Bae 146 / Rj

[steveskinner]

I am researching for a book on the BAE 146 / RJ / RJX and would be interested to hear stories and information from people who have direct experience of the type.

Look forward to hearing from you!

Steve Skinner

[ETOPS]

Steve

Try this web site as well;

146/RJ Web site Click here (http://www.smiliner.com)

[speedbird_heavy]

For some reason the fwd lav always sinks of stale piss

[Vasco]

Never, ever call it a 146.

Nearly got into a fight in Istanbul a few years back with a skipper we'd given a lift to the hotel. He was out there doing a conversion course and took mega exception when I innocently asked what life was like on the 146.

It's an RJ was the frosty reply.

[speedbird_heavy]

BAe 146/Avro RJ..........Same horse different jockey

[JazzyKex]

One for the flat, one for the jumps. Same (ish) horse. Great machine wouldn't want to be on any other jet going into London City. Everyone said how wonderful a aircraft it was to handle and until I started flying the 757 (control column attached to rubber bands) I didn't realise just what a sweet machine it was!

[Nil further]

It may handle great , but that aside its a pile of s**t . Appalling engines , dreadful pneumatic system . Have you ever tried to get the Standby electric gen to work ? Fumes in the aircon . Vmo restrictions , climb rate , no flight above FL260 in icing conditions .

An over engineered pile of junk . Ive got thousands of hours on it and thousands on the USA's best selling jet .......... its not difficult to see why Boeing are the ones still making them .

NF

[White Knight]

NF, so sorry to hear of your problems with it. If you'd flown the RJ then you'd have been able to go all the way up to FL350, even in icing by gosh.....Never needed the standby gen, engine driven gennys ALWAYS worked just fine !! Never had a Vmo restriction, you don't get much difference in block time over 400 miles at M0.76 compared to M0.70 and also 300 knots in the climb and descent no worries.....As for the cat III, well always nice to land when the competion was diverting:D :D

As for over engineered, I really don't think anything can be. Certainly not a single 146/RJ has rolled into the ground for no apparent reason !!!!

I thought the RJ100 was a very good solid and reliable aeroplane....

[mightyduck]

It's funny, the AVRORJ and the BAe146 duffer quit a lot. Moderns RJ have all the modern instrument. The Bae146 is quit old with a total different flightdeck. I was surprised to find out that both planes can be flown on a single rating, since they differ so much.

[Flap operator]

Well it may be the same rating on paper, but just as a 318 driver cannot just leap into a 330, there is a differences course and sim conversion.

As for Nil Further's comments. The 146 was the first commercial jet
I flew, and for that at the very least it has a special place in my affections
True, a normal line flight on a normal day could suddenly LOOK like a sim session with some of the transient warnings as the pneumatics wheezed into operation, it still remains the case that the aircraft with it's antiquated and overengineered systems, and superb handling qualities have so far not failed the crew and passengers in terms of being the cause of a major accident.

Excellent aircraft, what a shame the RJX project did not bear fruit.
that would have adressed all of the niggles and gripes that are associated with the marque.

[corporate kid]

I have to work on the things every night when you guys go home, and for that fact all the other engineers on real aircraft have gone home to.

The only good thing is thay are all rotting to pieces. Not long until all the wings are in a state of uneconomical repair.

Scarp the lot of the labour intensive piles of junk.

[ab6]

hi!
well, I flew it for 5 years and had five engine failures!!
apart from that, it was a very flexible aircraft...one day 1600 fpm glideslope into a greaser in london city..the next day 3:10 to ATH from GVA!
try that in any other hundred sitter..hte CAT111 was great too..
still, li ike the B747-400 or the A300-600 better!

[Plane Speaker]

Try contacting the Salisbury Hall Mosquito Museum: there's a number of "greybeards" there who were part of the Design Team of the 146 and RJ. They might be able to provide some insight as to why certain thing were designed as they were!?

[simonhk]

I worked for BAe at Hatfield making the 146/RJ from 1986 to 1993.
I did a technical apprenticeship there and made the rear passenger door of the queens flight aircraft...
As an apprentice I toured round all the different departments, and even flew a 146 for five whole minutes, while in Flight Test dept. I remember when a poor flight test engineer got sucked into an engine at full wack, not a good day.
I became a development engineer, improving the way we made the nose skins, annealling and stretching them on enormous leaky hydraulic stretch-forming machines from El Segundo.
In flight test once, someone accidentally raised the landing gear in the hangar. The mains didn't budge, but the nose wheel retracted smartly, leaving the weight of the nose resting on the forward passenger door, which in turn was resting on a fairly flimsy stairway.
It became fairly clear that the things just weren't selling, so I took voluntary redundancy when it was offered.

SimonHK

[Maxiumus]

The centre pedestal contains both the aeroplanes worst and best features - the thrust levers (the engines are rubbish in the 146) and the air brake (which makes it such a versatile aircraft).

Can any other airliner do 250kts on the glide to less than 5 miles and still be fully stabilised by 500ft agl? Or descend at 3000fpm and decelerate?

On the downside.... well where do you start? Appalling climb performance, slow cruise, high fuel burn (it burns more than an A320), crap systems.

I wouldn't say its over-engineered, seems to me more like the designers forgot to engineer the thing at all.

That said, it handles nicely, landing is relatively easy and there's always the nostalgia of your first jet type. In fact, I think it was a great aircraft to learn to fly jets on - the workload and needs for hands on flying is far higher than Mr Boeings finest.