Continuingappch

Anyone out there who has flown both types?

Interested in virtues/vices rating, though I've always admired the Brasilia more.

Older guy that may have a choice as to which to fly, probably not going to take the pay cut to go 121 for only a couple of years.

I know there were more SAABs built, and I heard something about GE leasing the engines which makes them attractive to operators, so maybe more career longevity in type?

PerfInit

I’ve flown both the SF-340B and EMB-120, about 1200 and 800 hours respectively but that was about 25 years ago. From a pilot’s perspective, I prefer the SF-340B hands down. PM me with your specific questions. I’ve only had one engine failure in my career, and it was in the “Bro”.

Continuingappch

Thanks! No specific questions, that's just the kind of feedback I was looking for👍

merlinj79

I flew the bro. I know nothing about the 340.

I'd highly recommend the 340.

JohnRalpio

No Apu on the 340

PerfInit

I flew the SAAB after the Bro. I never once missed having an APU. Operating under 121 versus 135 Commuter rules more than offset the APU.

John Carr

You won’t be considered a real pilot until you can draw the electrical schematics from both airplanes from memory.

And beta, coursing, whut?!?!?

PerfInit

LOL…. “Autocoarsen” = Svedish Lambda for Autofeather
How about the prop and flap systems on that Bro….
Crazy ass complicated. Landed many times with asymmetric flaps
in the Bro…

WHACKMASTER

I just remember the FO’s flow on taxi out from 24 years ago.

”Feather, Feather, sink, skid”

zippinbye

I know this is late coming, but I'll give an analogy regarding the SF-340. I have about 4500 hours in both seats, last flown 26 years ago. I grew up flying 100 to 200 horsepower SEL Beech, Piper and Cessna airplanes, with a bit of informal time in SES DHC-2 Beavers. As most might recognize, the Beaver has a rock solid feel compared to the aforementioned. Can you say "structural integrity?" You could say the same about it's grandchild, the DHC-6 Twin Otter, which was my first turboprop. Perhaps a more commonly-experienced transition (at least for old farts like me) was the first flight in a Bonanza (or Debonair in my case). The mighty Beech 30 series felt as solid as a rock with yoke in hand, compared to anything I had flown before. The Saab provided the same sensation to me after perhaps half a dozen other turboprops and a few cabin class twins. It's built like a brick $*ithouse! Ever hear of parts falling off a SF-340? Nope, cause it's not a "thing." They have integrity to the extreme. While not sporty, over-powered or "snappy" in control response, they are solid and comfortable and predictable. Very easy to become one with the airframe after some time in the seat. I never flew the Brasilia, but have plenty of friends who did. It is faster, no doubt - something on the order of 20 knots in cruise. SF-340 is the same speed as a B-200 King Air. EMB-120 barber pole is 272 vs. 250, so you actually have to consider your speed passing through 10,0000 feet. They are both fine aircraft. I would not choose one over the other unless all else were equal, then it's the Saab. If pay, schedule, quality of life or risk exposure can be differentiated between jobs featuring one or the other, that's where you should focus your consideration. The SF-340 is quiet for a turboprop, but it is noisy even though your seat is considerably forward of the props. if I could have gone without a clamp on my head and moved a decimal one place to the right on my paycheck, I would have been happy flying the SF-340 forever.