BAE 146 , was an unsuccessful a/c ?

[Tacitus]

I am not a pilot, just an aviation enthusiast but I would like to ask why the production of Avroliner stopped. Was it that bad? Or it was a burden for an airline to have Avroliners, in terms of operating cost. Personally I believe it was an excellent aircraft with unique characteristics and many airlines utilized it successfully but maybe there are and things I don’t know.

[ElNino]

I would say yes it was a success. It sold well and most of them are still flying today. However it is a niche aircraft, which killed it in the end.
It has many pro's and con's.
Pros:
Designed, as it was, to operate into short fields with good payload and range, it is excellent. No other aircraft can lift 90 pax out of a 1300m runway and then fly a good distance.
The leases are very cheap (for the 146 anyway, maybe less so for the RJ).
Biggest cabin of the regional jets
Strongly built aircraft

Cons:
Not many airports that can only handle a 146/RJ, so a limited market.
Very fuel-inefficient (same burn per hour as an A320/B738, but half the capacity).
Maintenance heavy, very prone to tech probs due to the age
4 engines, which were historically unreliable though ok now
Systems complicated and fault prone
For passengers, noisy and not very comfortable in 6-abreast

[DrKev]

For passengers, noisy and not very comfortable in 6-abreast

The 146/RJs are probably (if not certainly) the quietest jets in their class outside of the cabin. Are they not the quietest inside the cabin too? I always enjoyed flying in them. Four engines sound so much cooler than two, and I never found it particularly noisy or uncomfortable. I don't know if any airlines ever took up the 6 abreast version, which (I think) should have been the RJ-115.

In any case, the RJs, which were an improvement of the 146s, were to become even more improved as the RJX programme launched in 1999, with increased fuel efficiency, range and even better noise levels. First flights of the -85 and -100 were in 2001. However, after September 11th, fear of poor sales forced the closure of the project.

[ElNino]

Are they not the quietest inside the cabin too?

Unfortunately not. They are much louder in the cabin than, for example, an A320. The flight deck is very noisy as well, particularly if the seals are bad, which makes for a constant high-pitched whistling. Having the engines beside the cabin, with no wing to shield the noise, makes for much noise inside.

I don't know if any airlines ever took up the 6 abreast version, which (I think) should have been the RJ-115.


Any of the 146/RJ models can be, and are, configged with 6 abreast.

[TotalBeginner]

When I worked for KLMuk the Buzz 146's were all 6 abreast

[VHF FLYER]

As 'just a passenger' I don't like 'em
1. Six abreast in a regional jet? You've got to be kidding. Some airlines have had them in five abreast which is more civilised.
2. Cannot see out of the windows - stupid design means that unless you're right at the front or right at the back all you get to see are engines, wings and flaps.
3. The same stupid design means that the wing stubs and presumably the fuel tanks encroach on the cabin. The result is a long section of 'letter box' overhead lockers - slits that you might just get your coat in. Means that passengers sitting here move up and down the cabin looking for somewhere to put their bags - means an awful boarding and off loading process.
4. Quiet on the outside but really noisy inside.
5. Scary flight operations - lowering the u/c sounds like the pilot has inadvertantly hit reverse thrust in mid air. Operating the flaps sounds like a Stuka on a death dive. Many an infrequent and nervous fellow passenger has grabbed my arm in terror during said operations.

Good riddance I say.

[angels]

Never flown for more than 90 minutes in them, but I like 'em. Sod the noise, down a couple of voddies and you arrive!

[Conan the Librarian]

More than a few waiting in ScrapMans' corner down at Kemble, if anyone has a tenner in their pocket.

Can't help thinking that they look like Bonsai C-17s...

Conan

[Final 3 Greens]

Good riddance I say.

Before the 146, we used to have to travel in such delighful crates as the F27 and the 748.

I very much like them and we should be proud of a successful British product.

[Synthetic]

Dare I mention carbon monoxide?

[Final 3 Greens]

Of course... and dare I mention rudder hard overs?

[Groundloop]

How about some figures for some British built jet airlineres:

VC-10/Super VC-10 54 built
Trident 1/2/3 117 built
BAC 111 235 built + 9 in Romania

BAe 146 221 built
Avro RJ 170 built
146/RJ total 391 built + 3 RJX

Therefore most successful British built airliner - if that means much!

[foxile]

Lufthansa and its off-shoots seem to like them. For example aren't they aquiring some ex BA CitiExpress for Swiss? Would have thought if it were all bad the 'efficient' Germans wouldn't have gave it a second glance... :}

[eastern wiseguy]

most successful British built airliner ..you start of mentioning JET airliners ..but your statement omits the word jet ...allowing me to mention the TRUE queen of the skies ..the Vickers Viscount ..way over 400 built and a delight to fly in. proper seats engines windows noise .......shuffles off mumbling:) :)

[Groundloop]

Sorry, I did mean jet!

Viscount production was 444, I think.

Also De Havilland Dove production was something like 544.

[Dash-7 lover]

Foxile....

GCFAB/FAD/FAF/FAH gone to SWISS already - just FAC and FAE to go

[Hermano Lobo]

Spoke to the CEO of a low cost airline a while back. Quite disappointed that BAe did not go ahead with the RJX. He believed it would be a winner !

The RJX was a victim of the politics of aircraft manufacture.:\

[surely not]

If the DH Dove gets a mention then the BN2 Islander wins hands down !!

[tilewood]

When Air UK first received their 146's in the mid 80's they found them to be
very prone to tech. problems, especially the powerplants.

Whether this was due to inexperience in operating a new type or an inherent
problem with the aircraft I am not sure, but we used to call them the 14 (sick)!!

[tallaonehotel]

The RJ's and the 146's still have the same problems that they have had since the day and hour they started flying.
Like most of BAE systems work, it was built like a tank and as complicated as a woman with PMT to maintain!!.

Give me a sleek Brazilian any day!.

[VHF FLYER]

flew on a LH type MAN to Munich last week. Full flight therefore all middle seats used - lots of unhappy faces.
Two hours cramped in the middle seat between two fat Germans:yuk:
Possibly the most uncomfortable flight ever (statement includes Russian planes). At 12 stone, I should not be in a position where there is not enough shoulder space to take a deep breath. Felt ill when I got off.
I stand by previous comments and my desire not to fly on these things.

[XV277]

How about some figures for some British built jet airlineres:
VC-10/Super VC-10 54 built
Trident 1/2/3 117 built
BAC 111 235 built + 9 in Romania
BAe 146 221 built
Avro RJ 170 built
146/RJ total 391 built + 3 RJX



Which makes me think - did post-Comet British jet airliner designers only study T-tails at college? (DH/HS/BAE125 fits the pattern too!)