Bae 146 Tanker

[typerated]

Bae 146 Tanker,

I have just seen some videos of the 146 in fire-fighting trials -http://www.tronosjet.com/firefighting.php
Not that it is that exciting.

However, it did remind me of the ill fated attempt to produce a variant of the aircraft as an A-A refuelling tanker. A quick check via google and it seems it was only a paper study.

Anyone remember if it was it ever seriously considered?

I imagine it would have been fairly useful as a backup to the VC-10s and Tristars during the cold war. As a fire-fighter it apparently can carry 3000 US gallons of water, so I would have expected it would have carried enough fuel to seriously extend the endurance of a 4 ship CAP, or the range of a 4 ship of muds.

I have followed the 767/A330 debate with interest –especially the argument that the 767 is too small. Having said that I think the 146 would have been a useful capability, halfway between a full size tanker and buddy-buddy tanking

I’d be interested in any thoughts.

TR

[BEagle]

Some background on this old thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/369999-competition-fat-albert.html

2 significant snagettes with a 146 AAR platform:

1. Total fuel capacity would mean rather poor cost/benefit as a multi-role aircraft. Basically, it's too small to be of much appeal as a tanker.

2. Where to hang AAR pods. Re-engining with 2 larger engines instead of 4 APUs would yield some wing potential, but it would still be very tight.

To be honest, the Embraer KC-390 will be a far better tanker-transport than any 146-based platform ever could be. If Gripen NG wins the Brazilian FX-2 contest, then some sort of a deal could perhaps be struck with Sweden to offer the KC-390 to replace their C-130 tanker?

[L J R]

Why does the BAE 146 have 4 engines - 'cos you can't fit 5..

[Double Zero]

As said by more serious people, the 146 could only be a stop-gap; however, let's compare the runway length & surrounding terrain required by a 146 compared to a Tristar...

I imagine as Beagle says wing tanks are out, so the quickest fit would be a single tail unit.

STOL is a jolly useful thing, to the extent of being a ' force multiplier ' in modern parlance !

[yowieII]

Remember seeing some promo photo's a while back of a 146-100 painted in camo with a dummy probe above the flight deck. It also had a rear parachute door and freight door. Its now in Oz as a freighter, unfortunately the para door was never allowed to be used.

[Flyt3est]

Beagle makes the point regarding wing loading, with 2 donks per side, you couldn't feasibly hang 600 Kilo's of wing pod outboard of them.

I'm sure he will agree though that budgets and requirements can draw various interesting ideas with regard to platforms and their uses.. The comment regarding a centreline refuelling system for use as a less expensive tactical tanker may be someones cup of tea, but as part of a wider force multiplying capability, something like the KC-390 or KC-130 would be much more attractive to those with the funding to match the aspirations.

As with everything, capability and functionality is just a question of money, how much capability can you afford?

FT

[safetypee]

IIRC the design specs for the 146 ‘STA’ tanker version included 2 wing pods in addition to a centerline hose. The concept was biased towards a fighter CAP operation, reminiscent of the Lightning days with Buccaneer support. This might be relevant today if it releases the conventional takers to a strategic role, but fighter ops would loose some flexibility.
Additional fuel capacity (considered for another ‘military’ role) could be provided by fitting a whale-back tank (over the wing fuselage) and under-floor tanks.
The weight increase up to the heavy-weight RJ 100 (proposed RJ 115) should have been accommodated in the existing design, and the later LF engines, which are flat rated, might have a ‘bump’ capability.
The receiver probe was flight tested including a limited tanker evaluation behind a Victor.

[BEagle]

Well, certainly, augmenting the capability of an existing tactical transport with a cargo bay/ramp centreline system for refuelling helicopters and light attack jets would seem highly attractive.

But, without substantial redesign, the 146 simply has the wrong configuration. Short wingspan (86 ft as opposed to the KC-390's 111 ft) plus 4 engines effectively rules out a twin AAR pod layout. The 146 doesn't have a ramp either, so a complex, permanently mounted fuselage unit would be required which would reduce multi-role capability. The 146 carries not many people not very far and not very quickly - but its plus point is its very good short field performance. To modify the aircraft in order to provide rather limited refuelling capability just doesn't seem cost-effective.

If you want a good general purpose tactical transport with the potential to include a centreline hose capability, I'd suggest the C-27J with a modern generation centre hose drum unit. You'd probably have a max fuel capacity of around 12000 kg and, with a variable drag drogue, a speed range of 105-250KIAS at up to about FL150 which would suit most RW, V-22 and mutual C-27J AAR needs. But clearly not in the A400M class of capability.

Moving up the scale, the KC-390 has sufficient wingspan for 2 x AAR pods and the potential for a centreline unit as well, particularly if mutual AAR is needed. Total fuel capacity somewhat similar to a C-130 at a rough guess, so supporting light attack jet deployments would certainly be feasible.

[NutLoose]

Remember the ill fated tactical transport variant with the rear side door and a ramp to assemble to get landies in and out...... I thought yeah I can see that working...... NOT, but they were serious about it LOL



ON a lighter note, a friend worked at Hatfield for BAe in the early 80's and they apparently got an enquiry if it was ok to do a 3 engined transit up for maintainance in the States from some South American outfit, the yes answer, it is in the manual etc regarding 3 engined transits was some what turned on it's head when they then got a fax from the USA Maintenance facility asking who the **** authorised a 3 engine transit minus one engine, it apparently had the cowls on etc, just nothing in it!! :E

[Fareastdriver]

3 engine transit minus one engine, it apparently had the cowls on etc, just nothing in it!!

Had a B1 transit through the UK like that quite recently.

[GreenKnight121]

No drag from the "dead engine" that way. :D

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

BEagle has convincingly dismissed the 146 as a serious tanker option from land bases but what about from a QE Class Carrier? With 2 donks closed down or at flight idle, would it be an AEW or MPA option? On the latter role, the kit fitted to the Coastguarder must still be better than most seaborne sets around.

All acedamic, though, as that production line would never open again.

[Speedbird48]

Nutloose,

It was a three engine ferry from a Mexican outfit that went broke and left Bae with a 146 with one very sick inboard engine.

The engine was actually removed and the bits put in the belly holds. The pylon was bare!!

It went to Hagerstown, MD. and there were quite a few pictures of it. I saw one of it rotating out of Mexico, and another taken of it over the approach lights at Hagerstown.

There was some muttering given to it by the authorities but it was actually probably safer than with the bad engine hanging out there giving drag.

Speedbird48

[safetypee]

Using a 146/RJ as a strategic tanker may not be a good option. However, it could fill the role of a tactical tanker, or stop-gap for those air forces who cannot afford anything newer / larger (whichever applies to the RAF et al).
Conversion of existing freighters might be relatively easy, where the freight door provides access for additional fuselage fuel tanks. The wing structure for pylon mounts may be troublesome in the lower weight versions, but the wing box is all ‘wet’ and has a fuel pump / collector box towards the wing tip – fuel is pumped outboard.
A centerline hose, mounted ‘al la’ Vulcan could be viable, mounted in / under the APU / Air Cond bay, with the advantage of being outside of the pressure hull.

NutLoose, Speedbird48; the Mexican ferry was a fully approved BAe flight from Campeche to Little Rock via Brownsville. The flight was made overland due to other ‘minor’ problems – unpressurised (hole in fuselage), speed restriction (local wing spar and fuel tank repair); and the flaps stuck at 24 after Brownsville.
The #3 pylon (and fuselage, trim, electrics, hydraulics, etc), had been damaged by an uncontained failure of #4 engine. Both the engine and most of the pylon were removed for the flight; however, IIRC there was a cardboard ‘missile’ under the wing when the ferry crew arrived for their walk round !

[Buster Hyman]

yowieII...we handled that aircraft when it was at Tulla. I remember going on board & getting a few freebies off it. Interesting concept, but quite a lot of effort to ship one Land Rover by air...

Personally, as a Fire Fighting aircraft, I think Choppers would do a better job with the amounts of water/retardant we're talking about. The lack of loiter would mean that what little water it carries has to be dropped hyper accurately....IMHO. The DC-10 concept can afford to be inaccurate as it just dumps copious amounts in the general vicinity, and that can be acceptable.

[NutLoose]

Thanks for the Info guys, so he was telling me the truth, sort off.

[Graybeard]

Speedbird48 It was a three engine ferry from a Mexican outfit that went broke and left Bae with a 146 with one very sick inboard engine.

Just to clarify: the airline wasn't broke, the plane was.

I remember hearing of the AVIACSA airline event at the time, and I was led to believe the aft section of #3 exploded, taking out #4.

Since the engine has a pad for either a generator or a hyd pump, losing both on the right side shut off fuel pumps to the left side, so they dead sticked to a night landing at Campeche, an airport with no airline service.

Reportedly, AVIACSA engineering wanted to pull the engine before that flight, but the Lycoming rep insisted on getting more hours on it.

Prior to that, Pacific Southwest Airlines had a #4 let go, which only penetrated the fuselage, and not #3. SLF were kicking hot shrapnel around, as it was scorching the carpet. Somehow the shrapnel missed everybody, but one guy's briefcase was heavier afterward..

GB