Originally Posted by
old,not bold
In 1981 I was dispatched to Hatfield to do a report evaluating the BAe146 for European/North African operations, mainly ACMI, using De Havilland's predicted performance figures.
I made a lot of the claim, as did BAe, that a complete spare engine could be carried in the hold, enabling fast return to service if a change were needed away from base (SEN).
The Chairman read the report, looked at me and in his inimitable fashion said "You stupid prat, why the f**k do you think it's important to carry a spare?" I muttered about lower costs of recovery, blah, blah.
"It's because those f*****g Lycoming engines are designed for helicopters and are f*****g unreliable".
That was the last we heard of the BAe 146.
I wonder why the aforementioned Chairman (who some of us can take a guess at, principally by the language
) thought that a brand-new (as it would have been in 1981), technically unknown anywhere aircraft would do well in the ACMI market, where said Chairman had considerable success, but with long superannuated, known Dart-powered, cheap to buy, easy to stand down for some months, aircraft. Let alone if he knew it was a no-no, why spend the money on the expenses to conduct such a study.
Incidentally, that airline did pick up several used examples in the mid-1990s, by when they were available at a considerably discounted price, plus there was 10 years of engineering experience, and use them for exactly such work.