BAE 146 lightning strike - ABZ to Scatsta

[batboy1970]

Any news on an Aberdeen to Scatsta BAE 146 taking a lightning strike and recieving damage last week (heard it through the oil rig grapevine) apparently the A/C is now grounded ???????????

[marlowe]

pity wasnt grounded then!!!!

[JW411]

The BAe146 is not paricularly well bonded and if the lightning tracked across any rivet heads then the rivets will have to be replaced.

[ukdean]

Er, whats the point in this thread, is this the first plane to have a lightning strike..........Like the 146 this thread is not worthy of "airtime"...:mad:

[blue monday]

Er, whats the point in this thread, is this the first plane to have a lightning strike..........Like the 146 this thread is not worthy of "airtime"...:mad:

Not worthy of air time - the 146 is a great looking airframe (even if it not the most economic to run or great in a cross wind) if its that bad why are the ones temporarily stored at Norwich airport and other airfields abroad on their way to new owners, i believe they all have new owners.

[HZ123]

The Bolivian Air Force 146 @SEN is going to be cut up that is about the 3rd 146 this year. A number have found new owners and Flightline seem to manage very well with the marque.

[blue monday]

I was under the impresion they scrapped an older one but are still operating a couple of ex air china 146's for the foreseable future.

[Double Zero]

UKDean,

I'd have thought this info' well worth posting.

If trying to perform relatively STOL into austere airstrips, you might rather wish to be in a 146.

As to lightning bonding / protection, I have photographed then-new carbon fibre wings where a/c had taken lightning hits, and the results caused a great deal of worry.

As those aircraft were military fighters, I presume the risk was deemed acceptable.

Having seen the strike damage, and also that material's behaviour under simple physical impacts, personally I doubt it's suitable for warplanes - in a REAL war - let alone airliners.

Of course a big modern heavy twin is perfectly safe, as we saw with the AA 767 where the No.2 engine let go, ( very fortunately on the ground ), the main disc buzz-sawed through the lower fuselage and promptly took out the No.1 engine as well as various control surfaces.

I was never involved in building or flying the 146 ( though did work for BAe elsewhere before that organisation became what it is now ) but a simple, STOL job with 4 engines suddenly seems rather appealing...

[boris]

Not much of a thread but, blue monday, the 146 is great in a cross-wind!

[lgw_warrior]

uk dean, have you ever flown a 146? (or anything else for that matter?,i hear they do a good ad-on for flight sim!) ;)

[JW411]

I flew the BAe146 for 19 years and it is great in a crosswind. As usual we are getting "informed" statements from some "learned" people who are probably not even qualified to push an empty pram.

[HZ123]

Also a good a/c from the ramp view not always suffering from staff running vehicles into the hull or better still the engines.

[mini-jumbo]

The 146 is great in crosswinds. Back on topic, the aircraft concerned is back in service.

[Jaxs]

Minden Air Begins Conversion of World's First BAE-146 Air Attack Tanker (http://www.silverstatenews.com/newssections/Aviation/Minden_Air/BAE146AAT/index.html)
did this get any where

[blue monday]

I flew the BAe146 for 19 years and it is great in a crosswind. As usual we are getting "informed" statements from some "learned" people who are probably not even qualified to push an empty praHope that was not directed at me - i was defending the 146, but my flight director is an ex 146 captain and he was telling me of control imputs in a cross wind and how many aircraft are better. I also spent a while posted to Northolt with a few jump seat rides in the 146 talking to the crew.

If it was directed at me then you are il informed as you didn't read my first post, that makes you a hypocrit