approval (targeted for May 28), should be able to be flown as a common type with the rest of the Dash 8 family.