BAe 146 - was it a commercial success?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the first regional jet - as utilised by the US airlines who bought it such as Braniff - was the BAC 1-11 that was marketed as the "Bus Stop Jet" and was used for the same hub & spoke operations as the current Regionals like the Bombardier (Canadair) CRJ.
As far as re-engining the 1-11 is concerned, there was an exercise to use Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines towards the end of Hurn production but it didn't get anywhere. The Tay re-engining was by Dee Howard as stated and gave a very much lowered noise footprint both outside and inside the cabin (from a video I saw taken by one of the FTEs).
The origin of the 146 was the HS681 which was powered by twin Pegasus and was to support the P1154. The four engined layout duplicated the Pegasus' 2x2 exhausts and provided the required efflux over the wings to give additional lift.
As far as re-engining the 1-11 is concerned, there was an exercise to use Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines towards the end of Hurn production but it didn't get anywhere. The Tay re-engining was by Dee Howard as stated and gave a very much lowered noise footprint both outside and inside the cabin (from a video I saw taken by one of the FTEs).
The origin of the 146 was the HS681 which was powered by twin Pegasus and was to support the P1154. The four engined layout duplicated the Pegasus' 2x2 exhausts and provided the required efflux over the wings to give additional lift.
We went through this in '08 in this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/flight-testing...high-wing.html
And I shall just quote what I wrote then.
If there had been any carry-over from that generation of military VTOL aeroplanes, it would have been from the DH129 not the HS (né AW) 681 as the 146 was a Hatfield product .
The progression from DH126 small feederliner via the HS136 rather less small one (with RR Trent engines - no not the later huge ones, nor the earlier turboprop ones!) and other project aeroplanes to the AVCO-Lycoming powered high-wing 146 was the result of shifting targets for size, range and complexity being matched to shifting availability of suitable power units.
The 146 has not and had not blown flaps. The flaps are behind the engines, and there is doubtless a bit of fan-induced extra velocity but blown flaps as normally understood are very different.
The 146, although the most numerous British-built airliner, seems to be very poorly understood if this thread is anything to go by.
Last edited by Allan Lupton; 19th Aug 2015 at 08:09.
A commercial success … yes, particularly from a wider view point than just the manufacturer.
The 146 concept evolved from a commercial need (opportunity) and basic research. both of which generated work for the aviation industry and UK interests.
Short field performance and low noise created many opportunities. Each new application added value, not always apparent as the follow-on operations with more modern and larger aircraft types overshadowed the ground breaking efforts of the 146.
San Diego, Orange County, and Aspen were low-noise entries into a specialist US market. Similar in Europe; London City, Lugano, Florence, and night freight enabled operations previously considered untenable by jet aircraft.
VIP adaptations added value and also prestige for British products.
The much maligned engine reliability depended on the operator; PSA flew the 146 like a 727 and suffered, Aspen and Air Wisconsin based their operations on turbo props and achieved much better performance.
The 146 concept evolved from a commercial need (opportunity) and basic research. both of which generated work for the aviation industry and UK interests.
Short field performance and low noise created many opportunities. Each new application added value, not always apparent as the follow-on operations with more modern and larger aircraft types overshadowed the ground breaking efforts of the 146.
San Diego, Orange County, and Aspen were low-noise entries into a specialist US market. Similar in Europe; London City, Lugano, Florence, and night freight enabled operations previously considered untenable by jet aircraft.
VIP adaptations added value and also prestige for British products.
The much maligned engine reliability depended on the operator; PSA flew the 146 like a 727 and suffered, Aspen and Air Wisconsin based their operations on turbo props and achieved much better performance.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the flap motor - are you sure it wasn't a noise from the motor itself? I remember it was a whining rather than a howl, sounding exactly like an electric motor starting, running, and stopping. The noise was only there while the flaps were in transit; there was no noise between successive flap extensions as they were extended in stages prior to landing.
Sounds just like a C172 flap motor but higher pitched and MUCH louder!
Sounds just like a C172 flap motor but higher pitched and MUCH louder!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 20th Aug 2015 at 20:10.
As a fitter and Inspector on the finals line at Hatfield I think there were two problems.
Yes, there was a howl that was sorted out with a modification but I certainly remember a noisy motor and juddering during operation of the flaps, certainly on some of the earlier models.
I distinctly remember doing an all day and all night shift trying to sort out one of the two early Ansett aircraft. We changed flaps, motors, flap screw jacks, even the canoes and we could only just get it acceptable enough for the Ansett man, Bob Brown, to accept it.
Yes, there was a howl that was sorted out with a modification but I certainly remember a noisy motor and juddering during operation of the flaps, certainly on some of the earlier models.
I distinctly remember doing an all day and all night shift trying to sort out one of the two early Ansett aircraft. We changed flaps, motors, flap screw jacks, even the canoes and we could only just get it acceptable enough for the Ansett man, Bob Brown, to accept it.
Yes, Evanelpus, I remember the odd noisy flap motor and we recognised that having the high wing put the motor in just the right place to be heard.
When we took the aeroplane on the Far Eastern tour in '82 we had a bit of that noise but as it was only when changing flap setting that wasn't our greatest noise problem. One was reeding by the leaky door seals which could be cured using paper napkins - at least once a door was opened on arrival releasing a snowstorm of paper.
Someone was moved to comment that the aeroplane was noisier inside than outside.
When we took the aeroplane on the Far Eastern tour in '82 we had a bit of that noise but as it was only when changing flap setting that wasn't our greatest noise problem. One was reeding by the leaky door seals which could be cured using paper napkins - at least once a door was opened on arrival releasing a snowstorm of paper.
Someone was moved to comment that the aeroplane was noisier inside than outside.
American was the same, the aircraft hopped through intermediate points between New York and Chicago, as well as running on Boston-New York-Washington trunk route that AA was a principal player on in the 1960s, but later moved completely away from. But Hub & Spoke came later, after deregulation.
PSA, first purchaser of the 146, was entirely an end-to-end carrier, principally between Northern and Southern California. Both these major metropolitan areas had multiple regional airports, and the 146 gave the ability to link all with all efficiently, where high frequency was important and doing it with 727s was too much. The ability to do so within the noise regulations was an added bonus. I do recall the 146 prototype demonstrated at Orange County and was reported it didn't even register on the noise meter there - hence unlimited operations. Maybe AL (above), you were there !
The flap howl is still there on the current RJs - in fact I've just had the office book me on one in a few days time, LCY to Dublin. Ascending note as they come in on climbout, and descending note on approach on Long Finals. Out of LCY with westerly ops from 27 this takes place just as the aircraft turns through 180 degrees on all departures, overhead the Olympic Stadium and Stratford levelled at 3,000 ft. The ascending flap howl is quite audible if you are standing on Stratford station underneath !
The much maligned engine reliability depended on the operator; PSA flew the 146 like a 727 and suffered, Aspen and Air Wisconsin based their operations on turbo props and achieved much better performance.
The operational differences had more to do with the operator’s attitude towards the 146, opposed to the differences in operational location – San Diego vs Aspen.
PSA initially attempted to keep the 727 time schedules with the 146, thus flights were flown at max speed and this attitude was reflected in the lack of awareness of the engine red line. High speed turn offs and fast taxying resulted in at least one overrun.
Apart from the instructors, all training was done in-house; I recall one comment – “don’t tell us too much, the FAA will include it in the examinations”; PSA knew it all.
Aspen/Air Wisconsin’s attitude was reflected in their crew’s experience, most had never exceeded 250kts or 25000ft before. They respected tubo-prop like engine limits and sought economic operation on the shorter routes.
An overheard quote at the Aspen check-in – “oh I will wait for the jet”, where there was a choice between the 146 and a Dash-7; the 146 also carried the skis and ski boots more easily.
The flap howl is very speed sensitive, low speed is better. The other ‘flap’ noises could be the hydraulic PTU balancing the demand between systems.
Most aircraft can be adapted to fly a range of operational roles; the 146’s advantage is that it can cover a very wide range without the economic penalty suffered by others. Steep approach, low noise, gravel runways, unsupported airports, main HUB airports, first to third class seating, combi and freight operations are all within its capability.
PSA initially attempted to keep the 727 time schedules with the 146, thus flights were flown at max speed and this attitude was reflected in the lack of awareness of the engine red line. High speed turn offs and fast taxying resulted in at least one overrun.
Apart from the instructors, all training was done in-house; I recall one comment – “don’t tell us too much, the FAA will include it in the examinations”; PSA knew it all.
Aspen/Air Wisconsin’s attitude was reflected in their crew’s experience, most had never exceeded 250kts or 25000ft before. They respected tubo-prop like engine limits and sought economic operation on the shorter routes.
An overheard quote at the Aspen check-in – “oh I will wait for the jet”, where there was a choice between the 146 and a Dash-7; the 146 also carried the skis and ski boots more easily.
The flap howl is very speed sensitive, low speed is better. The other ‘flap’ noises could be the hydraulic PTU balancing the demand between systems.
Most aircraft can be adapted to fly a range of operational roles; the 146’s advantage is that it can cover a very wide range without the economic penalty suffered by others. Steep approach, low noise, gravel runways, unsupported airports, main HUB airports, first to third class seating, combi and freight operations are all within its capability.
PSA's biggest problem was that a lot of them were flying "balls to the wall" and the ALF502 did not like that sort of treatment.
I only flew the 146 for 19 years so I admit that I have a lot to learn, but, for example, we used to use a TGT limit of 820 degrees in the climb (and allow the N1 to float). In extremis, we would go up to 840 degrees. Certainly, we had the best reliability record of all 146 operators for a very long time.
I only ever had to shut one engine down in all that time and that was an N2 lubrication failure.
I only flew the 146 for 19 years so I admit that I have a lot to learn, but, for example, we used to use a TGT limit of 820 degrees in the climb (and allow the N1 to float). In extremis, we would go up to 840 degrees. Certainly, we had the best reliability record of all 146 operators for a very long time.
I only ever had to shut one engine down in all that time and that was an N2 lubrication failure.
BA bought a substantial batch of RJ100s later on in the production run. Initially operated out of Gatwick, they later moved to Birmingham and then on to London City as the BA operation built up there. Their various different local operations at the time also took in quite a number of secondhand examples. You can still see one occasionally at LCY operating a BA flight when they subcharter in to cover for the modern Embraers, which, despite having a pleasant ambience, seem pushed to achieve the levels of reliability that the BA 146/RJ fleet used to have there..
I flew Luxembourg to Amsterdam a few days ago - there was a 146 in Swiss colors at the Luxembourg airport, and another 146 at Schiphol (couldn't see the tail well enough to tell who the operator was). So there are still a few out there.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the 146 make money for BAe ? I don't know.
Did the 146 make money for the airlines ? Perhaps.
But as a passenger, it was indeed a success, as my family and I enjoyed a lovely flight from Calgary, AB to Victoria BC back in the mid-1990's on an Air BC 146. The flight was quick, quiet and comfortable. Flying time, wheels up to landing on the CYYC-CYYJ leg was 59 minutes ! The prevailing westerly winds over the Rocky Mountains were unusually light that day.. I also remember the FA informing us to disregard the transitory howling (or moaning) of the flaps whilst on approach. I never understood the "smurf" appellation. I think it is an attractive design with plenty of window seats!
Did the 146 make money for the airlines ? Perhaps.
But as a passenger, it was indeed a success, as my family and I enjoyed a lovely flight from Calgary, AB to Victoria BC back in the mid-1990's on an Air BC 146. The flight was quick, quiet and comfortable. Flying time, wheels up to landing on the CYYC-CYYJ leg was 59 minutes ! The prevailing westerly winds over the Rocky Mountains were unusually light that day.. I also remember the FA informing us to disregard the transitory howling (or moaning) of the flaps whilst on approach. I never understood the "smurf" appellation. I think it is an attractive design with plenty of window seats!
Last edited by evansb; 13th Sep 2015 at 01:52.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Watford
Age: 70
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there are three different companies over the water making fire engines from 146/RJ's,the -200/RJ85 is the one they go for.
I worked for Allied Signal at the Luton 502/507 overhaul facility for a while and when they took over Lycoming they poured a lot of money into making the 502 more reliable.For the yanks at the start BAe stood for Bring Another Engine.
I've had 146/RJ's on my B1 licence since 1999 and can say without doubt it's been a commercial success for me.
I also did a lot on 1-11's and whilst working on one in Texas went to Dee Howard in San Antonio where I was shown one with rather large engineless cowlings which was the Tay prototype,complete with glass cockpit.What a shame BAe put a stop to it.
I worked for Allied Signal at the Luton 502/507 overhaul facility for a while and when they took over Lycoming they poured a lot of money into making the 502 more reliable.For the yanks at the start BAe stood for Bring Another Engine.
I've had 146/RJ's on my B1 licence since 1999 and can say without doubt it's been a commercial success for me.
I also did a lot on 1-11's and whilst working on one in Texas went to Dee Howard in San Antonio where I was shown one with rather large engineless cowlings which was the Tay prototype,complete with glass cockpit.What a shame BAe put a stop to it.
