View Full Version : Avro RJX flies

29th Apr 2001, 18:02
Top News

The new Avro RJX took to the air for the first time on 28 April. RJX-85 msn E2376 G-ORJX took off at 12:16 local time from Woodford, with Avro RJX Project Pilot Alan Foster at the controls. The maiden flight lasted 2 hours and 54 minutes, during which G-ORJX reached an altitude of 20,000 feet.

More details at http://www.smiliner.com/news/current.shtml

Capt Homesick
30th Apr 2001, 01:32
2 hours 54 minutes to reach 20,000 feet? It really is like the 146 then!
<I'm JOKING!!!!!>

Plane Speaker
1st May 2001, 11:54
Is this the icing limitation for rollback??!!Well done to all involved for the first flight of the final new(ish) British aircraft.

Major Cong
1st May 2001, 13:25
I hope it stays at 20,000 feet!

3rd May 2001, 02:41
Top news.... in the midst of fuel crisis a thirsty 4 engines with less performance than an average 2 engine, more economical jet takes to the sky!!! hmmmmmm!! smart thinking me thinks.
sorry for sceptism, 146 is great fun but considering it got its ass kicked the first time round what chance does it really have.. unless for LCY!! that is about it really!

one four sick
3rd May 2001, 11:02
Never mind how high it's got, how fast can it go????

White Knight
3rd May 2001, 11:50
Slag it off all you like guys !!!However with an increase from 7200 lbs thrust to 10000 lbs per engine it does actually go pretty well... I saw said aircraft G-ORJX at Woodford a couple of days ago. It has lower fuel consumption than was expected - having talked to a couple of Avro blokes.
Hey BB, what thirsty 4 engines ??? Uses less fuel than a 737 I expect and is just as comfortable for the pax - unlike the little Embraer pointy things...
And NO,NO,NO - there is no longer a roll back problem with the 146, there never was one with the Avro RJ, and the RJX has COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENGINES , so NO ROLL BACK....

Raw Data
3rd May 2001, 14:36
BavarianBoy- you really amuse me with your comments.

Apparently you think that airline execs just order aircraft because they like the pictures, or because the salesman was particularly persuasive that day. WRONG!!!

Airlines buy aircraft (or more usually these days, lease them) because they have done the sums and concluded they can make pots of money, taking into account fuel burn, performance, pax appeal, likely fuel price movement, and zillions of other factors.

In our company, the 146 has opened up a huge charter market- tour companies have woken up to the fact that, as we can get into small and difficult airports that Boeings and Airbii can only dream about landing at, we can get their customers to resorts and locations without resorting to long bus rides from the airport- by using a closer airport! The charter market is quite lucrative, by the way.

Finally... what fuel crisis? The 146 doesn't use a lot more fuel than a 737, and the RJX will probably use even less. Also, the 146 has more perfromance than the 737 where it counts- close to the ground. Ask a few 737 pilots what speeds they cruise at, you'll find it is little different to the 146...

A and C
3rd May 2001, 21:20
so the new RXJ will cruse at M .80 at FL 410 will it ?
I think not ,i am sure that it is a fine aircraft for short sectors but i cant see it compeating with the NG 737 on sectors much over an hour.

4th May 2001, 02:03
Another issue against the Quadrapuff. It is getting boring with all the cons against a very reasonable aeroplane.
There are many pilots out there who operate on this 146 or Avro and prefer the more spacious cockpit compared to the small 737 office.
If only all the other (oh well, there is only one...) aeroplanes would be capable of providing the same advantages as the Avro....
No, it was not built to fly at 410, and no again, it was never built for .80 but, was the 737 ever built to carry 90+ pax out of Florence with OAT at +30 degrees?
This is comparing chocolate with ice-cream...both nice for their purpose...
The 146 or the Avro can use short fields, closer to customers final destinations and if beancounters figure out that the very same aeroplane should be used for 3 hour sectors (because it can do it easily), than does this only show the variety of operational possibilities.
Passengers accept it, pilots like it and the operational costs have convinced beancounters since quiet some time and will do it again with the latest derivate.

4th May 2001, 02:38
Chill out guys, Raw Data... so if the airline beancounters did do their sums why is BE losing shed loads of money and told their crews that their payrise was a big fat ZERO??
Maybe they need new counters or at least calculators!
As for fuel, prices have gone up over 100% in 18 mths, and a 146 burns the same as a A321over a 1.5hr sector!! only the later carries lots more revenue.
However, as said, the 146 is good for short fields and fun to operate but lets not pretend it is that great.. really amounts to small man syndrome.
p.s.I actually operatethe 146 and love it but a 737 or 320 it aint!!

Gentleman, less haste more speed!

Raw Data
4th May 2001, 03:22
BavarianBoy- by your logic, Virgin Ireland folded because they flew 737s, and Air Europe folded because they operated 757s. Profit and loss is rarely directly attributable to aircraft type, unless it is a particularly trouble-prone type that is constantly tech. It is more normally associated with yields (ie per pax per seat mile). THAT is what affects the bottom line of any company!

Capt Claret
9th May 2001, 03:20
I was told yesterday that there is a signifficant problem with the engine/airframe mating of the RJX. The story included a suggestion that the pylons suffered some cracking.

None of this made sense to me, however, can anyone shed any light on the rumour?

(edited coz my finger pushed the wrong key)
bottums up !

[This message has been edited by Capt Claret (edited 08 May 2001).]

Raw Data
9th May 2001, 18:30
Nothing a little Bondy and No. 8 fencing wire can't fix!! ;)

Plane Speaker
9th May 2001, 19:33
Hmmm......Cracking eh. Don't the pylons on the 146 suffer from diaphragm/rib cracking? Isn't it also true that the crack(s) can't be repaired?

I. M. Esperto
10th May 2001, 15:36
It looks very familiar, somehow.