Happy birthday 146

[Plane Speaker]

On Sunday 3rd September the 146 will have notched up 25 years flying since the first flight on 3rd Sptember 1981, with Peter Sedgwick and Mike Goodfellow in the flight deck of E1001. Will she make another 25?

[one four sick]

I hope not.
It can't fly fast and achieve anything like the 737 in payload and range terms, even though it has 2 more "engines".
Lets retire the thing now!
It always gets in my way and slows us down. :{

[neil armstrong]

and it did poison crews and pax for the last 25 year ,time to retire


Neil

[skianyn vannin]

I must say I do enjoy flying the 146 even though the climb performance is pitiful at high weights on the hot days. Its probably as close as your going to get to real flying in an airliner these days.

After all, who needs EFIS, EICAS or autothrottles?

[Parapunter]

A shame it seems to be disliked. As a child, our back garden looked out onto the old BAe site at Hatfield, I recall watching them fly around in the green just off the line look, being tested, filmed & all sorts. Happy memories really & I always thought it a looker.

[Hirsutesme]

[quote=neil armstrong;2817576]and it did poison crews and pax for the last 25 year ,time to retire"

What's that about?

[ZAGORFLY]

Happy Birthday small Jumbo!
I remember you flying in into Nanjing Airport the first time! the other birds were the Tridents! (do yo rmember the offset front Landing gear retracting sideways?)
Happy birthday small jumbo with your 4 small textron Laycoming jets engines
(ALF502 R?) and your terrifc noise when the flaps were lowered and in some way the airflow was creating a very scaring sound..

[fade to grey]

Hi,
Now don't be nasty about what we at BMC called the 'cockroach'
It is a great first jet,nice to fly and very flexible and i spent a happy 1800hrs on it !And of course it is the last British airliner,

But I expect the kids of today would n't be interested cos it has no EFIS,FADEC etc ......

[neil armstrong]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,,1718303,00.html

http://www.aopis.org/index2.html

Neil

[jondc9]

I flew the BAE 146 for a little while. I recall the odd sort of spinning ice detetor device.

I recall making a 3 engine ferry in my first few weeks on the plane.

I also recall that a normal landing felt like a grease job and a grease job landing was so smooth you really didn't know you were on the ground until the mechanism allowed reducing power to the ground range.

This air frame was built like a tank. The engines were marginal at first. putting electrics on half the engines and pneumatics on the other half, well what can I say? Hydraulically powered standby electric generator...what can I say?

I do think this plane has a place in modern flying. I think it is a better plane than the CRJ that crashed in Lexington ky.

Our airline routinely operated this type (bae146) into very short runway airports, using less than half of those short ( >4000) runways.

Slow inflight, slow landing and takeoff speeds make for safety. We lost one when a nut got into the cockpit and shot both pilots dead...some say the plane went supersonic prior to crash.

A plane to be respected, if not to get all hot and bothered about. Not my first jet, not my favorite, but it never rolled over with a rudder hardover!

jonhttp://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/eusa_clap.gif

[False Capture]

FTD and SV,

The original 146 certainly lacked some of the toys. However, the RJ series has all the modern gadgets like EFIS, FADEC, EGPWS, autothrottles, Cat3B autoland, etc. In addition, it also has a more 'user-friendly' autopilot Mode Contol Panel (MCP) and Thrust Rating Panel (TRP).

I enjoyed flying the RJ - just a shame it didn't have a bit more thrust.

[MisterBliss]

It is a nice aircraft, driven by 4 APU's :) ...
But happy birthday to it, and many flying years wished..

[DesignerChappie]

There is a low key ceremony at Cranfield, the home of E3001 (ex E1001) this weekend.

"Peter Sedgwick and Mike Goodfellow in the flight deck of E1001"

Also on the flight where Roger de Mercado and Ron Hammond, the flight test engineers, who where sat in the back.

DC

[fade to grey]

Hmmmm,
those flaps made a right racket going down,they also looked quite odd from the cabin - I once had a passenger draw them and hand us his picture because he was convinced they were broken.

I know the RJ has all the gadjets - Is that why some of the pilots get a bit touchy when you say,'oh,you're on the 146 eh ?' !

[UKpaxman]

Will it last another 25yrs? - bear in mind that Flightline are using them to ferry offshore workers from Aberdeen to Scatsta. Prior to Flightline there was the BAF contract from Aberdeen to Sumburgh using the Viscount - I'm sure they were nearing 50 years old when they were retired. Another 25 yrs?....hell, why not.

And as for -

'It can't fly fast and achieve anything like the 737 in payload and range terms, even though it has 2 more "engines".

Horses for courses mate, lets see a 737 land on 1300 x 31 metre runway with a 28 knot cross wind:ooh:

[one four sick]

I can land a full 737 in PRG, rwy 24 exit at C with manual brakes, reversers, no drama, no crisis.
Or at CWL rwy 12 at D.
So what? :=

[DesignerChappie]

Will it last another 25 years?... probably! E3001 only had about 6000hrs on the clock when it was converted to the Met research aircraft, the fleet leader has nearly 50k on the clock. The last RJ was delivered only two years ago so it's likely to be around for a few years yet.
Pity it was such a political toy and the money that was spent on it's later development didn't solve some of the basic problems. It's certainly kept me in work over the last 20 years and it's always nice to see E3001 as I spent many happy hours looking after it at Woodford.
DC

[BahrainLad]

Sat on Clapham Common last Sunday, the quietest machines inbound to LHR were the 777-300ER and the 146*

(*slightly different weights, but.........)

[DoNotFeed]

It happend on a 1300m RWY or even shorter with 142 Pax and loooots of wind in the old days of JMK in greece and other fency places. And it was fun to us when new LHS and hair was still coloured.:}

[safetypee]

Horses for courses mate, lets see a 737 land on 1300 x 31 metre runway with a 28 knot cross wind.
I recall that someone tried that at Dutch Harbour in the Aleutian Islands; the 737 left in pieces. Of course the route was a regular fish and pax run for the Air Pac 146 (gravel runway).
History has yet to determine the effect that the 146 will have had on the industry. Jet flights into LCY, Berne, Lugarno, Paro, Aspen, Orange County, Bromma, Queenstown, Vargar. The 146 pioneered European low noise night freight.
First UK/JAA aircraft certification, first ‘super fail passive’ Cat 3B certification (150m/50ft), first jet transport steep approach certification.
The flap noise represents ‘lift’; the wing design still provides the highest CL Max for any civil jet.
Until you have flown one you don’t appreciate what a good aerodynamics and control feels like – it’s manual control, it doesn’t need any fancy electronic fixes.
Are there any other jet transports in service without vortex generators? N.B the 146 has wing leading edge ‘stall breakers’ and nothing more.
I may have overlooked many highlights, I hope that there are more to come; unfortunately I have run out of time before the 146 has.

[Marvo]

Never flown it, but had it in bits more times than I care to mention. Used to call it " the english patient". It was a pain to fix and whoever designed an aircraft where you pump the fuel UP the wing to the engines needs to see my Old uni engineering prof!

Flying the 737-8 and I love it....I feel somewhat sorry I might never get the chance to learn all sixteen recall items on the 146, and pull the airbrake at 50 feet! Happy birthday you limpet, after all you do tend to stick to the ground (u/s) alot!

[st patrick]

I got my command on it and though I tried to bid off it from day 1, I thoroughly enjoyed my 4 years on it in no small part due to the great crews and engineers that made up our commuter operation. It was a great aircraft for a first command because you were constantly making decisions as all the margins were so tight, not to mention the frequency with which things went wrong!!! We often had to fly with the airbrake out to get down to our max landing weight having taken only flight plan fuel!!

It will probably last another 25 years-with a lot of TLC just glad I`ll be looking at it rather than from it!! How many were made does anyone know?

[Croqueteer]

:) I was airborne out of Bournmouth one fine Sunday morning, empty to Luton, with the 300m markers (Take-off end!) still visible ahead, a 3min exactly visual cct at Florence on my check flight, and operating out of all 5 "London" airports. A hooligan's aircraft, and I'm a retired hooligan!

[knobbygb]

How many were made? 394 and a half (the last one was scrapped while partially completed in the factory) :sad: with approx. 300 in active service.

As a pax, have to say I sometimes love it and sometimes hate it. It's nice to fly on something a bit different and 'interesting' - hardly an annonymous metal tube by any stretch of the imagination. The odd fuselage width either means you get loads of room in a 2x3 configuration or are squashed in at 45 degrees to the wall when in 3x3.

I have one question - does the a/c suffer from a particular difficulty as regards weight and balance? Reason I ask is that I was once on a lightly loaded 146 flight where all the pax were moved from their assigned seats to the front half of the cabin before takeoff.

[Uplinker]

Very fond of the 146.

As a first jet, it was just the ticket. Ours (Flybe) were fully manual, but they handled soooo well. A real delight to hand fly. Greasers were a daily occurence, almost no brainers, Mind you, you could bounce them quite spectacularly, as I proved a couple of times !!

Comments about 'only 2 engine gennys', and 'only two engine hyd pumps', come from those who perhaps have failed to appreciate the design philosophy of the 146.

It was designed to operate with a high level of redundancy, hence 4 smaller engines rather than 2 bigger ones. 3 engine ferry was possible and not uncommon.

The reason for only having either a genny or a Hyd pump are obvious when you think about the relatively low power of each engine and also the amount of room available within the nacelle. If you have a genny with its constant speed unit, there ain't physically any more room or power available for a hyd pump as well ! That's why there are 4 engines, not 2 ! It is also why the APU was started and used on T/O and landings; to make a third identical genny available for extra redundancy at critical stages of flight.

No, it won't last another 25 years, but long live the 146 !!

[False Capture]

Uplinker,
After the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce in 1970, the only suitable engine was the modestly powered (6500lb thrust) ALF 502. Unfortunately, this resulted in four engines being required instead of the original two. Certainly wasn't due to splitting-up generators and hydraulic pumps due to lack of space in the nacelles.

The reason the APU is (sometimes) used for take-off/landing is simply because the engines aren't powerful enough to provide bleed air for: i) the packs and ii) the airframe ice protection.

Regarding the loading, you might find the dispatcher on knobbygb's flight had screwed-up the load-sheet. The longer version (146-300/RJ100) isn't as trim sensitive as suggested.

I usually tell people I flew the 146 despite having flown the RJ100. This is because most people think of cheap little bendy aeroplanes from the Brazilian jungle when you say "I used to fly the RJ". ;)

[tiggerific_69]

i fly on both brazilian little jungle jets (leave em alone! ;)) and the RJ and both have their pros and cons from a cabin crew perspective.heres to another 25 years of the great washing machine ;)

[Dan Air 87]

I used to fly in Aer Lingus's 146's out of LGW to DUB and the interior noise was quite bad especially with the flaps. Its a good aircraft though but it does look a bit long in the tooth though compared against the A320's and so on.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

The advantage of 4 little engines for the 146 was the ability to get back from remote airfields with 1 engine out. We used to go into Moenchengladbach (1200m?); very little engineering support there; if we had a major problem we could empty the pax out, take off with 3 engines, lose a second engine on the same side at V1 and still have Perf A protection. It is unfair to compare it to a 737- they were designed for very different tasks.
Personally I loved flying the 146- it did get frustrating watching the rest of the world flying higher and faster, but I still get that when I look up from FL370 and a G5 overtakes me like I'm standing still 8000 feet above me. :ugh:
So, Happy Birthday 146, and thanks for a year of the most varied and fun flying I have ever done.

[broadreach]

25 years, wow. I’m afraid I remember when the VW Beetle and the DC-3 hit that mark. The 146 is special, as many have explained above. For passengers, perhaps a slightly less massified feeling, just a few steps up into that low floor, like a bus, maybe it’s a subtly different team feeling bonding flight deck and cabin crew and that seeps to the back.

And I think its shortfield qualities certainly nudged Boeing’s brains to get more out of the 737. The 146 was shortlisted to replace Electras on the Rio-Sao Paulo shuttle and lost out to Boeing’s improvements plus, no doubt, political prowess.

Anecdote from my last flight, Schiepol-Glasgow, late nineties, UK Air, less than half full: pushback from a remote stand blocked by a wildcat ground handlers strike, no room to swing and loads of flimsy boarding stairs scattered about. A bunch of us pax spoke to captain, suggested we move the stairs, push the aircraft back ourselves. Wide grins all round, consultation and eventually, refusal – insurance considerations and all the downstream aggro for KLM. But, coincidence or not, less than five minutes later the strike was over and a tug showed up. Even wider grins.

[chevvron]

Bear in mind it was originally the HS 146 designed in the late 60's, but Labour declined to give Hawker Siddeley any money for development until mid 70's, when Wedgie Benn then took all the glory to try to get people's minds off his De Lorean debacle. So it's only with us because an American millionaire managed to get Labour to cough up lots of taxpayers money on a total fiasco, and Labour were trying to save face (as usual).

Anyway I think it's a nice 'plane; how many other 85 seat jets can land at Berne (about 1200m?).

[Midland 331]

>how many other 85 seat jets can land at Berne (about 1200m?).

Precisely! It needs to be considered as a "Dash 7 Plus", rather than a "737 Minus".

And that main gear assembly should be preserved in The Tate Modern...

r

[Final 3 Greens]

but Labour declined to give Hawker Siddeley any money for development until mid 70's, when Wedgie Benn then took all the glory to try to get people's minds off his De Lorean debacle.

The Delorean Motor Company went into Receivership on 19 February 1982, under a Conservative government.

[Soddit]

Ahem. Cadogan de Vere Carlton Browne

Are you absolutely sure you keep Perf A on a 3 engine ferry? I had an idea that you went outside the certificated case thus the AFM requirement for take off of 1600 metres vis and 1000 foot cloudbase. Wasn't it so you could visually maneovre especially in the unlikely event of a second engine failure?....AFM Appendix 4 if memory serves. Also seem to recall that the one time there was a 3 engine ferry from MGL had our friends at the Luftfahrtbundesamt getting quite excited later. When they found out.:)

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Bear in mind it was originally the HS 146 designed in the late 60's, but Labour declined to give Hawker Siddeley any money for development until mid 70's, when Wedgie Benn then took all the glory to try to get people's minds off his De Lorean debacle. So it's only with us because an American millionaire managed to get Labour to cough up lots of taxpayers money on a total fiasco, and Labour were trying to save face (as usual).
Anyway I think it's a nice 'plane; how many other 85 seat jets can land at Berne (about 1200m?).

I am not sure what DeLorean had to do with it. Basically the HS146 was cancelled around 1974/75 due to the effects of the fuel crisis of the time. It was revived around 1978 after the nationalisation of the UK industry under British Aerospace.

The 146 number is fascinating and kind of reaches back even further into history than Hawker Siddeley, since I assume it has continuity with the old de Havilland series, succeeding the greats like the DH 82 Tiger Moth, DH 106 Comet and DH 121 Trident.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The old HSA Divisions kept their existing Type numbering system. When, for example, AVRO Whitworth Division were given design authority for the Nimrod, it acquired an AVRO design number; 801.

[jabberwok]

The 146 number is fascinating and kind of reaches back even further into history than Hawker Siddeley, since I assume it has continuity with the old de Havilland series, succeeding the greats like the DH 82 Tiger Moth, DH 106 Comet and DH 121 Trident.

Indeed. It was originally known as the DH146 until it got shelved.

[RED WINGS]

Happy Birthday!!!

What can I say British is best! Its a shame its the end of an era!

and "One Four Sick" you are obviously a very deprived individual, and I hope someone turns up to urinate on your birthday cake this year!

[flown-it]

I was once asked did I know what BAE stands for? I fell for it. No. Chortle Bring another engine Chortle came the reply. Humm shouldn't there be another A in the title? Said I. Why? said he. 'Cos it's bring another American engine! The plane was great to fly, even better to land. The weak link was the engines.

[FOUR REDS]

One Four Sick

You try to schedule the landing perf on those intersections at PRG etc.....
At least it could land at MGL (1200 m) and actually turn-off onto the
first interesection (just over 600 m down)

Try that in your shiny 73........

[JW411]

All three-engine ferry take-offs are, by definition, outwith Perf A. Therefore there is no V1 but it is to all practical purposes replaced by VR. In other words if another engine fails before VR then any sensible person will stay glued to the earth and after VR will continue to fly.

Three-engine ferry take-offs in the BAe 146 are a piece of p*ss.

I loved flying it and never allowed it to poison me for I learned how to control the packs.

It's most endearing feature was that it ran out of fuel after about 3½ hours which, after years of long haul, was absolute heaven!

I would love to fly one again.

[JW411]

I am also quite interested to hear that the 737 has just such a good landing performance as the 146.

Why then is it that LCY airport is not ankle-deep in 737s?

[Dream Buster]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!:ok:

Pity about the BAD BREATH..........:D

Another 25 years? No.:=

[Wee Jock]

My most vivid memory of the 146 is the Royal Squadron jet which almost came a cropper at Stansted when it landed on one engine. (It was all over the news, servicing error, no oil seals in the engines). The crew were amazing, so calm. :D :D :D

[chevvron]

Wonder why GB Airways don't get one for the Tangier run? It would seem to be a good replacement for the Viscount they 'lost' (broke) several years ago.
And how about the one HRH nearly wrote off in the Highlands and Islands.

[Kiltie]

Chevvron yes that was Charles on Islay. Downwind landing and off the side in to the mud wasn't it?

[seacue]

Twenty-five years? Hrumph Just a Whipper-snapper. The first flight of the 737 was 9 April 1967 39-1/2 years ago.

One shouldn't compare the 146 with the 737 since they were designed for quite different applications. Unfortunately there didn't turn out to be enough places that required the short-field performance of the 146 to make it a winning product.

The 737-100 was also a bad guess, but the -200 was there to save Boeing's hide. The very-first 737 was flown to its final museum home at Boeing Field just three years ago.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

soddit, admittedly it was nearly eight years ago I did the 146 type rating. However, the performance manager (A.S. at the time) did go through the figures with us; you had to be at min weight (from MGL you had barely enough fuel to make it back to LTN) but it would work.
Glad I never had to actually do one though!

[Mr R Sole]

The 146 is my current type and I remember being told when converting onto it that what the aircraft lacks in speed and vertical performance is made up by the nice handling characteristics. After a very pleasant year of flying it so far then I could not of summed it up any better! It’s a solid yet forgiving aircraft that shines when operating out of small airfields. It is undoubtedly an old type nowadays but it is still in use since there is no other aircraft in its size that can perform so well in the STOL environment.

It is great fun to hand fly and a greaser in the 146 is not noticing when you have touched down!!!

Someone said to me recently - how many Embraer 135/145s will be around when they are 25 years old? Just highlights the fact that the 146 is one of the few aircraft that is over engineered as opposed to the norm today which is under engineered!

I am led to believe that the airframe life for the 146 is 50,000 cycles and some of the early airframes will be approaching this limit. The life extension program will probably cost more than the airframe so many will probably 'die' when they reach that limit. Also the B-RNAV to P-RNAV mod for the 146 is costly (think Atlantic in Faroe have modded one so far?) and that could put the writing on the wall for some airframes.

The RJ will be around for a bit longer but I look forward to many more happy hours in the 146 while it is still around before I do my RJ differences course!!

[oldlag53]

I must be living on a different plane of existence to most of you guys n' gals...the 146 was - as stated by the President of United Airlines ' a thoroughly unsatisfactory aircraft'.

It completely ruined Air UK's ability to make its prime LGW-EDI/GLA routes work due to its shocking reliability; although pax liked it for its 'whisperjet' status and Britishness, in reality it quickly became unpopular with regulars due to its internal noise, cramped cabin layout and unreliability. One year, Air UK Engineering had to deal with 127 unscheduled engine changes!!

As I understand it (and no doubt I may be corrected!) its engine was originally designed for a military helicopter - thereby making it totally unsuited for commercial commuter work.

Pilots may love (some) of its flying characteristics, but an airliner is only a decent airliner when it flies passengers - you know, paying customers - from A to B on time and in comfort...

Another 25 years?? Another 25 weeks maybe - I presume Flybe/BE/JEA are on the point of getting shot of theirs (to an enormous sigh of relief...)

[rodthesod]

It completely ruined Air UK's ability to make its prime LGW-EDI/GLA routes work due to its shocking reliability; although pax liked it for its 'whisperjet' status and Britishness, in reality it quickly became unpopular with regulars due to its internal noise, cramped cabin layout and unreliability. One year, Air UK Engineering had to deal with 127 unscheduled engine changes!!

Perhaps you should blame Air UK, not the aircraft. I remember my last company hiring one Air UK 146 pilot who wanted out because of their 'shoddy flying procedures and engineering practices' (his quote, not mine). He went on to fly happily on type with us for many years.
We operated a large fleet and found it to be a superb workhorse with very acceptable reliability.
In about 6000 hours on type I never had an unscheduled shutdown; only one engine replacement after it ingested several seagulls - I hadn't noticed any adverse engine indications, but certainly noticed the other 15 birds that hit the airframe (without damage).
I never experienced air-conditioning 'fumes' that other posters have mentioned because I was taught, and subsequently taught others, how to use the packs and APU correctly.
I've got absolutely nothing against Boeings but the 146 and 737 should not be compared; they fulfil different requirements. I don't ever remember getting in any other aircraft's way because of the 146's 'inferior' performance, but do remember a few occasions, when operating 'slickly', wishing that the 737 in front would get a move on - but never had the bad manners to say so as some pilots do these days.
I always felt secure, as I had previously flying the BAC1-11, operating a good old British brick-built s***house. Sadly, thanks to cr** governments past and present and crass BAe management, there won't be more like those.
It was, of course, a real drag on the 'long-haul' IST-LGG and similar, but that was not what it was designed for - if operated on short sectors at its optimum levels it had adequate performance.
I've retired now, but have very fond memories of the 146. It was an excellent first jet for the hundreds of pilots I've trained on it, and it was forgiving enough to let first commands 'find their feet' in it without too many sleepless nights for me.
Happy Birthday 146, if they'd let me I'd probably be happy to fly you for another 25 years (but not night freighters).
regards,
rts

[flown-it]

Old Lag. Quite right the ALF 502 was a derivation of an helicopter engine. As I have stated previously these were the weak link on the Limey Liner. PSA found the gearbox, which I believe Avco specifically built to turn the engine into the 504, was not built to the finest of tolerances and consequently made more metal than thrust!!! Think at one stage they were rebuilding the gearbox after about 300 hours.

[SoundBarrier]

Well my experience with the 146 is recovery from windshear. I do know of one which on early initiated recovery from windshear the plan sunk INTO tress, flew through some and popped out the other side!

The recovery was attributed to mainly the crew but they did say that the quick spool up time of the engines was a main factor in the recovery.

Slow but sturdy is this fine machine! :) Trees = 0 BAe 146 = 3

[spekesoftly]

There is a low key ceremony at Cranfield, the home of E3001 (ex E1001) this weekend.

"Peter Sedgwick and Mike Goodfellow in the flight deck of E1001"

Also on the flight where Roger de Mercado and Ron Hammond, the flight test engineers, who where sat in the back.

DC

DC,

Thought you might like to see this earlier photo of Roger, taken when he was involved with Trident test flights. I knew him in the 60s, when he was OC the WGC ATC Sqn.

http://www.shockcone.co.uk/forums/yztest.jpg

[Plane Speaker]

Wow. What a picture.

I believe that I can name 4 of the 6 people in the picture. Any help in confirming the others and whether I've got the 4 correct would be helpful.

From left to right:

Bill Gill; UNK; John Cunningham; UNK; Roger de Mercado; John Johnstone

[spekesoftly]

From left to right:

Ron Hammond, Pat Fillingham, John Cunningham, Jimmy Hamilton, Roger de Mercado, Johnnie Johnstone.

[boris]

Well, I can add more to the picture. It must have been taken on a Saturday! Dress code you see. Lounge suits on weekdays and one didn't fly on Sundays!
Seriously, I got a rollocking from my Chief Test Pilot for turning out to fly in a sports jacket and flannels on a Saturday when lounge suits were a requirement for pilots at the manufacturers for whom I flew. Never found out who snitched on me but obviously dress code was a bit tighter around the River Severn!

As far as the 146 goes, what a little gem, which was let down by its engines. It was originally advertised that these four engines had fewer (moving?) parts than two JT8s and would therefore be that much more economical. Unfortunatley, the maintenance costs turned out to be nearly the same per ENGINE, therefore the projected saving was unavailable and engine maintenance costs per aircraft were much higher than forecast. The engine manufacturer never seemed to want to develop the engine to anywhere near the original maintenance guarantees. Eventually, but too late, this engine and its derivatives were ditched. Fuel consumption was, however, 8% better from 4 ALFs than 2 JT8s on comparable seat/miles as far as I remember the figures. Contrary to some posts, a three-engined take-off was a doddle. No V1 as has been said and max 10 kts XWC. With no payload, it was airborne in no time. Nobody has mentioned the very nice flightdeck - a very pleasant place to savour the delightful flying qualities.

[tornadoken]

146 was schemed in 1971 in the context of (DH)HSAL's China Trident contact. Lousy Russian experience caused CAAC to serve Lhasa,Tibet only with more-than-2 engines, which why T55 choppermotor was chosen, absent anything else. HS Board chose not to find their 50% of R&D, net of Govt Launch Aid, so it was shelved in 1974. PM Callaghan found himself in 1978 trying to employ BAe., which had not-a-lot on. 50% Launch Aid was again granted (we taxpayers were also paying the other 50%, as we owned BAe.). Launch expense was shared by putting the back end into SAAB, wing plus engines into AVCO. What was not done was to update systems and re-compete rotables. China did take 10, believed at the time to be a sweetener for HKG/1997 negotiations.
Later, privatised BAe. sketched twins - CFM-56 146NRA and BR700 RJX(original version) - but could not make the numbers work.

[numloxx]

Hi all, i Work in Oz and I just love the 146's.
Amazing piece of work they are. Ok, they're us sometimes, but they're great for up north in the hot minesite runways.

And yes, you cant compare it to a 737.
Pity the RJX project didn't continue, would have been pretty cool to see them in Oz.

[False Capture]

I remember flying a 146 at FL240 and M0.70 whilst a B737 was above us at FL360 and M0.76. The TAS in both cases was about 430kts and the fuel flows were the same.

The best bit, if we'd shut an engine down then we could still maintain our cruising level (ie. FL240) AND continue to our destination.;)

[hedgehopper]

Engine faliure....... god forbid.... shut the wrong one down! still two left!:}

[Midland 331]

A super photo as a tribute...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdlike/163189948/

331

[ElNino]

Flase Capture,
But the 737 was carrying about 50-80 more pax, cost less to maintain and was far less likely to suffer a donkey (or any other sort of) failure. And therein lies the 146's problems.

[Mr R Sole]

However if you took like for like then would there still be a big difference in costs? The 737-300 was rolled out a couple of years after the 146, however it could be argued that the 146 really dates back to when the 737-200 was on the go. The 737-200 started off life in the 1960s and it was in the early 1970s when Hawker Siddley announced the HS146 and design work started but was quickly halted due to economic problems. The 146 is really a 70s aircraft that was re-born in the early 80s!

For starters there are not many 737-200s around nowadays which says something but it would be interesting to match maintenance costs between the 737-200 and the 146 - anyone with any figures? To make a cost comparison between the 737 Classic never mind the NG and the 146 is not fair since the two types date from two different eras! With anything in life you will only get a good comparison if you compare 'like with like'

The 146 is designed for short field ops and not for operating between large international airports. For what it was designed for then it does the job very well.

It is slow nowadays but there is probably not a great deal to shout about since over a trip time of three or so hours, then you might of travelled an extra 150nm or so in a 737 or A320 so the 146 does hold its ground fairly well.

Fumes can be a problem but if you handle the APU and Packs correctly you can minimise the likelihood of any incidents occurring. It seems to be a problem, which is linked to APU bleed air rather than Engine bleed air although there are some cases of the former. The B757 and the E145 are two other types that seem to suffer from contaminated air events and some B757 drivers will have you believe that their type is potentially the worst offender!

Next time you are at an airport and look outside at the apron. Look and see how many aircraft you can spot that were potentially built in the early 80s and the 146 will probably be one of the few types that still exist. Nuff said! :ok:

[Mr Proachpoint]

Ah yes the 146, four oil leaks connected by an electrical fault....

MAPt

[Nuasea]

Well after 35 years a celebration is planned for the anniversary of the first flight on the 3rd of September.

Still a few around.......

[Allan Lupton]

Well after 35 years a celebration is planned for the anniversary of the first flight on the 3rd of September.

Still a few around.......
I'll be there!
Details here Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | RAeS and 146/RJ Anniversary Event (http://aerosociety.com/Events/Event-List/2614/RAeS-and-146RJ-Anniversary-Event)

[dixi188]

"Still a few around......."

Last year's Flight airliner census had about 140 still around.
I think quite a lot will get parked now the CSeries is entering service.
They still keep me employed when I want a few extra quid though.

[PAXboy]

I recall my first 146. in December 1987 G-MIMA started for Manx and I was onboard (by sheer chance) on it's first revenue rotation from LHR. It was midday with the formal launch for the evening rotation.

It replaced the Viscounts and was great. I have always enjoyed the various iterations and will be on one again later in the year in South Africa (SA Airlink).

The aircraft was years late due to the above causes but it was a real groundbreaker. Then came Bombardier in 1991(?) and Embraer in 1995(?) who provided 1990s competition against a 1980s machine. Naturally, designs, materials and engines had all changed radically. The market for RJ sized engines must have been tiny. But now, through 146/EMB/BOM and others, it's a huge market. Also, what about the seating capacity of their competitors against the RJ?

As so often, the Brits were in the right place at the right time and then international crisis and politics grounded them.
(I sit to be corrected)

[Haven't a clue]

And perhaps symbolically a Cello BAe 146-200, G-RAJJ, arrived at Ronaldsway this afternoon.

As a one who has flown many times on G-OJET, G-MIMA, G-MABR, G-MANS, G-GNTZ and G-OINV to/from the island this is a great 35th anniversary celebration. Even if as rumoured it brings Tom Jones to entertain us until the wee hours!

[philbky]

Whoever at BAe Systems persuaded management that, in the light of 9/11, commuter flying was dead should be charged with treason by the UK and given a medal by the Canadians and Brasilians. The memorial to their stupidity is parked in the aviation viewing park at Manchester Airport, just a few miles from its birthplace, now a building site for houses after another stupid decision which sees the UK operating ancient RC-135W Rivet Joints and ordering the Poseidon.

[Evanelpus]

Forget Bombardier and Embraer:=, those Fokkers did for the 146!;)

[philbky]

Not talking about the 146 but its updated successor the RJX and your assertion about the Fokker competition doesn't stand up. If you take the F28, over 90% of the airframes had been delivered before the 146 entered service so was hardly a competitor. The F70 and F100 production totalled 331 and production finished in 1997, four years before the last 146 derivative, the AVRO 75/85/100 left the production line after a combined total of 387 airframes had been produced.

[Evanelpus]

I worked at Hatfield on the 146 and can assure you that numerous orders for the 146 were lost to the Fk100.

[barry lloyd]

I worked at Hatfield on the 146 and can assure you that numerous orders for the 146 were lost to the Fk100.

...and as one who was employed to sell them, I can confirm that. Sometimes they lost to us though! :D

[Allan Lupton]

I too was employed to sell 'em but transferred to the Future Projects department in 1985 (I think it was). One of the tasks we had in FP was to explain to the Chief Exec why fitting a 146 with two Tay engines would not see Fokker off, but would certainly see us off. As the saying goes "if I were you I wouldn't start from here" and the last thing we needed was effort wasted on the pipe dreams of those who, although in charge, didn't understand aeroplane design.

[philbky]

Whatever the losses to Fokker or Fokker's losses to BAe, the fact remains that the 146 and its derivatives both outlasted and outsold the F70/100 and it was not done for by Fokker but, in the end was done for by BAe only wanting to sell things that guide and deliver things that go bang. The Brasilians and Canadians owe a lot to BAe.

[PAXboy]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten the F-word http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/worry.gif mainly because I've only had about two trips in them. I see that the F100 was in service from 1986 and the smaller 70 in service from '94.

None of which denies that the original concept - before fuel and political crisis' - was the right idea. Engine development wasn't there at the time (for not dissimilar reasons) but 'Regional Jet' is now a firmly established market sector.

[barry lloyd]

Whatever the losses to Fokker or Fokker's losses to BAe, the fact remains that the 146 and its derivatives both outlasted and outsold the F70/100 and it was not done for by Fokker but, in the end was done for by BAe only wanting to sell things that guide and deliver things that go bang. The Brasilians and Canadians owe a lot to BAe.

There were many conversations with Embraer about collaboration - I was present at some of them - but, as you say, BAe had lost the will to continue with the civil aviation market. I think Embraer sensed this and continued on their own path.

[Allan Lupton]

During the run-down at Hatfield I was briefly in the Corporate Jets bit and we had an MD who had been with a part of BAe Dynamics and had a tendency to talk of production numbers as "rounds" and wasn't too familiar with reusable machines. Can't recall what happened to him after the sale to Raytheon but he'll have had a future in the BAeSystems with what Barry described as things that go bang.

[dc9-32]

.......and then we have the Antonov AN148 :E

[dixi188]

And from another point of view, although I am happy to work on the 146, I still feel that the formation of BAe caused the early demise of the BAC One-Eleven.
As I understand it, the new company did all it could to hamper the re-engine with the RR. Tay of the One-Eleven, as that would affect 146 sales.

[philbky]

Not sure that is quite the picture. Various proposals to enlarge the 1-11 were put forward by BAC in the late 1960s being the Two-Eleven and Three Eleven which, like many other proposals for British airliners became mired in political wrangling.

In the mid 1970s an uprated Spey was proposed by Rolls Royce and BAC proposed the BAC 1-11 700 seating 134. Rolls failed to produce the uprated Spey and the project died. BAe was formed in 1977 and the 700 reappeared as a hush kitted Spey powered airframe to be built with the intention of re-engining with the proposed RB 432 from the mid 1980s. This project died when BA ordered the 737.

BAe then proposed the 1-11 800 powered by CFM56s. Seating 150 this became a victim of the A320/321 programme. By the time the Tay came into the picture the UK production had long ceased and Rombac were producing the 1-11 at a snail's pace. This stopped when the communist regime fell. It was four years before Rombac finished the last two aircraft. By this time BAe had no interest in the type other than any fees from the Romanian licences for each airframe produced. There were plans for Rombac to restart production of a new glass cockpit, Tay powered version and Associated Aerospace of the UK ordered 50 to lease to various airlines and Kiwi Airlines in the US ordered 11 with five options.

Associated Aerospace went into liquidation so their order died and with just 11 firm orders the Romanians lost heart and cancelled the project.

In the meantime, Dee Howard in the USA re-engined an extant airframe as a Tay demonstrator and it duly appeared at Farnborough in 1990 where some interest was shown but Dee Howard, the proprietor, was in the process of selling his company to Alenia who dropped the project, concentrating on the re-engining of UPS 727s with Tays.

[dixi188]

philbky

Thanks for the info.

I remember the -700, -800 and also the X-11 from my time at Hurn (1969-1973)

Re. the Dee Howard conversion.
I was talking to Ed Strongman, the CAA test pilot, at the time he was doing the Tay 1-11 testing at Teterboro. (We were testing the L188 at Macon GA).
He said that there had been a Vmca problem due to the higher thrust and increased thrustline with the Tay installation. They increased the area of the rudder and all was well.
The problem came when they went to BAe for structural calculations of the increased rudder loads on the rear end. BAe wanted about 1.5 million just to start looking at the calculations, even though everyone agreed that the 1-11 rear end was built like the proverbial brick outhouse.

This is where the 146 sales effect may have come into play.

IIRC Dan-Air had signed up for a number of conversions and also other airlines were interested and this would have delayed fleet replacement.

[Evanelpus]

During the run-down at Hatfield I was briefly in the Corporate Jets bit and we had an MD who had been with a part of BAe Dynamics and had a tendency to talk of production numbers as "rounds" and wasn't too familiar with reusable machines. Can't recall what happened to him after the sale to Raytheon but he'll have had a future in the BAeSystems with what Barry described as things that go bang.

I too was with Corporate Jets latterly at Bishop Square. Which MD are you talking about, not that 'slice' Nich&lson?

Not sure that is quite the picture.

Philbk - you seem to have the same response to most arguments put forward here that differ from yours. I do hope you were in the aircraft industry as the company you worked for must have valued your great insight.

[philbky]

Evanelplus, it isn't a case of insight but of historic, verifiable fact.

[esa-aardvark]

I did 10 years or so, twice a week, in the 146.
A bit smelly at times. Engines, I gather were
always a bit of a problem. I remember sitting
with an engineer, who told me that engine changes
could be done quite quickly, and the airline had spare
engines available, but the required bolts( fuse bolts I suppose)
were a controlled item and not immediately available.
John

[fleigle]

I used to see them years ago when PSA flew them here in California.
Last sunday I watched one late in the day re-arming at our local airport, fighting a big fire.
Turn oround time was about 20-25 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YtUsf375-0
f