RAf to Fill Airlift Gap with old BAe-146s??

[ORAC]

The Times: BAe 146 jets may be adapted for use by RAF (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6829792.ece)

Plans to convert old commercial aircraft into military transporters are being considered by the Ministry of Defence as it grapples with a severe lack of air transport capability. The MoD is understood to be considering a number of options to fill a gap that has been created by the near four-year delay to the Airbus A400M, which will perform the bulk of the Royal Air Force’s transport missions when it is eventually introduced.

One option under review is to convert old BAe146 aircraft into military transporters. They can be bought or leased for as little as $2 million (£1.2 million) each, which is an attractive proposition for defence chiefs facing future possible budget cuts. The four-engined 146 is unusual among commercial aircraft because it is capable of steep ascent and descent, which is necessary for military missions. It is used at airports such as London City, which requires a steep descent, as well as countries including India where regional airports often have runways that are too short for larger commercial jets.

The 146, also called the Avro RJ in some variations, was developed by British Aerospace in the late 1970s. It came into service in 1983 and 387 of them were sold, making it the most successful British commercial aircraft. However, production was stopped in 2002 because BAE Systems was losing money on the project. Several hundred aircraft are still in service, many owned by BAE’s Asset Management division, which leases them to customers such as Lufthansa and Swiss International.

The older aircraft are being retired from commercial service and turned into freighters. BAE has identified the RAF as a potential new customer and the 146 has been offered to the MoD as an option to increase the RAF’s airlift capacity until the A400M enters service. The MoD is also considering buying or leasing C130Js built by Lockheed Martin and Boeing’s C17.

The MoD is understood to favour a combination of these purpose-built military aircraft but they are both expensive options. The C130J costs between $60 million and $90 million and the C17 Globemaster III costs up to $250 million. These aircraft can carry considerably more cargo than the 146, which has a payload of about 12.5 tonnes. The C130 can carry nearly 20 tonnes and the C17 up to 77 tonnes.

BAE believes that cost could be the decisive factor for the MoD. A company spokesman said: “We believe that the 146 will offer cost-effective additional airlift capabilities for an interim or long-term requirement, particularly at a time when defence budgets are under strain.”

The RAF’s existing fleet of C130K Hercules transport aircraft was introduced in 1966 and the planes are being retired having reached the end of their working lives. The RAF has ordered 25 A400Ms for about £2.6 billion to replace the Hercules and had expected to receive the first aircraft next year. Technical difficulties have meant that Airbus still has not flown the aircraft and deliveries have been pushed back until 2012 or 2013.

Airbus has written off €2.4 billion on the A400M project and is losing money at a rate of about €1 billion a year on it. Despite the delays, the launch customers, including Britain, have agreed to continue with the project and a new contract will be signed later this year.

The MoD said it was considering all options to fill the capability shortfall created by the A400M delay, but declined to comment on specific aircraft.

[The Helpful Stacker]

How robust is the 146 and are there huge differences between the types that are going surplus in the civvy world and those currently operated by the RAF?

[BEagle]

BAE believes that cost could be the decisive factor for the MoD.

My - you don't say....:rolleyes:

Has 't Bungling Baron turned over a new leaf?

[diginagain]

How robust is the 146....?

Someone fairly high-up in line to be King (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/271099-prince-charles-prang-isle-islay-june-1995-a.html) might be able to answer that one.

There are a fair few Jetstreams still on BAe's books too.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Didn't BAE tout a military version of the 146 a few years back? Did it have any rough field capability?

[A and C]

I assume that the MoD is looking at the cargo aircraft with the roller floor and the big main deck cargo doors.

This is a robust aircraft by civil standards and quite up to taking some of the non tactical workload from the C130 fleet.

What I am not happy with is the military getting yet another ex-airline aircraft that is fast aproaching its sell by date, but at the end of the day as long as it is a stop gap and not an excuse to cancel the A400 or more C17's it will be welcome.

[Wycombe]

THS said:

Didn't BAE tout a military version of the 146 a few years back? Did it have any rough field capability?

Yes, that was the 146STA, which was based on the QT (Quiet Trader) Freighter, which has a roller floor and a side cargo door. Some colleagues of mine helped with a static display of it at Farnborough way back when.

Payload was about 10 tons, on IIRC 5 of the pallets you normally find in the back of a C130 (although capacity to stack them as high/wide would be limited by the size of the 146 fuselage).

Did it have any rough field capability?

I believe at least one private operator in the Middle East does fly them from gravel. The main trailing link landing gear is well known for it's ability to cushion the most robust of arrivals.

Then of course, it's little engines share the same ancestry as those on the Chinook, ie, a tank!

[airborne_artist]

They are a bit limited on range, perhaps?

[The Helpful Stacker]

If you planned to operate them direct from Brize/Northolt perhaps but would they be useful for hub and spoke operations?

[Chainkicker]

Im going to guess it would be a pretty short spoke if it had a 10t payload on board. There would then be the question of fuselage shape which im guessing would be restrictive, even compared to a T*. You would need a hell of a lot of "spoke" flights to cover the one "hub" flight. IMO this would be a bit of a non-starter from an efficiency point of view but im sure BWOS will take any opportunity they can to try and screw some more from the defence budget :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Fareastdriver]

IIRC the predecessor to the 146 was being developed as a replacement for the Argosy. I was cancelled with the TSR 2 etc, and along came the Hercules. The British engines had been cancelled as well so the 146 we know now had to wait for US designed engines.

[JagRigger]

Sure they can handle a rough landing:

YouTube - Hard landing near crash Part 1/2 - London City Airport - IS THE PILOT A HERO OR IDIOT ? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcS89Ktbxeo)

;)

[collbar]

Hey i saw a 146 at Bastion this week!! This sounds like a fairly good idea to me.
If aircraft are available and waiting to be used, a couple of months to fit defence aids, thats already proven on the RAF fleet.

There must be a dozen or so qualified 146 crews knocking about the AT fleet that wouldnt cost the earth re-qualify.

They are a proven, agreed in civil life, and fairly reliable compared to our creaking C-130 fleet. Surely they could be up and running in 6 months on a cheep rolling 6 month lease

Just a couple of these trundling about the major stan hubs would surely take some strain away from the C-130 fleet even if they just took pax.

I know.. pan space is required... Another supply chain... Who will service them etc etc but for such a cheep option i can see the attraction


Of course if PJHQ just put Kandibar pax on aircraft bound to Kandibar, and Bastion pax on aircraft bound for Bastion, half the problem would be solved!!!:ugh:

[Al R]

@jagrigger,

Was the pilot in that clip a dude called Charles?

I love 'em - and spending as much time as I do, sleeping in Docklands, I appreciate their low noise levels. Another small consideration that might work in their favour maybe.

A worthy note to finish off the 'career' of a brilliant little aeroplane.

[Archimedes]

Mentioned in a Flight article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/332083/dsei-pictures-bae-pitches-146-for-military-airlift-role.html) too...

[BEagle]

Have they fixed the BAe-146 organophosphate poisoning issue yet?

Smelly little things - that sweaty socks / labrador sick smell is due to contamination in the cabin conditioning system. BWoS allege that it's no problem, but several pilots apparently suffered long-term ill-health after flying the 146 for a few years.......

In the RJ85 version used by Lufthansa Cityline, there's a high pitched whistle in the front cabin somewhere over Row 1 which is maddening - but it isn't present in the old 146 used by Lufthansa Eurowings.

The only technical delays I've had in several hundred flights with Lufthansa have been on the BAe146 / RJ85.

[Gainesy]

Yet another round of Scrapyard Challenge...:ugh:

[The Helpful Stacker]

It may be, but the question is would they be better than nothing?

This government (and the one that follows it) is hardly likely to announce a procurement program for new aircraft any time soon, rather they'll keep chipping away as much as they can.

Whilst many are critical of the Tristars they have performed many years of valued service even though they were brought as a stop-gap.

Yes it'd be great to have an order placed for something perfect and brand-new but as I said, its not going to happen, no matter how much you and I argue the point on here.

So the question is, if the MoD could purchase them as a 'stop gap', would they be better than nothing?

[Top Bunk Tester]

Helpful Stacker

I believe the rough field capability was tested several years ago by none other than HRC PC at Islay. :}

[Evanelpus]

The 146, also called the Avro RJ in some variations, was developed by British Aerospace in the late 1970s. It came into service in 1983 and 387 of them were sold, making it the most successful British commercial aircraft. However, production was stopped in 2002 because BAE Systems was losing money on the project. Several hundred aircraft are still in service

We only sold 387, how can several hundred aircraft still be in service, what a load of bollokcs?

[Out Of Trim]

I can't really see this idea being of much use; maybe we should go search for a few more Tristars in the Desert.

There must be plenty of ex Delta examples ripe for a Marshalls' Cargo Door conversion and a bit of AAR plumbing whilst we wait for the A330s to eventually arrive.

[Nomorefreetime]

During SSII we had a visit on the desert strip by a red and white 146. Made some good photos for the crew. Shame they had to change two of the wheels. They did qualify for the phoenix salute and hopefully got some good pictures of the daylight 'moon'

[bayete]

Al R
Yes I too have spent a lot of time trying to sleep in the Novotel at Victoria Dock.
Are they the really quiet ones that pass over every 10mins?:rolleyes:
The locals at Brize will really love them, because they are not at all sensitive to noise are they.;)

[safetypee]

BEagle - organophosphate issue … pah: New engine oil seals available, this problem also requires some decent line engineering / maintenance on the air cond which the RAF should be able to provide.
IIRC, “a high pitched whistle in the front cabin somewhere over Row 1” comes from a missing / damaged door stay cover or door hinge cover – again just some basic line maintenance required.
Stone-guard kit already available, as are low pressure tyres.
Fuel – some aircraft have ‘pannier’ extended range tanks. IFR was mocked up on the STA, but I suspect that any mod and full scale testing would be expensive.
Para-dropping from the rear doors was successful and those mods should be feasible in a short time scale.
IR defensive suite fitted and tested.
146’s are Cat 2, RJ’s Cat 3 capable. TACAN already tested / fitted. Steep approach, short take off (33 flap T/O mod available), and it can out-turn a hawk.
Find the right airframes; then they should meet the MOD’s requirements – available, cheap, rugged, and stay the course if you look after them.
How old is the oldest in service today?

[Cows getting bigger]

I'm sure the RAF recently (last 7 years or so) sold one. :) Nice little in-theatre runaround but as far as load lugging is concerned............ :confused:

[BEagle]

IIRC, “a high pitched whistle in the front cabin somewhere over Row 1” comes from a missing / damaged door stay cover or door hinge cover – again just some basic line maintenance required.

Hardly - it's just as bad when the thing is on the ground.

and it can out-turn a Hawk.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.....:hmm:

[Rigga]

There are loads of them left in an airworthy condition because they didnt do a lot of sudden stops from the air. They are/were a really trustworthy little jet once the engine issues were sorted out.

Just a small issue when working in hot climes - it's very keen on growing "Clad" in the wings!

I'd heard that most were on their way to Africa if no homes were found.

[Seaking93]

Last time I went past there were several stored at Exeter Airport

[kiwibrit]

Wonder in what state the kapton wiring is in.

[RHINO]

This thread has given me a really good laugh.....thank you!

[tonker]

Why not just buy these and ALOT more cheap nearly new C-17's sat in the dessert??? I think the French just have.



Embraer’s Multinational KC-390 Tactical Air Transport Program (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Embraer-Launches-KC-390-Tactical-Air-Transport-Program-05380/)

[Squirrel 41]

I understand that 146 STA was demonstrated, but there was also the model of a rear-ramp version of 146-300. Was this ever more than a BAe bright idea? Presumably a major engineering task, so BAES obviously the people for it.... After all, what could possibly go wrong? :hmm:

S41

[XV277]

The ramped version was apparently 'to be developed in conjunction with Lockheed', who then had second/better thoughts. I recall the model they had at Farnborough showed a CVRT going in the back, and remember wondering if the vehilce was a smaller scale than the aircraft model!!

I did see a para team (Possibly the Falcons) jump from the BAE STA demonstrator at Leuchars BoB show in the early 90s, memory a bit fussy but I'm sure they jumped from the rear side doors. USAF chap I was speaking to called it a 'cute baby Starlifter'.

Isn't this where someone says we should never have sold the Andovers?:p

[Runaround Valve]

POST #1..........387 were sold, making it the most successful British commercial aircraft...........

What about the Vickers Viscount, of which 445 were made, ?????????

[callsign Metman]

How old is the oldest in service today?

It's actually the first one ever built. Registered in 1981 as a 100 variant it was later stretched to a 300 and ins now used for atmospheric measurements by FAAM (http://www.faam.ac.uk). An additional fuel tank in the rear hold means that endurance is now around 5 hours.

CM

[Dengue_Dude]

Well having taught Maintenance engineers and aircrew on BAE146 and the RJ . . . tech AND performance.

. . . they don't need to stick either of these aircraft in any airfield without ground support as the APUs were notable for their lack of reliability.

Talking to some guys from Mesaba airlines, who took 20+ brand-new RJs in the 90s, the APU performance was lamentable.

The aircrafts' saving grace is that with 4 engines, a 3 engined take off is feasible to get it back for rectification.

They are also painfully slow. Mesaba were planning to cruise theirs at FL290+, at 0.7M - which would make them popular as pig**** in European airspace, RVSM or not.

Good luck.

[Jackonicko]

In this context, it's about price and immediate availability, surely?

At DSEI BAE (Asset Management) were talking about providing 146s in pax configuration for £2m, or freighters for £5m.

So, with no waiting list (how long would you wait to get a -130J or a C-17 if you ordered one right now?) you could get 25 pax configured aircraft, or 10 freighters, for less than the price of a single -130J.

Now as a stop-gap, pending the delivery of A400M, that sounds like a sensible use of money (especially as you can probably sell them on for fire-fighting conversions afterwards) even if you'd never choose them as a definitive solution.

They're so cheap that you could almost use them like a modern Anson, giving a pair to every Station Flight.......

And aren't they pretty relevant for ongoing ops? Wasn't it one of the Arab states who used one specifically for taking hunting parties out into semi-prepared desert strips? Aren't they a bit of a modern Andover, potentially?

[Razor61]

They seem to cope well after a rather hard landing, although i'm not sure what the damage was after this but the gear took the impact pretty well....

YouTube - Hard landing near crash Part 1/2 - London City Airport - IS THE PILOT A HERO OR IDIOT ? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcS89Ktbxeo)

[XV277]

They seem to cope well after a rather hard landing, although i'm not sure what the damage was after this but the gear took the impact pretty well....

YouTube - Hard landing near crash Part 1/2 - London City Airport - IS THE PILOT A HERO OR IDIOT ? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcS89Ktbxeo)

Looks like a normal LCY 146 landing to me......:p

[Green Flash]

From an SLC point of view I've had a little experience in/out/around Jockistan and found them very good. Undercarriage appears to be built from bits of the Forth railway bridge and watch out if the driver stands on the brakes - it doesn't half stop quick!

What about the Wave that used to flog up and down the Gulf a few years ago - ATR, wasn't it?

[BEagle]

Always amusing watching people who've never flown in one of the little things before when the flaps are retracted with that Stuka howling noise!

Talking to some guys from Mesaba airlines, who took 20+ brand-new RJs in the 90s, the APU performance was lamentable.

No problems if the APU dies - it's got 4 others hanging under the wings.

[Alber Ratman]

As for the crap that grows in the wings Rigga, a continued supply of AVTUR F-34 over the usual should deal with the problem + the improved water drain mod (so all those deep pockets get drained!);)

While its preformance ain't going to impress the speed freaks, it will do a job that is desperate to be filled..

Lots sitting at Southend as well.. Mostly 200's and 85s mind..

[BEagle]

You'll have to forgive me, 4 whats?

I must admit to a fond spot for the 146. Before the wooden-headed, wooden-footed idiots at KLM sold off buzz to Mikey-the-Pikey, I had quite a few happy trips in their little yellow jets:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/buzz146.jpg

to Germany when the new leave rules came in. Saturday and Sunday not-required-for-duty, so off to Frankfurt on Friday then back first thing on Monday. Cost was peanuts.

[Al R]

Someone mentioned the proposed (STA) mil variant (from 1989)..

http://pic.srv104.wapedia.mobi/thumb/0da014499/en/max/720/900/British_BAe-146-STA.JPEG?format=jpg,png,gif

Also:

BBC NEWS | UK | Pilots protest over 'noxious' air (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7053925.stm)

[CirrusF]

I did see a para team (Possibly the Falcons) jump from the BAE STA demonstrator at Leuchars BoB show in the early 90s, memory a bit fussy but I'm sure they jumped from the rear side doors. USAF chap I was speaking to called it a 'cute baby Starlifter'


22 RWW did trail HALO jumps from a modified airframe in the early-mid nineties, in preparation for possible direct action against Libyan WMD facilities. The plan was to fly them on airline upper airways routes over Africa, and drop a team onto the targets.

Direct from the RAF website:


The BAE 146 is a quiet but rugged aircraft, with a high level of built-in redundancy. It can carry many of its own spares, allowing it to operate for long periods away from base, with little or no external support. The aircraft’s excellent short-field performance, and its ability to operate from high or unprepared airfields in missile threat areas, mean that the aircraft is extremely versatile


I'm mystified why the MOD didn't start buying up used airframes a few years ago as they are so cheap, useful, and versatile.

[taxydual]

I'm mystified why the MOD didn't start buying up used airframes a few years ago as they are so cheap, useful, and versatile.


Could it be that the Mystified of Defence (aka MoD) is so full of not cheap, not useful, and not versatile personnel?

[ORAC]

I'm mystified why the MOD didn't start buying up used airframes a few years ago as they are so cheap, useful, and versatile. Because the funds aren't/weren't there for the absolutely essential things, let alone the cheap and useful things to fill the gaps.

Which is why all the "cheap useful" things (aka Andovers are previously mentioned) were disposed of years ago....

[Cyprus countrybred]

As one of the team who was demonstrating the 146STA at Farnborough in 199?, yes it's a great little a/c and a landrover will go on, but it's not a case of simply driving it up the ramp like the C130; the cargo door was on the side of the fuselage and certainly a land rover needed a couple of shuffles to get it in (couldn't be palletised to load, can't remember if it was short or long wheelie). I seem to recall the Falcons jumped out of it at Farnborough as well; I remember Malcolm P the loadie wearing his despatcher's harness getting things prepped, and the guys were definitely using the rear doors. There's no way it could be mentioned in the same breath as a C130, especially not a C17!

[Speedbird48]

There are 7 more in Calgary, and the one sold by HM was the one that "Jug Ears" bent, I do believe??

A good strong airframe that needs good maintenance on the engines.

How do I know, I probably tought some of you to fly them, and the RJ.

Speedbird 48

[Speedbird48]

Ooop's,

All spelling errors (taught) due to the White Zin' and the young maiden that just left my Hot-Tub!!

Speedbird 48.

[ProfessionalStudent]

Speedy, what on earth were you doing on Prune when you had a young lady in your hot tub? :E

[aseanaero]

It will be interesting to see if a $2 million aircraft will become $20 million aircraft in a proposal like this.

If they're going to do it they need to cap the per aircraft cost with the contractors.

By the way the real cost of a GOOD 146 is around $4 million. The $1 to $2 million cheapies will usually have a couple (or all) almost run out engines and usually short time remaining on the landing gear , cost to overhaul the gear is close to $1 million based on a quote a client got a few months ago. Engines are running between $150 to $250k second hand depending on cycles remaining and about $600 to $800k for an overhaul.

The population of 146's in Indonesia has gone from 2 to 8 in the last 2 years with more on the way. It's one of the few jet aircraft that can cope with the short runways here.

[aseanaero]

I always thought the 146 was a good candidate for an STC based re-engine program , put 2 big CFM turbofans in place of the ALF-502s or even some old JT8D-15s which can be had very cheap now with all the old 737-200s being parked

[RJM]

My bro-in-law flys them here in Oz for Jet Systems freighters.

He seems to have a love/hate relationship with them, often preferring my sister's company to driving a 146 from ADE to MEL and back. :eek:

"Bring Another Engine", "Four oil leaks connected by an electrical fault" and so on.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Maintenance costs are prohibitive.

Damn thing flies so slowly that the hour based checks repeat too quickly on the calendar.

Spares from BAe's MACRO programme are astronomical.

You also have to factor in the cost of conversion to military use, including adding a cargo door, floor etc and the timescale for intro to service extends and the costs go haywire.

Next great idea please.

[RileyDove]

The 146/RJ is an interesting aircraft but I think it would have greater value in a role similar to Nimrod R1 rather than as a freighter. It's always been a source of bewilderment as to why the RAF didn't take some off the shelf Airbus freighters off the Filton line when they would have filled a gap easily and given some respite before FSTA got established.

[mr fish]

bet a 12.7mm will go like a hot knife through butter:(

[Speedbird48]

Sorry Prof' Student,

I guess I let the side down, but, the deed had been done, and she had departed, so I needed to settle down before sleep!!

Nothing like a 146 to make you sleep better.

On the serious side the 146 in its larger version would be a good people mover, and the smaller ones would do good on rough strips as cargo haulers once they had a side door fitted. All of that would free up the Alberts for what they are really needed for.

Speedbird 48.

[Speedbird48]

Hi, Just this Once,

I was always led to believe that HM could not be seen in a repaired machine so it went?? I guess I am not as smart as I thought??

I have a 3ft square picture of '701 on my office wall that confuses the heck out of the colonialists here in the West.

As you are probably at Northolt with 32 squadron, I was there with the CAS Valletta's on Met' Comm' which sort of dates me a bit??

Speedbird 42

[minigundiplomat]

Seem to remember from some work I did recently that the Avro RJ is quite a thirsty beast, and goes through fuel with ease.

Maybe not a great problem for the mil, especially when compared with the VC10.

[rmac]

I heard that their are a whole bunch of 748's in Liverpool that belonged to Emerald before they went bust which could probably be bought for the price of the outstanding parking fees..........................

[flap15]

Have you lot considered popping in to Coventy and having a chat with Air Atlantic. I do believe they do a rather nice line in Electra's,DC-6's and DC-3's. They are reputable and I do believe they reconditioned the BBMF Lancaster so you should get a good reference from them.:)

[The Real Slim Shady]

The 146M is hardly a practical solution when it has CO2 emissions 56% more than an E195, particularly when emissions are such a hot potato at the moment.

[cazatou]

Just thought that I would point out that this coming Wednesday (16th Sep 2009) will be the 26th Anniversary of my collecting the RAF's 2nd BAe 146 (ZD 695) from BAe Chester.

If the RAF now buys 2nd hand 146's, has to convert them for Military use and train Crews; then it will be at least another 18 months before they "enter the fray". Better, surely, to buy or lease new C130's (or at least newer than current RAF C130's) where there is at least a solid foundation of type experience to call on and expansion can readily be absorbed.

[ORAC]

I'm sure if BAe was given a contract to operate them "as is" in pax and freight roles, they'd find enough qualified crews willing to sign up as sponsored reserve aircrew to get them into grow bags as and when required.

[BEagle]

When the 146 Development Flight at Brize were working out whether the 146 had much to offer, one of the fighter detachments at the Deci ACMI came back on one.

I asked them what they thought - "It was pretty and slow. But at least it wasn't a sodding Hercules" was the answer.

Living in the OM at the time, the purr of the 146 was rather more welcome than the noise of the Vickers WhisperJet....:\ Particularly at oh-dark-hundred!!

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

"The 146M is hardly a practical solution when it has CO2 emissions 56% more than an E195, particularly when emissions are such a hot potato at the moment."

Given the amount of fuel we're buring and ordnance we're lobbing around in the 'stan, I'm not sure political correctness on CO2 emissions is a major concern.

Maybe this is an opportunity for some of the 'less-keen-to-fight' members of the alliance to pitch in. Perhaps we'll forgive them for not sending brigades of squaddies into the front line if they'll send us squadrons of Alberts to support our front line troops instead?

Meanwhile we can concentrate on getting our own long term med/heavy lift decisionmaking right. We have problems enough not screwing up long term decisions - so God only knows what sort of shambles we'd make of a short term stop-gap decision like 'find me an instant Albert substitute we can announce ahead of the next embarrassing PMQs'.

[Wycombe]

MGD said:

Seem to remember from some work I did recently that the Avro RJ is quite a thirsty beast

From info I have seen, the think the 146 burns around 2t per hour in the cruise, and can uplift about 10t max fuel. So, fuel burn is a bit less than the Vickers Funbus!

In -300 guise (the longest fuselaged version) it can carry about 110 pax.

Yes, it is a bit slow compared to most pure jet airliners, but that is because the wing needed to be a compromise that would also allow the short-field performance that the aircraft is known for, without the complexity of a moving leading-edge, for example.

Many have also asked over the years why the 146 doesn't have thrust reversers? Answer = because it doesn't need them.

Here is a bit of footage I found of a certain privately-operated one operating off 1200m of runway at a GA airfield in Southern England.

YouTube - BAe 146 @ EGLK FEB'07 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ3TReq5nF8)

[Double Zero]

Range and engine reliability might well be an issue, but the STOL capability sounds jolly handy.

There was even a 1960's paper design for a similar job, ( NATO requirement ) VSTOL, with 4 Pegasus !

In the days when the Harrier wasn't even sorted, and fly by wire was but a twinkle in John Farleys' eye, I think it would have been a case of " you try it first ... "

However the 146 sounds a good idea to me, maybe cancel the A400 and eventually get some more C-17's ?

[glad rag]

If it can meet the requirements both operationally and fiscally WHY NOT? :ok:

Hello boys
YouTube - Aerolineas Star Peru BAe 146-100 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbtWQ0JkisU&feature=related)

gr

[Red Four]

A 146-200 re-delivered from Southend to Iceland on it's way to Bolivian Air Force. Someone wants them for military work, it would appear.

[The Real Slim Shady]

They can be bought or leased for as little as $2 million (£1.2 million) each, which is an attractive proposition for defence chiefs facing future possible budget cuts.

3 years ago a 70 was valued at US$7.25 Mill and a 100 at US$8.25 Mill by BAe; they had a bunch sitting around then too.

Fuel burns are typically 2 tonnes per hr on a 2hr sector for a 70 and 2.2 tonnes per hr for a 100.

Fuel ( at 2006 prices) and maintenance run to around US$2800 per block hour.

You can't make money with them in airline operation: maybe that is why they have been offered to the military!

[OCCWMF]

Is it the aerodynamics or APUs 2-5 that cause the high fuel burn?

[Capt Pit Bull]

I like the 146 / Avro RJ. Like all aeroplanes it has its down sides. I flew them for a couple of years. I don't know enough about the role they would needing to fill though. What sort of legs would be needed? As an approximation of capability, we used to the the Balearics / Sardinia / Rome from LGW without too much difficulty. Is that enough to do anything useful?

Although there are probably not a lot of current RAF pilots that know much about them, the 146/RJ community has had a lot of ex service pilots at one time or another. (not necessarily ex service pilots, but ex servicemen that are ATPLs. My mob had a varied mix of ex RAF pilots of all roles, ex Navs, ex engineers, ex Navy folks and even some ex army). With airlines going bust and other making redundancies, you might be surprised how rapidly you could crew an initial batch of them. (Pure speculation I admit)

I don't fancy the idea of major mods though. That does sound like a recipe for wasting money and not getting any capability in a decent timescale. They need to be used as closed to 'as is' as possible.

If there's a need to move 100 or so folks 900 miles or so, with perhaps some awkward terrain / short field at the end of it, the RJ could be the right machine for the job.

[The Real Slim Shady]

The wing has little to do with it: the Fokker 100 / 70 has a fixed LE and has similar, if not better short field performance and cruises higher and faster.

The aircraft has to have mods to allow it above FL280: RVSM is one but I recall there are others. Cruising lower down affects the burns, TAS and hence sector ties. The increased sector times increase the maintenance frequency and the aircraft simply becomes uneconomic to operate at a profit.

I would be uncharitable and comment that only a fool would want these as a supplement for C130s in theatre: but desperate times need desperate measures and we sure as hell are desperate for airlift capability across the board.

[JimmyTAP]

The aircraft has to have mods to allow it above FL280: RVSM is one but I recall there are others.

The RJ only needed an ADC update for RVSM. I would be surprised if any operators had not taken this up as it was a simple box swap.
Most 146s do not have RVSM capability - a few do but as the maximum 146 altitude is 30 or 31000ft then the RVSM mod has not been taken up by many operators.

The Fokker might cruise higher than a 146 but not an RJ. I suspect the Fokker short field performance is lacking in some areas compared to the 146/RJ otherwise they would operate into LCY - and they can't.

If they cannot be operated at profit, I wonder why Lufthansa, Brussels, Swiss and TNT have operated such large fleets for as long?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Jimmy, the Fokker can operate in to LCY.

The RJ operators either subsidise the operation from their long haul operation or they need the "special " performance and set their fares accordingly.

The aircraft BAe had at Kemble, RJs included, could not operate in RVSM airspace. The mod was not simple, otherwise it would have been carried out before they were offered to the market.

It does not make sense to throw taxpayer's money at 20 year old aircraft clearly not capable of meeting the military need ( not the MoD ), without enormous modification, purely as a stopgap.

[MaxReheat]

'Although there are probably not a lot of current RAF pilots that know much about them, the 146/RJ community has had a lot of ex service pilots at one time or another. (not necessarily ex service pilots, but ex servicemen that are ATPLs. My mob had a varied mix of ex RAF pilots of all roles, ex Navs, ex engineers, ex Navy folks and even some ex army). With airlines going bust and other making redundancies, you might be surprised how rapidly you could crew an initial batch of them. (Pure speculation I admit)'

Not speculation, I suggest. The introduction of the 146/RJ could be the prime candidate for the RAF's first flying reserve unit that could be manned without affecting the front-line manpower. There are many - I repeat - many ex service types from all backgrounds in the 146/RJ world. For in-theatre ops, lugging troops around arid environs, in and out of short strips, you'll find little better at the price. Several of the large civilian operators will be retiring RJs and that is a quantum leap over the 146. Great aeroplane in the main and you can do anything with it that a turboprop can do.

[JimmyTAP]

Jimmy, the Fokker can operate in to LCY.

Fokeer 70 yes. Fokker 100 no.

The aircraft BAe had at Kemble, RJs included, could not operate in RVSM airspace. The mod was not simple, otherwise it would have been carried out before they were offered to the market.

When I wrote the RJ RVSM certification report all that was required was a simple ADC change. Things may have changed since then but not that I have heard of.

[steamchicken]

Aren't we glad t'Baron exited one of the major growth sectors in civil avn and canned RJ-X back in 2001...

[XV277]

Rather than using them 'in theatre' in hot and sandy places, could they be used on 'home' taskings to free up C130s for overseas use? Less need for some of the extra kit operational tasks would require?

I would have thought the best bet would be to get QT types, already haiving the cargo door.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Where better to re-life/mod the RJs than the factory where they were built, by the chaps who built them? I suppose a deciding factor would be that the factory is closing and already working to near capacity with a skeleton workforce on the Nimrod 4.