Happy birthday 146
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!
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!
Last edited by Marvo; 1st Sep 2006 at 17:40. Reason: poor spelling
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the edge of my seat
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many were made? 394 and a half (the last one was scrapped while partially completed in the factory) 
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.
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.
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 !!
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 !!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 18A
Age: 38
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
) 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
Join Date: May 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
So, Happy Birthday 146, and thanks for a year of the most varied and fun flying I have ever done.
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.
So, Happy Birthday 146, and thanks for a year of the most varied and fun flying I have ever done.
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.
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.
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?).
Anyway I think it's a nice 'plane; how many other 85 seat jets can land at Berne (about 1200m?).
>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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
The Delorean Motor Company went into Receivership on 19 February 1982, under a Conservative government.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?).
Anyway I think it's a nice 'plane; how many other 85 seat jets can land at Berne (about 1200m?).
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: up North
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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........
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........