Differences between RJ100 and BAE 146

[speed freek]

Hi,

can anyone tell me what the differences are between the two? Performance, avionics, anything? Thanks.

Cheers.

[Speedbird48]

There are several versions of the 146. They range from 85 seat versions to 115 seats. Some have all round gauges and others have a semi-glass cockpit. The semi glass versions are mainly in the -300 series. Some have been modified with side cargo doors.

The RJ-100 has different engines (slightly) from the same manufacturer and an all glass cockpit. There are no cargo versions so far!

The 146's were made at Hatfield and the RJ-100 is certified as the Avro RJ-100 and was made at Woodford, Manchester.

Same thing different badge, although there are two type ratings, BAE-146 or AVR-146. Separated by a differences course.

Some genius will come up with a more detailed explanation but that is it in a nutshell.

SPEEDBIRD 48.

[JackOffallTrades]

RJ 100 has LF507 engines and BAe146 has LF501 (chinook engines basically). RJ100 also has FADECs to control them and auto throttle.

Avionics are improved too on the RJ. It has partial EFIS - PFD on top of a ND. The RJ100 can fly an autoland and many have been cleared for CAT3b (50`RA and 150m.... with an engine out too!)
I think the BAe 146 can only do auto coupled approaches to a manual CAT 2 landing.

So basically, engines, avionics and some of the related systems are improved.

[speed freek]

Thanks for clearing that one up guys. Cheers.

[ElNino]

The 146 has ALF502-R5 engines, producing 6970 lbs thrust, flat rated to 15C. The RJ's 507 engines also produce 6970 lbs but are flat rated to a higher temperature. As the RJ has a higher DOW than the 146, it will perform worse under similar payloads and temperatures (well lower temps anyway).

As mentioned the 146 can only do coupled approaches to Cat 2 (with all hair-dryers only). AP disconnect is by 50' minimum.

The type rating gets one rated on the AVRO RJ/BAe 146. A differences course then required to fly whichever one the initial rating was not done on. The same sim covers both, the front panels being interchangeable and everything else in the FD is the same.

Apart from avionics and AP, all other systems are the same (i.e. antiquated).

The 146 is non-RVSM approved so can not operate above FL280 in Europe.

[TheOddOne]

(with all hair-dryers only).

Don't be fooled by the apparent lack of thrust from these a/c by the above sarky comment - I was!

I was asked to approve a non-standard position into wind for an engine run of a 146. I let the engineers position the a/c where they wanted it, then stood on the other side of the road it was blasting across. I quickly wound up sheltering behind my Discovery, which was bucking about all over the place. The anemometer I was holding shot off the end of the scale and one of the cups blew off, never to be seen again. Some oxygen bottles secured a hundred metres or so away were also being tossed around; if one of them had its neck broken off, the bottle would have wound up all the way over the other side of the airfield. Lesson learned!!

Blast is very dangerous. There has, sadly, also been a fatality in the past (not at our airport) with an engineer being ingested by a 146 engine. They are proper grown-up jst engines, to be treated with the same respect as any other...

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[JackOffallTrades]

Any jet is dangerous.... But the 146 is still a quadrapuff!

:ooh: :ooh: :ooh: :ooh:

[BAe 146-100]

Nice topic. ;)

Flew on BA RJ-100 G-BZAX last December from CDG. Had a quick look at the flightdeck and it appeared quite strangely to me that the flightdeck didn't have any "Glass" instrumentation whatsoever. I have never seen an RJ-100 with no "Glass" PFD and ND before. Is this the same for BA's other RJ-100s? Any reason why they took this option?

Regards
BAe 146

[JackOffallTrades]

Don`t quite understand your term "no glass instrumentation". Surely a glass cockpit is EFIS or partial EFIS?
Last time I flew G-BZAX it was a normal RJ100.

Please explain.:confused:

[BAe 146-100]

JackOffallTrades,

Interesting. :)

I'm positively sure that when I looked into the flightdeck of G-BZAX it resembled a traditional BAe 146 flightdeck:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/574133/M/

Rather than the normal RJ-100 flightdeck setup shown below:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/429069/M/

Thanks
BAe 146

[Trislander]

Hi guys,

maybe it was a 146-300? Although the later versions of those had a semi-efis flightdeck. Otherwise, did any of the early RJ's have a non-efis option??

Probably talking a load of old rollocks but these are the only things i can think of!

:ok:

[BAe 146-100]

Trislander,

G-BZAX is a RJ-100, serial number E3356. BA only currently operate one 146-300 G-OINV.

Otherwise, did any of the early RJ's have a non-efis option?

This might be why. :)

Regards
BAe 146

[Capt Pit Bull]

Nah, AZ is in my logbook, it is an ex chippyfryer aircraft, supplied new to them with the standard RJ-100 glass fit.

The EFIS screens are pretty small, and the symbology not that advanced. At a quick glance you may not have clocked that you were looking at a tv picture rather than physical instrument.

Either that or it has been retrofitted, which I would have thought to be vanishingly unlikely.

CPB

[rhythm method]

All BACX RJs are standard fit as previously reported.

Perhaps (and I'm just guessing) you saw BZAX on the apron ready to operate the service, but you were actually flying on one of our 146-100 or -200 aircraft. We regularly get 'scrambled' on airport standby duty to recover a service for a sick RJ.

Our fleet consist of 146-100 (wind up clockwork!), 146-200 (battery operated clockwork!) and 146-300 (super-duper clockwork!), and the RJ fleet is the all-singing and dancing digital type!

rm

[BAe 146-100]

I was definitely on G-BZAX, saw "AX" above the flightdeck windows on boarding.

I must have seen the standby instruments as CPB said. :O :p

Thanks for clearing that up guys! :D

Kind Regards
BAe 146

[J31 MAN]

Guys,



Just a note that the RJ and the 146 are seperate type rating courses.



J31 man

[White Knight]

Last time I flew G-BZAX, and I flew it a fair old bit, it was EFIS:D

J31 MAN - I'd have to go dig out my UK licence, but I'm sure my type rating is Avro RJ/BAe 146. Having done the rating initially on the RJ100, all it would take to fly the bog standard 146 would be a differences CBT, followed by a sim or two:ok:

[expedite_climb]

BAe 146-100

I was definitely on G-BZAX, saw "AX" above the flightdeck windows on boarding

You seem quite knowledgeable. Unfortunately, the link you supplied, when zoomed in shows the reg- G-BPNT!

Egg face in maybe ? :-)

[J31 MAN]

Apologies dudes and dudesses,


It is common type rating but you MUST do a differences course. I consulted my RJ/146 Instructor friends.

However, the 146 sim at BAE can only be EFIS fit 146 or analogue fit 146. You can't do RJ training on a 146 sim.

J31 :ok: :O

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

expedite_climb

You seem quite knowledgeable. Unfortunately, the link you supplied, when zoomed in shows the reg- G-BPNT!

Thanks for your compliment! :D

That G-BPNT 146-300 pic that I linked was only meant to be a reference to what I thought G-BZAX's flightdeck setup was like. It wasn't meant to show "AX's" flightdeck! ;)

Sorry for the confusion.

Kind Regards
BAe 146

[normal_nigel]

No difference at all.

They are both a nasty, scruffy, slow regional heaps of crap and the ones in BA colours are an embarrassment to the company.

Still look on the bright side. At least you can fit a laptop into an overhead locker unlike the impressive 145 or Dash 8.

[Trislander]

Hey! The 146/RJ is a great a/c, one of a kind and a classic british aircraft! It might be a bit slower than other jets but t/o performance beats many others hands down! But I'm biased!!

Any Avro/146 fans check out http://www.smiliner.com/

:ok:

[Carpathia]

Hmm, clearly Trislander you don't have to fly on the damned things as a pax or pilot :(


They are both a nasty, scruffy, slow regional heaps of crap

Summed up very accurately.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Normal Nigel and Carpathia,

Nobody asked your opinion, get back in your boxes.

CPB

[normal_nigel]

Pit Bull

Well who asked yours?

I don't remember needing your permission to post here so why don't you stop being so precious and concentrate on nurturing that chip you carry around.

[Trislander]

No, not pax, or fly them (yet!) but am an ATPL student who also works as cabin crew on them and have many mates who are pilots on them who love it! even ex-737 drivers and the like. Just your opinion I guess!!

:ok:

[Capt Pit Bull]

NN

Well who asked yours?

Actually NN, if you read the thread title you will see that speedfreek asked a question. I, amongst others, answered it, in an ON TOPIC manner.

Whereas your 'answer' did not add anything to the factual purpose of the thread. It was off topic, and in fact nothing less than a cheap pop at the regional / franchise operators.

....and apparently I'm the one with the chip.

You don't need my permission to post, but likewise if you are going to take cheap shots rest assured someone is going to call you on it.

CPB

[normal_nigel]

A cheap pop?

Actually an accurate (IMHO) pop at a crap bit of equipment running services that used to be from a proud BA base.

Its not the crew's fault they fly a substandard bit of kit for a substandard part of "BA". Its just a sad fact of life.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

The former large thriving BA base at MAN will soon be reduced to some sort of sub 50 seat subsiduary bullsh1t.

Or can't you see the wood for the trees?

[Capt Pit Bull]

Well, the point of the thread was the aircraft.

There is only really one area of 'crap'ness about the RJ-100, and that is APU reliability.

The rest of it is horses for courses.

If they look scruffy and are operated on unsuitable routes (re: your slowness comment) then thats a problem with how BA have chosen to emply them.

The basic aircraft is sound, built like a brick outhouse and sweet to fly.

CPB

[Trislander]

Nigel,

I think the underlying situation here is that you have issues with your employer and their management methods and are using a vaguely-related thread to vent your frustration.

What do you fly anyway that's so superior to the RJ?!?

:rolleyes:

[Dash-7 lover]

On a lighter note.......anyone other 146/RJ operators out there having trouble with Type 4 de-icing fluid turning into a 'thick wall paper paste type substance' when it gets wet and clogging up flying controls etc etc??

[safetypee]

anyone other 146/RJ operators out there having trouble with Type 4 de-icing fluid , only when type 4 is misapplied or misused!
The problems with thickened de-icing fluids (type 2 & 4) have been discussed elsewhere in Pprune. Many aircraft with manual controls are susceptible to ‘gelling’ or dry out problems with these fluids, the 146/RJ perhaps particularly so due to its servo-tab control system (also the MD-80 series of aircraft). Solution; wash off all traces of previous de-icing fluids, don’t over apply thickened anti-icing fluids, do not use as an over-night defrosting agent.

The 146/RJ should have a ‘same’ type rating; the process started with the 146 EFIS variant (3163 onwards) where initial approval was gained from the FAA under AC120-53; this was transferred / accepted by the UK CAA pending new European rules. The Avro RJ has a type certification of “BAe146 – Avro RJ”, i.e. a variant, look at the AFM title.

The RJ EFIS/avionics systems uses digital sensors connections whereas the 146 EFIS retained as far as possible kept the analogue sensors and connections. Thus with an ADC the RJ has airspeed speed on the PFD. The EFIS formats were deliberately made to ‘look alike’ the analogue instruments. Whilst this arrangement may not have all of the bells and whistles of newer systems, it does provide all of the essential features, although with new regulation some RNAV systems lack capability, but most of these problems were by operator choice. Overall this decision has stood the test of time re crew error/mistakes, and in many countries around the world.

Thus the RJ and146 are ‘horses for a courses’; what other type can fly steep approaches, operate to 3000 ft runways, and fly Cat3b (RJ - 150m RVR) auto lands?

Most pilots enjoyed their time on the 146/RJ. It takes you to places not often seen before, many lessons learned, experiences gained, and it is real flying. It is not a type that will bite you – very forgiving. On the down side; it does the industry a great disservice with the super soft landings, now all pilots try to follow this in other aircraft types with the risk of long ‘floaty’ landings, or the ‘crunch’ of a steep approach!

[normal_nigel]

Trilander

You are correct. But I still think the RJ/146 is a heap doing what it does at MAN.

In answer to your question 757/767

[Speedbird48]

Safetypee, has it correct on the type 4 fluid. Why people are applying it the night before and not washing it off properly must be due to ignorance. The stuff changes its form into a gel and will stick on any surface and not shear off, as it should, before rotation. Control balance then becomes a serious issue.

I have been trying to get the FAA to understand this problem for the past 3 years and finally they have recognised the problem. Our neihbours to the North have know about it for ever but then the "not invented here" syndrome come into play every time.

As for the 146 type rating issue the FAA certificate that I have in my back pocket shows both BAE-146 and AVR-146. A minor issue as all you have to do is a differences course. I was a training captain on the things for a few years and found it to be a great airplane with some UK idiosycosies!!

Speedbird 48.

[safetypee]

Thanks Speedbird48, however don’t confuse control unbalance with the fluid gel problem. Gel or particularly the residual ‘thickener’ powders are not normally a problem until they get wet. Then they quickly absorb water, up to 10 x their own volume, and above the freezing layer are a major hazard for control jams / block. Rare instances of problems with control balance have been encountered in sever icing conditions not necessarily associated with fluid problems.

Of interest my ‘same type’ rating is worded BAe146 series 100, 200 & 300 and Regional Jet RJ70, RJ85, RJ100, & RJ115. Interesting as the RJ115 was never certificated!

[square leg]

As far as I know, the only interchangeable panels are in/on the Avro RJ series simulators, i.e. things like digital pressurisation (vs. manual press), FMS (vs. GNS-X), and EGPWS (no separate panel).



I doubt that an RJ sim can be changed into a 146 sim by interchanging panels as the one has DFGS's, TRP, MCP etc. vs. older systems which are somewhat different.



I might be wrong.