How is the BAe146/RJ perceived

[rover2701]

As an ex BAe 146/RJ Field Service Rep. I would be interested to find out how the aviation community feel about the aircraft. Since my retirement 5 years ago I have lost touch and am curious to see if there has been a shift in attitude towards it. I know when I was involved there were varying attitudes, most of them unfavourable, but I have a soft spot for it and dont think it was as bad as it was perceived. In fact I think it filled its roll admirably. Just needed a bit of looking after. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[bumpthrust]

The only airliner in service with 5 APUs? :cool:

[Kermit 180]

I once heard a friend refer to it as a 'Home sick anvil'.

Kermie http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/stuka2.gif

[Manflex55]

Rover,

Have U checked this site (http://www.smiliner.com/news/2001.shtml), entirely dedicated to the 146 ? Updates monthly, provides lots of infos. ;)

MF

[rover2701]

Manflex
yes I have. In fact have myself provided info to Stefano for a book he is writing about the 146/RJ. Thanks anyway. :) :)

[GoGirl]

Ahhh, the 146...commonly referred to in Australia as four oil leaks joined thogether by an electrical fault! :eek:

However, and in all fairness, the A/c was never going to be suitable to Oz conditions :rolleyes:


Regards
GG :D

[rover2701]

Go Girl
Why do you say that the aircraft was never going to be suitable for oz? I spent 2 years there with NJS/Qantas and we had regular reliability meetings and once I had established a pattern of why the on time departures were not as good as the rest of the fleet. It only took a bit of ojt and maintenance tweeking to get the figures right. Could you expand on your reasoning. :( :( :(

[rover2701]

hey ive heard all the names. However it still does Perth/Alice/Cairns. Perth/Adelaide. and all the bush stops as well. It is tgt limited on very hot days but this has never been a problem that was brought to my attention. Why if it is so bad are there so many in oz. Ansett and NJS/Qantas and freighters and other regional airlines. no one has yet explained to me that if it is so bad why is it still selling and selling well.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

[TheNightOwl]

Rover2701: No-one from Oz will ever give you a reason for the Quadrapuff's lack of popularity here, but I believe it is as basic as the fact that it was designed and built in the U.K. Nuff said!!!! Another example of the attitude that says "if we didn't design/build/modify it, it can't be any good", witness the comments about Canberra, Sabre, etc.
The fact that it doesn't have Boeing or Airbus in the name won't help, either.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[Devils Advocate]

I think it might be pretty true to say that most airlines who've relied on 'The Roach' (coz it's always skudding about beneath the clouds, and underneath the 'real' jets) to make them a profit have gone bust !

Jeez, even the UK CAA don't count it as a jet, e.g. when you ask for acreditation against your roach jet hours, they'll treat any such time as being equivalent to time served in a large TurboProp (coz that what it flies like), rather than a B737.

[rover2701]

Devils Advocate
are you off your head. The latest version, the RJ can fly at flt lvl 350. and over the sectors it flys, the time margin between RJ and 737 is minimil. as for treating as a propjet I dont know who you have been talking to but they do not sound like the CAA to me. Four high bypass ratio Jet engines and 35000 feet sounds like a jet to me. :mad: :mad: :mad: In addition I don't see Lufthansa, Sabena, Crossair(Swissair)in europe or any other of the major players in North America or the rest of the world in financial difficulties because of it. The ones who have gone bust were the mrginal players who were under capitalised. All the Blue Chip airlines have done ok with it and have returned with follow up orders. So stick that in your prop jet and smoke it.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: rover2701 ]

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: rover2701 ]

[Push Approved]

Rover2701,

From an ATC viewpoint, your a/c is pretty cool. It'll do whatever speed you want on final, always make the first exit, and rotates in no time at all; making it ideal for high density, minimum runway occupancy airports like mine.

The only down side is its climb out profile: I've had some catch B732/3/4/8's on departure, and some been caught by ATR72's & DH8's!!!

:eek:

[Capt Claret]

G'day there GG,

I don't see why it's not suited to Australian conditions. An aircraft that can carry > 76 pax, > 1000 nm into an average HWC of 100 kts is not too bad for a short/medium range aircraft that wasn't really designed to fly 1000 nm sectors.

However the dunnys take a real pounding due both to the long sector time, but more importantly the rediculously large poo-flap. :rolleyes:

It's quiet and roomy, cheap to purchase, not so cheap to operate, has a lowish ACN, particularly when compared to aircraft like the CRJ etc, and will get in and out of fields that they won't

On the flip side, it's systems are complicated, as opposed to sophisticated. The flight director sucks, as does performance in icing conditions. The MOMs are woefully badly written and presented.

I guess all this should be viewed in light of my understanding that it started life in the late 50's, was mothballed for some 10 years (60's/70's) and then the project picked up where it left off. What a pity no one thought to see how technology had advanced, or did they? :confused:

[vertical speed]

I converted to the 146 from B737's and then flew them for over 11 years out in NZ. I've now got myself back on 737's again. The 146 always struck me as a "potentially" good aircraft- perhaps the latest ones are? In my experience of over 14,000 hrs it was the most unreliable machine I have ever commanded! Some of the systems such as the Qpot and Hydraulics were so complicated that even after ten years we were still learning new things about them! Trying to fly one in ISA+15 conditions with typically high NZ MSA's could be a nightmare! By comparison the old Boeing 733 is like an old American car- quite crude but heaps of grunt and incredibly robust!

[Human Factor]

146 - slow, especially when you're stuck behind one.

RJ - We'll see ..... :eek:

[Harry Wragg]

The RJ100 does what it say's on the tin, namely, it is a regional jet. If you use the right tool for the right job then you will have no problems.

Reliability, as with all machines, is dependant on original build quality, careful usage rather than abuse, and a little bit of time and money spent on maintenance.

It is a simple, and rather clever design, although it does suffer as a result of this simplicity. It is also cheaper than a 319 or 737-300 to operate.

The main problem is ego related. People drive BMW's rather than Skoda's because they are perceived to be better, but that is mainly due to slick marketing. Pilot's hate to be seen in Skoda's!!!

Having flown, piston, turbo, RJ, and Boeing a/c I can say that they have all pros and cons. A bit more power would be nice, but then have you ever managed to get a 757 down a 6% slope!

I love it, it makes me look good, especially on landing.

Harry say's buy British.

p.s. looking forward to flying an antipodean jet a/c in the future, are their any?

[PENNINE BOY]

GREAT Little A/C In Europe.If it is so bad why are all you Aussies and Kiwis coming to Europe to fly it?

London City and Florence The dosh making routes say no more
:D :D :D

[rover2701]

As an engineer who has been with the aircraft day in day out for the better part of 15 years, I am puzzled about the reference to the unreliability of the Hydraulic system. Could someone enlighten me. As far as I can remember that part was one of the most reliable of all. :confused: :confused:

[PENNINE BOY]

Having flown over 2 thousand hours in one I have never had any problems or failures yet?

[Squawk 8888]

Definitely a plane for Europe. Two Canadian carriers (both now part of AC) have the 146, big mistake. AirBC on the Wet Coast uses them in an area that is notorious for landing strips that are best suited for floats in summer and skis in winter, and thanks to the absence of T/Rs their annual ritual is to skid one off the runway.

[fly4fud]

oh no, another one...

:p well guys, you may put aside all your cons & pros, I'm gonna tell ya the truth:
I do fly an RJ for a living and it is the best aircraft in the world :p

That's all folks :cool:

[rover2701]

Squawk
Having spent 2 years with Air Nova and Air Atlantic, just after they got there fleets. I can assure you they didn't view it as a mistake. The only problem they had was freezing brakes and BAe fixed that with a mod. Both Air Nova and Air BC have both recently renewed there leases for a further five year period. Air Atlantic were very satisfied with there three aircraft until Canadien pulled the plug. I would also like to point out that Air Atlantics aircraft were if my memory serves me correctly numbers 12, 14 & 16 of the production line. There Technical despatch reliability were among the best in the world at 99%+ Not bad for old "unreliable" aircraft that take a lot of abuse in the Canadian winter.
:p :p :p

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: rover2701 ]