Talk:Saab 340

I have replaced the images marked with unacceptable licenses with my own acceptable licenced photograph. It's nowhere near as good (sorry!), but the licensing issue takes precedent.

--Cromagnon 3 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Wings

I corrected an error regarding the making of the Saab 340 wings after the 340 - project was taken over entirely by SAAB. Following this the wings were made in Sweden at the SAAB plant in Linköping. The wings for the later SAAB 2000 turboprop though, were manufactured in Spain.

13 July 2006

Yes, you're right - I had been a-wondering about this and irt was on my list to check - thanks - Ballista 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

End of production

The infobox has production ending in 1999, but the article text states that production of civilian aircraft ended in 2005, implying that production of the military variant continues. Which is the correct information? I'll be checking my sources, but I'd appreciate any help in clarifying the production dates & status. --Ssbohio 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. The way it was written confused me, but what was intended (apparently) was that Saab ceased 340 production in 1999, and ceased all civil aircraft production in 2005. --Ssbohio 02:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Environment

All I remember about it is that it was cramped and extremely loud, but it got the just done in the Midwest. Kevin Rutherford 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent information

Now it currently says that Saab made the vertical stabilizer, and Fairchild made the empennage. But according to the definition of empennage, it includes the vertical stabilizer as well as the horizontal part. So there is an inconsistency there.Eregli bob (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing Airline - Calm Air (operating out of Winnipeg/Churchill Manitoba Canada) flies several Saab340b+ models - there greatest flaw is that you can't fit larger carry on baggage in the cabin. I've seen them take off and land beautifully in some pretty ugly blizzards - its impressive how well they handle the extreme cold of the north. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.246.4 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the 'never exceed speed' seems to be lower than the cruise speed, which seems odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.43 (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what Jane's says - in an earlier Jane's, the 250 knot V_MO is quoted as IAS - presumably the other speeds are other measures of airspeed - possibly TAS.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

PenAir says they operate SAAB 340A/Bs on a confirmation letter I just saw, but is not yet listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.49.254.2 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Regional Express flight RXA/ZL768

While the event is significant the addition of it to the article should hold until the ATSB publishes its interim report, and updated once the final report is released. The biggest problem ATM is that the media is publishing hearsay or in some cases false information and is a fresh event that can hold off until factual information is available. Also we should also look at what type of events that are put in this article, I don't see how a near miss is relevant to this article (the aircraft wasn't damaged, lost, destroyed, no injuries or deaths), it would be better suited to the Regional Express Airlines article. Bidgee (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the incident and haven't read about it, but leaving a neutral, factual note (here and in the airline article) could prevent false information spreading. I was confronted to the same on Dassault_Falcon_7X#Pitch_trim_incident which I viewed as irrelevant at first, but the incident deserved a BEA report. That's the way of modern aviation safety : only minor incidents are studied now, as there are less and less large accidents. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it amusing that, according to the reverters, losing a propeller mid-flight isn't considered damage. Fbergo (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the airframe, though now it is more clearer as to what happen with this media release. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Comair that is stated in the media release. Bidgee (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Duh, of course I saw the news. Notable enough for me. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be careful in making a personal opinion, which is what you've done above and below. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's as relevant here as in the airline article : it was as much a Saab 340 propeller as a Regional Express propeller.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the article history, this incident has been added by 5 people: 122.106.161.107 (2 times), Dcarriso, Fbergo, Rcbutcher and Invisigoth; and reverted by 2: Bidgee and Andrewgprout. I would count myself for its inclusion too (total 6 vs 2), as it is not only reported in mainstream news, but also in specialised aviation publications, and comply with WP:NOTNEWS, even before an interim report. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH is the guidance we should be using here - this incident fails every point of that guidance except maybe the 'significant damage' point which is possible. This incident is really no more significant ,or serious, that the rare, but usually not noted in Wikipedia, of uncontained engine failure of a jet aircraft would be. The arguments above do not really make a good case for this still being interesting or important in years to come. The people who reverted this entry said wait and I think that is still good advice.-- 07:36, 23 March 2017‎ Andrewgprout

WP:AIRCRASH applies to article WP:notability, not content within an existing article where Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Turbofan failures can even have their own article. This incident (which isn't that extraordinary, I agree, the flight continued to its destination, nobody was harmed, the aircraft should fly again) received broad coverage because damage was obviously visible. If we don't include it, we open the door to edit wars with IPs trying to include it, at least present it with good references. See my comment above on modern aviation safety.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AIRCRASH applies primarily to content within existing articles. Per that page, "This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles. By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not." - BilCat (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oo, I read it too fast. Thanks for the correction! so it contradicts Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in specification section?

The specification section is entitled "Specifications (340B)" yet one of the references, number 38, leads to a source that contains specifications on only the Saab 340A. Could somebody explain why this is, please? Easyjet fan (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for your scrutiny. I harmonized it from SAAB's 340B specs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)