View Full Version : Q400 V BAE 146
George Tower
11th Mar 2006, 20:42
Hi there,
I know that the Q400 has been introduced now down under and I'm presuming that it may be replacing some BAe 146 a/c that have operated in OZ for many years.
I'm just wondering if there are any guys out there that have experienced flying both types and can give me their views as to how these a/c compare with eachother in terms of airfield performance, despatch relaibility, fuel burn, and pax comfort etc.
Many thanks
GT
Certainly.
The Q400 gets off the ground quicker and climbs better, but is a little slower in the cruise.
The Q400 in Europe has been a reliability nightmare. In our company, we were forever scrambling the reserve 146 to cover for dead Q400s. It is very lightly built, stuff breaks, and the electronics seem very fragile. Some systems are not thought out very well, for example we found that if you are on battery and you put the lights on for a walk-round, by the time you get back to the flight deck, the tiny battery will be flat. In addition, I lost count of the number of times turning the gennys on fritzed the computers and required a complete power-down to get them back. There are lots of other issues. One that amazed me was a generator that died after delivery miles (about 27 hours on the airframe).
The 146 has older systems, not too many computers, but tends to be a lot more reliable. When something does break, it doesn't usually ground the aircraft (like a dead TMS for example).
The Q400 flight deck is much better from an avionics point of view, but is small and cramped compared to the 146.
Fuel burn - no contest, the Q400 wins that one (though not by much).
Comfort - personally I find the Q400 vibey and noisy (when the NVS isn't working, which tends to be most of the time). The props are extremely sensitive to balance, and can require a re-balance on a weekly basis. Other than that, it is a bright and airy cabin with decent toilets.
The 146 tends to be a bit darker, but is of course much wider and in our cabin fit, had much wider and more comfortable seats. It is certainly quieter and there is no discernable vibration.
Personally I prefer the 146, it is strongly built, reliable, and great fun to fly. It also lands really smoothly with that training beam undercarriage, and is much easier to load/unload than the Q400. The Q400 is a typical modern aircraft, built to a price and correspondingly fragile, and with an appalling reliability record.
Sadly, the Q400 is the future, don't think there will be many 146/RJs flying in ten years...
slice
12th Mar 2006, 00:56
MOR - so where did the "4 oil leaks connected by an electrical fault" reputation come from ? (146):E
Dunno. I have flown the type for five years and 17 different airframes, and have never had an oil leak. In fact, I have never known a 146 engine to require oil during the day, and not even very often during dailies.
Had a few electrical probs, but nothing serious. On the other hand, the Q400 had endless electrical problems.
Never had my roof fly off (737), the side of my fuselage disappear (747), my thrust reversers deploy in flight (767), or the aircraft head off in an unexplained direction (insert any Airbus here)... :} :} :}
Oh, and did I mention numerous rudder hardovers (737)...
AerocatS2A
12th Mar 2006, 05:02
Dunno. I have flown the type for five years and 17 different airframes, and have never had an oil leak. In fact, I have never known a 146 engine to require oil during the day, and not even very often during dailies.
That's right MOR, the bleed air system on the 146s includes a filter downstream of the recirc fan, this collects the oil after it's been run through the air-conditioning and the cabin and then returns it to the engines via the low pressure bleed return line. The amount that is retained in the passenger's lungs is insignificant :).
AerocatS2A
That's right MOR, the bleed air system on the 146s includes a filter downstream of the recirc fan, this collects the oil after it's been run through the air-conditioning and the cabin and then returns it to the engines via the low pressure bleed return line. The amount that is retained in the passenger's lungs is insignificant .
That's why we never used the recirc fan... ;)
At least one Q400 has had a fumes incident, it can happen on any aircraft equipped with turbine engines.
Skydrol_ise
12th Mar 2006, 08:08
The 146 is a good bus. It is relatively simple to maintain and does have a number of quirky faults, but usually these faults do not ground aircraft. I guess having 4 of everything helps. Even a dead engine can still be locked out and aircraft ferried to major maintenance facility.
I am also aware of oil smells in cabin from DHC-8-200 series being a problem for a large DHC-8 OZ operator, needing a few unscheduled engine changes.
It would appear at this stage 146 is more reliable than 717 operated by &^$
But it is early days yet :)
Artificial Horizon
12th Mar 2006, 09:05
Having flown both types mentioned it is quite hard to choose a favourite as both have problems. I started out on the Dash 400 and as stated above spent the first few months pulling circuit breakers and scratching my head. Once the aircraft had been on line with the airline for a good amount of time though the reliability improved alot. The Q400 has a lovely flight deck and a great avionics package, hands down better than the 146 which still had all the old bells and whistles. The 146 is certainly built like a brick sh*t house and is very reliable. It is a lovely aircraft to fly, handle and land unlike the Q400 which is a horrible aircraft to hand fly and the landings are more luck than judgement with a very firm landing gear. Performance wise the Q400 wins hands down, it would get off the runway quickly and maintain a respectable climb rate all the way up, you could easily outclimb the early morning 146 services. Still remember many tech stops in the 146 on warm (not hot) days out of southampton to upload more fuel as the thing wouldn't of got off the ground if you uploaded flight plan fuel. Some of the older 146's had such poor performance on all 4 engines off the runway it did make me wonder some days whether I would stand a chance in hell if one of the donkeys gave up. Generally on sectors of less than 1 hours the Q400 was quicker from take off to touchdown, once longer than 1 hours the 146 would be quicker as it went fast in the cruise (just took and age to get there). My personal favourite was the Q400.
I'd agree with all that apart from the performance bit. We used to leave Scotland at virtually the same time as the southbound Q400, and normally passed it just before or just after the POL. Of course the engines were all glowing a nice, cherry-red colour... :}
It is worth pointing out that the RJ is really the aircraft in the 146 family to have, EFIS flight deck, FADEC, autothrottles and of course Cat III autoland... making it somewhat more capable than the Q400.
And the 146 has an avionics bay... :)
haughtney1
12th Mar 2006, 11:02
Then of course if the route would warrant it......a 757 would be far better.....:}
NO thrust reversers deploying......ceilings coming off...or rudder hard overs, oh and did I mention FL400 in 17 minutes?
Yeah right!
Let's see you get your 757 into London City... :}
FL400 in 17 mins... that would be with no pax, no catering, a very cold day and 20 minutes of fuel?
Looks nice, though. Not sure about those doggy old rattlers you guys have, they always looked a bit tired to me... ;)
pakeha-boy
12th Mar 2006, 14:17
MOR...the part about "scrambling" the 146,s into action.....anything similar to when they scramble F-16,s?????...because if thats the case,then I,m a believer.....
haughtney1
12th Mar 2006, 15:18
FL400 in 17 mins... that would be with no pax, no catering, a very cold day and 20 minutes of fuel?
AHEM......110 pax 8 tonnes of gas...and 13C..:} And I reckon I could stop it at LCY...empty:p VREF30 115kts
George Tower
12th Mar 2006, 18:38
Thanks guys for the first hand views. Interesting to hear the Q400 is a better a/c regarding take-off performance. I know the 146/RJ is supposed to have STOL as it's trump card.
MOL,
Fancy a job at BAE Systems marketing dpeartment ;)
Not having first hand experience of Australia did the 146 operate on any hot and high sectors. I know OZ is hot but unlike SA most f the population is at the coast where we have our main cities 5000'+AMSL.
Rgds
GT
AerocatS2A
12th Mar 2006, 22:14
George, the 146s in Aus go hot but not very high (Australia doesn't really have anything particularly high.) They go in to Ayers Rock which gets up over 40° but is only 1600' ASL.
RENURPP
12th Mar 2006, 23:33
Depends which variant of the 146 you speak of. 100,200 or 300 with 502's or 507's.
Alice Springs is 1800+ ft and regularly over 40 c.
The 100 and 300's with the 507's have no problems at all. Alice - Perth close to 1100nm with 100kt headwinds during winter. 89 pax and baggage.
The 200's were hopeless when the temp got above 30.
It may not be high, BUT it is hot, being the reason Boeing bring their aircraft to Alice for Hot and High testing!
Regarding the " smells " in the 146, I personally never smelt them, now flying the 717 and whether the smells are toxic in any form I know not, however the 717 stinks. Apart from the regular "why won't it do.............." the next most common phrase is "was that you.........."
MOL,
Fancy a job at BAE Systems marketing dpeartment
MOL...??? You are accusing me of being that Irish renegade? What an insult!! :p
Just a quick point, STOL isn't the same thing as climb performance. The 146 has very long flaps and a fairly blunt wing, so it will get off the ground quickly. However, it doesn't climb all that rapidly, it was always underpowered with the ALF502s.
Managed to get a ride on the RJX when it was in flight test at Woodford, and that thing climbed like a bat out of hell. It would have been a really good aircraft, all the best qualities of the 146/RJ bit with more power and a lower fuel burn. It had a nice flight deck too.
Regarding engines, I think you will find that ALL 146 variants have 502s and ALL RJ variants have 507s.
As far as hot and high goes, I'll see if I can find any 146 performance info amongst my pile of tech manuals...
RENURPP
12th Mar 2006, 23:46
There are 507 engines on 146's in Aus.
Really? How do they integrate the 507 FADEC engine into the 146, which doesn't have any of the FADEC avionics? If they have used the 507 engine and added all the kit necessary to run the FADEC, then it is to all intents and purposes an RJ, isn't it? You also have to throw out the TMS and all the other 146 kit...
Capt Claret
13th Mar 2006, 04:14
MOR,
It was a different variant of the FADEC LF507. Still had TMS but with climb mode rather than descent mode, 6990lb thrust to 23C (if I remember correctly). The 507 powered 146s went much better than the 502s but were still an ergonomic nightmare.
Though in fairness, they did what they did well.
trollies_r_go
13th Mar 2006, 04:46
Though in fairness, they did what they did well.
U prefer the hairdryer then? Better than the mighty 717 gundge? P.S while I'm here, I hear your landings are soiiiiipurb!!! :ok: now where's my neck brace...?
TRG:p
Skystar320
13th Mar 2006, 04:52
There are 507 engines on 146's in Aus.
*cough**cough* 507 - 2 = 505!!!!!!!!!!! *cough**cough*
http://www.planemart.com/listings.asp?type=Regional&manufacturer=BRITISH+AEROSPACE&model=BAe+146%2D200QT%2F%2D200QC+%28FRT%2E%29
:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:
RENURPP
13th Mar 2006, 05:26
Just noted that CC has already answered above.
AerocatS2A
13th Mar 2006, 05:34
*cough**cough* 507 - 2 = 505!!!!!!!!!!! *cough**cough*
http://www.planemart.com/listings.asp?type=Regional&manufacturer=BRITISH+AEROSPACE&model=BAe+146%2D200QT%2F%2D200QC+%28FRT%2E%29
:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:
(507 - 2) + 2 = 507 :)
The BAE 146-300 has 507-1H engines. The RJ has 507-1F. NatJet operates some -300s for Qantas Link
Capt Claret
13th Mar 2006, 06:37
Funny, Trollies, how people read what they want to read into a statement. Just because it did a good job doesn't mean I want to go back into the dark-ages. :8
Skystar320
13th Mar 2006, 06:42
(507 - 2) + 2 = 507 :)
The BAE 146-300 has 507-1H engines. The RJ has 507-1F. NatJet operates some -300s for Qantas Link
yet look closly and you will see its -200 model previously operated by Ansett operated with 5's
Yet the -300's are running around with ALF502R-5 aswell, mind you that these are ex Ansett Machines, and i must admit i dont know what on the wings of National Jets
:* :* :* :* :* :*
Capt Claret
13th Mar 2006, 06:46
NJS' -300 freighters, NJF & NJM are 502, the -300 RPT with the white rat on t'tail, NJL & NJN are 507.
Skystar320
13th Mar 2006, 06:48
Gathering that were talking about the former AN aircraft run around with
ALF502R-5 engines
While, NJS (QantasLink) run's around with the following?
LF507-1H
I am getting confused, otherwise i am counting tooo many beads
Capt Claret
13th Mar 2006, 06:55
Silly me, I must have missed all the references in the thread to Ansett aircraft. :hmm:
Skystar320
13th Mar 2006, 06:58
The thread has got nothing to do with former ansett aircraft. Hmm would'nt mind but. Just saying that the aircraft that i knew had those engines as mentioned above, but being an Ansett Geek, thought i may add my 2cents worth.
We all can be wrong, so.................. guess i'll stand to be corrected
Hugh Jarse
13th Mar 2006, 07:49
Trollies, please stop putting **** on Clarrie's landings :} You know he's sensitive about it:E
Lucky he isn't landing a Q400 then, nobody can land those things gently... :}
Hugh Jarse
13th Mar 2006, 08:32
Trouble is MOR, that he got spoiled with the 146's undercarriage. Some people have short memories :} :}
Capt Claret
13th Mar 2006, 08:37
Funny you should mention that Jarse, only today a gingerbeer asked did I need anything. "A trailing link u/c would be nice".
Don't be a girl, Clarrie, you don't need trailing link, a wet runway does just fine. ;)
CaptHairDryer
13th Mar 2006, 13:02
Maybe Clarry needs to take a step back to the, what was it called clarry, the mohawk??:confused:
George Tower
13th Mar 2006, 13:16
Sorry should have asked about the B717 as well as I believe they're also being operated on the 146 routes.....how do they match up?
MOR,
My humblest apologies - I didnt assume you to be a small but noisy obnoxious irish :mad:
I didnt assume you to be a small but noisy obnoxious irish:mad:
Thank you. I prefer to be known as a small noisy obnoxious kiwi... ;)
George Tower
5th Apr 2006, 15:57
Just to revisit this one, can any drivers of the Q400 tell me what the max still air range of the Q400 would be assuming a full load and departing from a 4000' runway, MSL, and a OAT of 25 degrees C. and then the same assuming a 6500' runway, 5500' AMSL and a OAT of 25 degrees C.
Many thanks
GT
gas-chamber
6th Apr 2006, 12:01
Having personally logged a close on a coupla thousand hours in them, I can assure you that there are at least two 146-300 series aircraft flying in Oz with 507 engines - no FADEC. They are not quite as good as the RJ, but reasonable performers in hot and high situations. As mentioned, they can pull a full load out of Alice for Perth on a 40 degree day and buck the headwinds.
BAE146 is an outdated heap of junk that pumps noxious gas into every cabin at varible amounts. This continues to happen all over the world and nobody is really doing anything about it. I guess the court cases will apear at a later date.
The Q400 reliability is quite good now. Most of the standard launch customer/ initial delivery quirks have been ironed out and it saves companies alot of money.
The 146 is better when longer sectors are required or there is a need for larger holds but that is about all. Oh of course, if nobody in the company can land its not to bad either.
I see the morons are coming out to play... :rolleyes:
If anybody had any hard evidence with regard to the 146 and fumes, it would have been grounded years ago and all the lawsuits would be over. The fact is that nobody who has investigated it (including the Ozmate government) can find enough evidence to take any legal action. Nobody is currently taking any legal action, not even the AOPIS clowns.
More to the point, if you were to take action against BAe with respect to the 146, you would also have to go after Boeing for the 757, and so on.
Even more to the point, after 5 years and over 4000 hours on the 146, I have never had a fumes incident. I don't know anybody who has had one either, and that was in a company with 17 of them. If you look after the AC system, they are fine. If you don't, ANY AIRCRAFT can have a fumes problem, including the Q400.
George Tower
7th Apr 2006, 18:19
Sorry but what has fumes got to do with the take-off performance of an aircraft. Nothing I think..... its like the fact that there have been 737 rudder issues - is the 737 a bad aircraft bloody hell no.
Best knock this issue on the head....if u want to talk about fumes start another thread. All I'm interested in is which gets off the ground better and whether the big Dash can operate the sector I referred to about 3 posts back.
Cheers
GT
Yes sir. Whatever you say sir.
Why not do the obvious thing and ask Bombardier for some performance information, it would only cost you one email and you would get the answer a lot quicker... :rolleyes:
George Tower
8th Apr 2006, 09:36
MOR,
Been in contact with the Bombardier's sales and marketing people.....:rolleyes:
Not been successful in my endeavour as my umpteen different emails to them will show.
Don't talk to sales and marketing... call their performance department direct. I did that once when we first got the Q400... sadly I can't find the number or name of the guy I spoke to. He was very helpful though...