BAe 146 - was it a commercial success?

[Pittsextra]

I'm watching this collection of films which shows that the 146 had a very large commercial focus. Ultimately was it a success commercially??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AYAKH4jOUw

[VictorGolf]

An interesting film in which the commentator suggests that B.Ae needed 350 sales to break even. Wikipedia has a lower estimate of 250 sales. I think the final total was 387 which might suggest the programme was successful. I leave it to others to debate what the choice of and number of engines did to the costs. Personally, as a former regular user of the Air UK service from Stansted to Frankfurt , I found it comfortable for the 80 minute sector and I don't think I was ever delayed more than a few minutes, even in some extreme German winter weather when the "nation's favourite airline " was cancelling some of it's flights.

[DaveReidUK]

I leave it to others to debate what the choice of and number of engines did to the costs.

The conventional wisdom at the time was that the choice of 4 ALF502s resulted mostly from there not being a suitable engine in those days that would have powered a twin.

[G-ARZG]

In the early 80's my employer was looking to replace its regional fleet.
Hatfield was peddling the 146 at the same time that Weybridge
was trying to push its Tay-engined 1-11 project.

We were left with the distinct impression of, shall we say, partisan
behaviour from both sides - can't have helped the 146's early sales
(IMHO)

[Allan Lupton]

The conventional wisdom at the time was that the choice of 4 ALF502s resulted mostly from there not being a suitable engine in those days that would have powered a twin.
Yes, as someone who was quite close to the decision process at the time I can endorse that.
What's more the use of four engines gave us a better integrity of systems than a twin could have and the good field performance we wanted was easier to achieve. i.e. we took full advantage of having four engines, once we had decided that was the way we'd go.
Before someone tries to convince us that the RR Tay was an engine suitable for a twin, the 146 was initially launched some 10+ years before the Tay first ran in 1984 - and even after the delayed re-launch we demonstrated a 146 all the way from home to New Zealand and back in 1982!

[Allan Lupton]

In the early 80's my employer was looking to replace its regional fleet.
Hatfield was peddling the 146 at the same time that Weybridge
was trying to push its Tay-engined 1-11 project.

I cannot really comment except to say that I have no recollection of any Tay-engined 111 project at Weybridge.
By the time the 146 was re-launched, the Weybridge and Hatfield sites had been British Aerospace for a couple of years and building up the Sales/Tech Sales department in 1978-80, we had a number of Weybridge and Filton folk working at Hatfield so I might have heard had there been anything.
I think there was a ROMBAC-led plan for a Tay-111 but that would have been much later (late '80s at least).

[Fanda_2007]

There were certainly stories that Manchester(with the 748) and Hatfield were going head to head in the Far East and dissing each others product.

[TCAS FAN]

Wasn't it a US company Dee Howard who re-engine the 1-11 with Tays? If my memory serves me correct, BAe withdrew support for the aircraft when they realised that it would have become a threat to 146 sales.

[Allan Lupton]

There were certainly stories that Manchester(with the 748) and Hatfield were going head to head in the Far East and dissing each others product.
I've no idea what "dissing" is but as the 146 was being sold to 748 operators who needed the next step up, both in size and speed (so therefore in economics), I expect the stories were just that.
The Mancunians were trying to sell the ATP at about the same time as we were selling 146s so that may have been the basis, as it was a 748 development.

[Chris Scott]

Allan, think it's Afro-Carribean jargon for "disrespecting", whatever that means! ;) As for the ATP being a possible competitor, :mad: ...

VG, does your figure of 387 sales include the RJs?

[DaveReidUK]

VG, does your figure of 387 sales include the RJs?

Yes, 394 built including whitetails and the abortive RJX.

[old,not bold]

In my short, very short, career with an airline based in SEN and run by a man, a fully qualified engineer, who did not do well at charm school, I was sent to Hatfield to talk to them, run the numbers and generally assess the BAe 146's suitability, as a replacement for Heralds in the ACMI business the airline specialised in at the time.

This was well before its first flight in September 1981.

I did that, and composed a thoughtful report, summarising the pros and cons as they would affect the profits it could make, blah blah. I added at the end that a useful and very beneficial feature was that you could stow a complete engine in the hold to minimise the problems of having to change one away from base.

He scanned through the report, and got to the bit at the end.

"You f*****g plonker", he said, "That's because it's the only engine they can use, it's a f*****g chopper engine, and they know it'll need changing a lot".

Shortly after that he went to LHR in his Cessna to call in a favour from an old acquaintance and buy instead the BA Viscount fleet, then at Rhoose, as a better commercial bet. Which it was at the price he paid.

[om15]

I suspect MK made the sensible decision, I think that it is true to say that I carried out more unscheduled engine changes during my four years on 146's than in 20 years on the Dart powered aircraft.
Also cleaned very oily air conditioning filters quite regularly.

[dc9-32]

INteresting also to see if the AN148 is a success. Lets face it, it's a 2 engine copy of the Bae146.

[El Bunto]

The problem with trying to determine break-even is that, as with Lockeed's TriStar project, many of the 387 revenue airframes weren't 'sold' as such but were placed with airlines under complex financing projects with BAe assuming the risk if they fell-through.

IIRC PSA bought their fleet outright with cash but most of the small operators relied on BAe to corral-together various banks and finance packages. Even Dan-Air had some sort of partial-sale-partial-lease arrangement.

Edit: turns-out PSA didn't do straight-cash either, here's a snippet from Flight:

Payment for the 146s initially is through a leverage lease on the first ten,
arranged by BAe and allowing BAe and PSA to take advantage of US tax laws.

BAe is providing a proportion of debt support on the next ten aeroplanes, as well
as on the Rediffusion phase 3 simulator which PSA will install.

ECGD financing would have been available for the second ten, but overall it is not
appropriate for the full package.
The creation of BAE AMO in the 1990s was an atempt to eke-out the 146's service life and keep the program cashflow moving. Not sure if they ever achieved that before selling-off the entire portfolio, but they did manage to sell-for-cash a fair few formerly-leased airframes.

Given the target of 350 noted up-thread, the construction of 394 airframes and the costs of the RJ and RJX re-launches I'd guess ( as an uninvolved outsider ) that it overall lost money.

[WHBM]

I'm off from London City to Dublin next week and always make sure the office books me on the 146/RJ from Cityjet instead of the competing BA Embraer jet. It's nice to be back in a UK-built airliner. And I think if it wasn't for the 146 bringing jet service to LCY, they would not have got out of the commercial hole the airport was in shortly after opening. There aren't as many operating from there as previously, but you can still see a good number on the ramp each day.

I think that, Airbus apart, it was second only to the Viscount in mainstream airliner sales from any European manufacturer, and if they had continued with the RJX would likely have overtaken the Viscount's numbers as well.

[DaveReidUK]

I think that, Airbus apart, it was second only to the Viscount in mainstream airliner sales from any European manufacturer

How about the F-27 ?

[WHBM]

Good point. And I suppose that most of the Soviet types were built on the European side of the continental divide as well. But certainly for the UK industry, and for jets.

[Groundloop]

It's nice to be back in a UK-built airliner.

But were the wings and engines not built in the States?:ok:

[ian16th]

Slight thread drift, but a new route is opened today using the Avro RJ85 'quad jet'!

PICS: First Wonderboom direct flight to Cape Town takes off | Traveller24 (http://traveller24.news24.com/News/Flights/PICS-First-Wonderboom-driect-flight-to-Cape-town-takes-off-20150817)

[DaveReidUK]

But were the wings and engines not built in the States?You would probably have to go back 50 years or more to find a Western-built airliner that was entirely manufactured in a single country.

[PAXboy]

Speaking as Pax but as a long time admirer of the 146: as I understood it, when the 146 was being developed, the requirements for both Quiet + Short Runway, meant that the mini-quad option was the only one going?

Of course, the sector opened up with CRJs and ERJs but, was the 146 the real 'first' in regional jets?

[DaveReidUK]

I remember doing a regional jet presentation to a wizened old Air Canada exec in the late 80s.

When we were through he went to his filing cabinet and, telling us that we were 40 years too late, pulled out a photo of this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Avro_Canada_C-102_Jetliner.jpg/300px-Avro_Canada_C-102_Jetliner.jpg

[Allan Lupton]

You would probably have to go back 50 years or more to find a Western-built airliner that was entirely manufactured in a single country.
Yes and we found our Embassies/High Commissions were inclined to favour the Fokker F28 as it had a high British content (Royce engines and Shorts wings for a start).


Of course, the sector opened up with CRJs and ERJs but, was the 146 the real 'first' in regional jets?

In fairness I think that Fokker was earlier. I was offering the 146 as an F28 replacement to (e.g.) Air Niugini.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I never liked being booked as pax on a 146. The view out of many of the windows is compromised by the anhedral wing and engine pods. And I've never heard a noisier flap motor!

[Chesty Morgan]

It's not the flap motor. Its called fluting and is an effect of the flaps extending.

[Cymmon]

Was the VFW-614 earlier?

Also I remember the Aerospatiale Corvette....

[WHBM]

. And I've never heard a noisier flap motor!
It's an aerodynamic flow howl between the flap inner edge and the fuselage as it passes certain settings. It was a surprise to the development engineers on the maiden flight. BAe did develop a mod to overcome it, but I believe it weighs 100kg (= 2 pax) and thus was hardly adopted, apart from on the RAF aircraft which form what was once known as the Royal Flight, which have it.

Cabin crew say it's a convenient prompt to start service on the climbout and give Cabin Secure on approach.

[Allan Lupton]

Was the VFW-614 earlier?

Yes the VFW 614 was earlier, so we were able to improve on it by mounting the engines below the wing and reassembling the type number.

Also I remember the Aerospatiale Corvette....I remember the Corvette as a business jet.

[BEagle]

For all its howling flaps and smelly sweaty-socks air conditioning, the little 146 used to take me from British West Oxfordshire to Frankfurt on Friday, back early on Monday with the delightful 'buzz' from Stansted. I used to leave home at 10:00 carrying an overnight bag, walk to the bus, change to the Stansted coach at Oxford, have a bite to eat at Stansted, fly UK2294 to Frankfurt, then get the S-bahn and tram to my lady friend's flat - a nice journey with no hassles....

But then it all started to go wrong. The coach from Oxford began to take an hour longer via some obscure shopping centre, so instead I'd drive to Stansted....only to find the car park buses getting bigger and less frequent. Then buzz was sold to Ryanair by the wooden-headed, wooden-footed KLM idiots.....and I never went to Stansted ever again.

So it was good-bye 146, hello again Lufthansa!

Shame - it was always such a friendly service. But the 146 cannot have been very economical on that route, given the cost of engine maintenance.

A slice of history I really miss.....

[Cymmon]

The corvette was operated in commercial service by 3 (or maybe) 4 airlines in France, Air Alsace, Air Alps and TAT, also in Denmark with Sterling Airways.
Think it was in 12 seat feeder liner configuration.

I'm sure there was a 4th French airline but can't recall it.

[PAXboy]

Interesting picture DaveReidUK. What was it?

[tornadoken]

"commercial success?"; no, but it had never been so intended - it was a political invention.

1971. China has ordered (to be) 35 Trident 2E/3B, talking about lots of other things, as US at that time had an embargo. What else would you like? More than 2 engines to get into Lhasa, they said. So Brit Govt. made Launch Aid available 8/73 to initiate 146. Ceased funding it 10/74 after US lifted its embargo and CAAC ordered 10 707-320B/C, with more products to follow.

29/4/77, Brit. Govt. becomes proud owner of BAe...with no civil work (the ex-HSAL side had A300B wings, but sales were pitiful). Through to mid-78 Govt. tried to find civil workload. Boeing and MDC offered workshare on paper projects, all confining BAe. to metal-bashing subordinate. New BA put out a tender for European short haul, to which BAe. bid a resurrected 146, lost 3/78 to 737-200ADV, submitted on a (then-innovative) walkaway lease scheme, where Boeing laid off future loss-risk into the capital markets. BAe. studied and learned.

In Autumn,1978 PM Callaghan defined the future of UK civil Aero. He declined airframe involvement in 757/767/MD11, while Aiding RR to bid for their engines; he funded (to be >£200Mn) wing for A310; bought back (£250Mn) into Airbus Industrie (20%); and relaunched 146 (10/7/78) with £250Mn Launch Aid, with risk-sharing partners Short (pods), SAAB (back end) and AVCO (ALF502 and wing): no imminent prospects, but no better 'ole to occupy designers (various JET and X-11 schemes not launched).

146, later RJ, sales were languid. BAe. was privatised 2/81; its Commercial Aircraft Division reported its first profit in 1998, of £12Mn. before Provision of £51Mn. necessary for its Asset Management Organisation to unload Residual Value risk into capital markets. In effect the risk-bearing customer for most 146/RJ was BAe.

[Haraka]

Also I remember the Aerospatiale Corvette....
Cymmon
Might you also be thinking of the Dassault Mercure ( a bit like an A-320 precursor)?
It did 20 years or so of good service around Europe with Air Inter, but was a little ahead of its time in some ways and didn't get big orders.

[Evanelpus]

For all its howling flaps and smelly sweaty-socks air conditioning, the little 146 used to take me from British West Oxfordshire to Frankfurt on Friday, back early on Monday with the delightful 'buzz' from Stansted. I used to leave home at 10:00 carrying an overnight bag, walk to the bus, change to the Stansted coach at Oxford, have a bite to eat at Stansted, fly UK2294 to Frankfurt, then get the S-bahn and tram to my lady friend's flat - a nice journey with no hassles....

But then it all started to go wrong. The coach from Oxford began to take an hour longer via some obscure shopping centre, so instead I'd drive to Stansted....only to find the car park buses getting bigger and less frequent. Then buzz was sold to Ryanair by the wooden-headed, wooden-footed KLM idiots.....and I never went to Stansted ever again.

So it was good-bye 146, hello again Lufthansa!

Shame - it was always such a friendly service. But the 146 cannot have been very economical on that route, given the cost of engine maintenance.

A slice of history I really miss.....

Stuff the 146, we want to know what happened to the lady friend Beags?:ok:

[Allan Lupton]

Interesting picture DaveReidUK. What was it?
It says "Jetliner" on it, which is quite a clue.
Avro Canada C102 if you prefer. . .

It was a 36-seater, like its contemporary the de Havilland Comet, but that alone didn't make it a "Regional Jet" as they were more of a First Class only concept.

[Haraka]

Stuff the 146, we want to know what happened to the lady friend Beags?


I don't .:oh:

[Cymmon]

Haraka,

No, I've flown on the Mercure.

It was the Corvette, a 12 seater feeder liner, trust me. Some had tip tanks too.

Use search engines I'm sure I'll be proven correct. Limited service , but scheduled service no less.

[chevvron]

It says "Jetliner" on it, which is quite a clue.
Avro Canada C102 if you prefer. . .

It was a 36-seater, like its contemporary the de Havilland Comet, but that alone didn't make it a "Regional Jet" as they were more of a First Class only concept.

Canadian version of the Ashton?

[rigpiggy]

the c102 was actually ready before the comet, however malton field refinished the runway and only the short one was available ok for taxi tests but not the first flight. then the korean war heated up and CD Howe had Avro concentrate on the cf 100. things that could have been......

[ICT_SLB]

Probably the first regional jet - as utilised by the US airlines who bought it such as Braniff - was the BAC 1-11 that was marketed as the "Bus Stop Jet" and was used for the same hub & spoke operations as the current Regionals like the Bombardier (Canadair) CRJ.
As far as re-engining the 1-11 is concerned, there was an exercise to use Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines towards the end of Hurn production but it didn't get anywhere. The Tay re-engining was by Dee Howard as stated and gave a very much lowered noise footprint both outside and inside the cabin (from a video I saw taken by one of the FTEs).
The origin of the 146 was the HS681 which was powered by twin Pegasus and was to support the P1154. The four engined layout duplicated the Pegasus' 2x2 exhausts and provided the required efflux over the wings to give additional lift.

[Allan Lupton]

The origin of the 146 was the HS681 which was powered by twin Pegasus and was to support the P1154. The four engined layout duplicated the Pegasus' 2x2 exhausts and provided the required efflux over the wings to give additional lift.
I cannot let this go without saying it is completely untrue, and no matter how often "ICT_SLB" states it, it remains as untrue as it ever was.
We went through this in '08 in this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/flight-testing/335137-why-design-passenger-aircraft-high-wing.html

And I shall just quote what I wrote then.


I worked on BAC 1-11 when the HS146 was launched & I assure you the baseline aircraft was definitely the HS681 - the reason for the 4 Lycomings is that the blown flap needed 4 jets to replace the twin peggies (think QSTOL Buffalo).


Er, no.
If there had been any carry-over from that generation of military VTOL aeroplanes, it would have been from the DH129 not the HS (né AW) 681 as the 146 was a Hatfield product .

The progression from DH126 small feederliner via the HS136 rather less small one (with RR Trent engines - no not the later huge ones, nor the earlier turboprop ones!) and other project aeroplanes to the AVCO-Lycoming powered high-wing 146 was the result of shifting targets for size, range and complexity being matched to shifting availability of suitable power units.
The 146 has not and had not blown flaps. The flaps are behind the engines, and there is doubtless a bit of fan-induced extra velocity but blown flaps as normally understood are very different.
The 146, although the most numerous British-built airliner, seems to be very poorly understood if this thread is anything to go by.:)

[PEI_3721]

A commercial success … yes, particularly from a wider view point than just the manufacturer.
The 146 concept evolved from a commercial need (opportunity) and basic research. both of which generated work for the aviation industry and UK interests.

Short field performance and low noise created many opportunities. Each new application added value, not always apparent as the follow-on operations with more modern and larger aircraft types overshadowed the ground breaking efforts of the 146.
San Diego, Orange County, and Aspen were low-noise entries into a specialist US market. Similar in Europe; London City, Lugano, Florence, and night freight enabled operations previously considered untenable by jet aircraft.
VIP adaptations added value and also prestige for British products.

The much maligned engine reliability depended on the operator; PSA flew the 146 like a 727 and suffered, Aspen and Air Wisconsin based their operations on turbo props and achieved much better performance.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Re the flap motor - are you sure it wasn't a noise from the motor itself? I remember it was a whining rather than a howl, sounding exactly like an electric motor starting, running, and stopping. The noise was only there while the flaps were in transit; there was no noise between successive flap extensions as they were extended in stages prior to landing.

Sounds just like a C172 flap motor but higher pitched and MUCH louder!

[Evanelpus]

As a fitter and Inspector on the finals line at Hatfield I think there were two problems.

Yes, there was a howl that was sorted out with a modification but I certainly remember a noisy motor and juddering during operation of the flaps, certainly on some of the earlier models.

I distinctly remember doing an all day and all night shift trying to sort out one of the two early Ansett aircraft. We changed flaps, motors, flap screw jacks, even the canoes and we could only just get it acceptable enough for the Ansett man, Bob Brown, to accept it.

[Allan Lupton]

Yes, Evanelpus, I remember the odd noisy flap motor and we recognised that having the high wing put the motor in just the right place to be heard.
When we took the aeroplane on the Far Eastern tour in '82 we had a bit of that noise but as it was only when changing flap setting that wasn't our greatest noise problem. One was reeding by the leaky door seals which could be cured using paper napkins - at least once a door was opened on arrival releasing a snowstorm of paper.
Someone was moved to comment that the aeroplane was noisier inside than outside.

[WHBM]

Probably the first regional jet - as utilised by the US airlines who bought it such as Braniff - was the BAC 1-11 that was marketed as the "Bus Stop Jet" and was used for the same hub & spoke operations as the current Regionals like the Bombardier (Canadair) CRJ.

I'm sorry if it diverts the thread, and I'll try and stay on track, but "hub and spoke" was pretty much unknown in the US at the time of the One-Eleven. Airlines were given routes by the government licensing authorities, and these tended to be significant end-to-end operations, a number dating back to the first licences granted in the early 1930s. Braniff, for example, used their One-Elevens to replace piston aircraft on routes such as Chicago to Houston, or Minneapolis to New Orleans, through all sorts of intermediate cities along the way, while 707s did the trunk nonstop end-to-end runs on these routes. 10 or 15 minute stops at the intermediate points were common. Various overlapping schedules allowed a high frequency on key portions, such as from Dallas to Houston.

American was the same, the aircraft hopped through intermediate points between New York and Chicago, as well as running on Boston-New York-Washington trunk route that AA was a principal player on in the 1960s, but later moved completely away from. But Hub & Spoke came later, after deregulation.

PSA, first purchaser of the 146, was entirely an end-to-end carrier, principally between Northern and Southern California. Both these major metropolitan areas had multiple regional airports, and the 146 gave the ability to link all with all efficiently, where high frequency was important and doing it with 727s was too much. The ability to do so within the noise regulations was an added bonus. I do recall the 146 prototype demonstrated at Orange County and was reported it didn't even register on the noise meter there - hence unlimited operations. Maybe AL (above), you were there !

The flap howl is still there on the current RJs - in fact I've just had the office book me on one in a few days time, LCY to Dublin. Ascending note as they come in on climbout, and descending note on approach on Long Finals. Out of LCY with westerly ops from 27 this takes place just as the aircraft turns through 180 degrees on all departures, overhead the Olympic Stadium and Stratford levelled at 3,000 ft. The ascending flap howl is quite audible if you are standing on Stratford station underneath !

The much maligned engine reliability depended on the operator; PSA flew the 146 like a 727 and suffered, Aspen and Air Wisconsin based their operations on turbo props and achieved much better performance. I think some of us here would be interested to understand exactly what these operational differences between a 727 and a turboprop were that led to problems at PSA but not elsewhere. Did they used to do descents at VNE ?

[PEI_3721]

The operational differences had more to do with the operator’s attitude towards the 146, opposed to the differences in operational location – San Diego vs Aspen.

PSA initially attempted to keep the 727 time schedules with the 146, thus flights were flown at max speed and this attitude was reflected in the lack of awareness of the engine red line. High speed turn offs and fast taxying resulted in at least one overrun.
Apart from the instructors, all training was done in-house; I recall one comment – “don’t tell us too much, the FAA will include it in the examinations”; PSA knew it all.

Aspen/Air Wisconsin’s attitude was reflected in their crew’s experience, most had never exceeded 250kts or 25000ft before. They respected tubo-prop like engine limits and sought economic operation on the shorter routes.
An overheard quote at the Aspen check-in – “oh I will wait for the jet”, where there was a choice between the 146 and a Dash-7; the 146 also carried the skis and ski boots more easily.

The flap howl is very speed sensitive, low speed is better. The other ‘flap’ noises could be the hydraulic PTU balancing the demand between systems.

Most aircraft can be adapted to fly a range of operational roles; the 146’s advantage is that it can cover a very wide range without the economic penalty suffered by others. Steep approach, low noise, gravel runways, unsupported airports, main HUB airports, first to third class seating, combi and freight operations are all within its capability.

[Pittsextra]

Given the government involvement with the project was there no support from either BA or the RAF??

[JW411]

PSA's biggest problem was that a lot of them were flying "balls to the wall" and the ALF502 did not like that sort of treatment.

I only flew the 146 for 19 years so I admit that I have a lot to learn, but, for example, we used to use a TGT limit of 820 degrees in the climb (and allow the N1 to float). In extremis, we would go up to 840 degrees. Certainly, we had the best reliability record of all 146 operators for a very long time.

I only ever had to shut one engine down in all that time and that was an N2 lubrication failure.

[tornadoken]

PX: BA: some in their colours with franchisees; Govt. leased 2 for RAF evaluation, 6/83-3/85, leading to 2 BAC 146 CC.1, 1986 and 1 CC.2, 1991, Queen's Flight.

[WHBM]

BA bought a substantial batch of RJ100s later on in the production run. Initially operated out of Gatwick, they later moved to Birmingham and then on to London City as the BA operation built up there. Their various different local operations at the time also took in quite a number of secondhand examples. You can still see one occasionally at LCY operating a BA flight when they subcharter in to cover for the modern Embraers, which, despite having a pleasant ambience, seem pushed to achieve the levels of reliability that the BA 146/RJ fleet used to have there..

[Flybiker7000]

As Sterling' was a Charter company, there might have been costumers for chartering business jets too!

[tdracer]

I flew Luxembourg to Amsterdam a few days ago - there was a 146 in Swiss colors at the Luxembourg airport, and another 146 at Schiphol (couldn't see the tail well enough to tell who the operator was). So there are still a few out there.

[evansb]

Did the 146 make money for BAe ? I don't know.
Did the 146 make money for the airlines ? Perhaps.

But as a passenger, it was indeed a success, as my family and I enjoyed a lovely flight from Calgary, AB to Victoria BC back in the mid-1990's on an Air BC 146. The flight was quick, quiet and comfortable. Flying time, wheels up to landing on the CYYC-CYYJ leg was 59 minutes ! The prevailing westerly winds over the Rocky Mountains were unusually light that day.. I also remember the FA informing us to disregard the transitory howling (or moaning) of the flaps whilst on approach. I never understood the "smurf" appellation. I think it is an attractive design with plenty of window seats!

http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b477/gumpjr_bucket/BC-146.jpg

[Rory57]

Another happy BAE 146 passenger here!
A new way of making money (presumably) with them.

http://fireaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/N355AC_YMAV_16122014_1.jpg

[WOTME?]

I believe there are three different companies over the water making fire engines from 146/RJ's,the -200/RJ85 is the one they go for.
I worked for Allied Signal at the Luton 502/507 overhaul facility for a while and when they took over Lycoming they poured a lot of money into making the 502 more reliable.For the yanks at the start BAe stood for Bring Another Engine.
I've had 146/RJ's on my B1 licence since 1999 and can say without doubt it's been a commercial success for me.
I also did a lot on 1-11's and whilst working on one in Texas went to Dee Howard in San Antonio where I was shown one with rather large engineless cowlings which was the Tay prototype,complete with glass cockpit.What a shame BAe put a stop to it.

[chevvron]

PX: BA: some in their colours with franchisees; Govt. leased 2 for RAF evaluation, 6/83-3/85, leading to 2 BAC 146 CC.1, 1986 and 1 CC.2, 1991, Queen's Flight.
I think you mean 'No 32 (The Royal) Sqdn RAF' not 'The Queens Flight'

[DaveReidUK]

I think you mean 'No 32 (The Royal) Sqdn RAF' not 'The Queens Flight'

When the 146s were delivered (1986/1991) it was to The Queen's Flight, which was later (1995) merged with 32 Squadron, so you're both right. :O