PDA

View Full Version : Propeller 146/RJ


cockyjester
14th Mar 2008, 16:51
Enduring a lazy Sunday afternoon at work and lamenting about the demise of UK Aircraft Manufacturing. Now through my own admission I dropped out of my Aeronautical engineering degree with spectacular speed so those of you who didn't might be able to answer this for me:

Is it commercially effective to modify and re-engine the 146 with turboprops?

They Do328 Jet and the AN72 have started life as propeller aircraft, why can it not be done the other way?

A400m has shown that there are engines out there with sufficient power for twin engines instead of the 4 hair dryers- Bombardier and ATR are looking to stretch their products even further. In this day where the greens are grumbling about our use of fuel surely there has to be a market for a turbo prop aircraft such as a prop efficient 146?


Very simplistic I know but please some one explain that the wing engineering costs and age of fuselage design would make it too expensive to operate etc

‾‾X‾O‾X‾‾

airborne_artist
14th Mar 2008, 17:03
What would happen though if you put a 146 turboprop on a conveyor belt? :E

bar fly
14th Mar 2008, 18:19
Do turboprops have jetblast? :E

pigboat
14th Mar 2008, 21:11
It's been tried before. :p

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/MillsStephen/6432.jpg

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
15th Mar 2008, 00:33
With thanks to Mr Curry:

http://www.edinburghairport.org.uk/gallery02/d-avrl2.jpg

Leaving the turbine shafts on the same centrelines, there's not a lot of tip ground clearance and significant adjacent disc overlap.

Once BAe decided to get out of civil manufacture, the aircraft was doomed.

Buster Hyman
15th Mar 2008, 04:48
Whack a set of Osprey donks on her! She'll be right!:ok:

Dan D'air
15th Mar 2008, 04:53
Enduring a lazy Sunday afternoon at work and lamenting about the demise of UK Aircraft Manufacturing.

You posted on a Thursday, not a Sunday????????????:}


Why don't they just start production of the Britannia again?? 'Twould be much simpler.......

Krystal n chips
15th Mar 2008, 10:57
The concept has already been tried......last time they tried to install a set of props on an airframe, they called it the A :mad:T :mad: P........so possibly they learnt their lesson from constructing the biggest heap of unadulterated sú%t ever to be classed as a aircraft.

If ever there was a case to support recycling, this example would settle the arguments once and for all. :E :ok:

Just my thought for the day.

Bern Oulli
15th Mar 2008, 13:37
I believe A.T.P. stood for Advanced Technical Problem.

airborne_artist
15th Mar 2008, 15:45
Almost Totally Pointless

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
15th Mar 2008, 16:53
In the entrance hall to Bldg 400, DE&S Andover, there's a rather large photograph of an ATP with some older pictures or RAF Station Andover. Every time I see it I wonder if some well meaning mejia type believes it portrays an AVRO Andover. Bless.

ehwatezedoing
16th Mar 2008, 04:01
Try props on a Gulfstream instead!

:p

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/7046.jpg

RJ Kanary
16th Mar 2008, 04:16
At the risk of initiating the dreaded Thread Creep...................what did ever become of all the research that was invested in UDF propulsion ?