BAE / AVRO 146

[Fly.Buy]

I was walking around a static BAE-146 this morning and reminiscing about the passenger jet, I presume it was the last produced British passenger jet? Just wondered if anyone had any memories which they wish to share about this aircraft type? From the flight deck was it a good aircraft to fly? From an operational point of view was it a reliable and liked aircraft? I apologise for using a ‘past tense’ for this aircraft and appreciate that it still flies, I gues it must be in its twilight years now?

[India Four Two]

I remember the weird noise when the flaps went down, both when on the ground and in the cabin. When traveling on Air BC (now Jazz) 146s, the cabin crew would make an announcement about the flap noise, just so it didn't scare the passengers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNZ92B7QsOA

Explanation here: https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/138702-bae-146-avro-rj-banshee-flap-extension-noise.html#post1444337

[pilotmike]

It was a great aircraft to fly, responsive, with pleasantly light progressive controls; generally viewed as a 'pilot's aeroplane'. It was fairly unreliable, always some fault or other, though this was seldom a problem due to the backups and redundancies in almost all the systems. This, combined with poor fuel economy, made it quite an expensive aircraft to operate. It had a very strong and forgiving undercarriage, so most landings were classed as 'good' by the passengers, even if it was rather plonked on.

It was a busy flightdeck, with plenty of quirks and traps for the unwary. Particularly, the 146 didn't have autothrottle, just a throttle trimming system called TMS, meaning only one vertical mode could be set in the autopilot. The gotcha would be after levelling off at cleared altitude, and being given a speed, to set IAS to hold that speed, which then released the Alt Hold, and an altitude bust was very likely as only the power setting controlled altitude from that point on. You very quickly remembered not to make that mistake again! The RJ had autothrottle which made it simpler. Often the yaw damper was not working as it should, and cabin crew, especially at the back complained of a continual yawing / rolling sensation which could make them feel nauseous.

Flaps, as stated above, were dramatic. The step from between 0 and 18 degrees, causing both a dramatic pitch on their extension and retraction, and the loud noise they made travelling between these 2 stages. But you soon got used to that, making it a non event for the flight and cabin crew alike. With full (33 degree I recall) flap and the speed brake out for landing, it was very draggy, and could be landed in a short space.

It was very under powered - fine on T/O and initial climb, but regularly running out of puff above 20,000', especially in warmer climates. The 146 wasn't RVSM, but that wasn't a significant limitation because they seemed like they anything left when they finally struggled up to 28,000'. The joke was, why did it have 4 engines? Because there wasn't room to fit 6. Some said it just had 5 APUs. But it was flyable on 3 engines - I did a 3 engine ferry (remember the unreliability?), and it was a regular into London City Airport, which was always fun and always interesting - great views of London at close range.

It was of course the most infamous toxic-air culprit, with regular wet sock smells on first using bleed air, especially from the APU.

Hope this helps with your question.

[Ant]

Very interesting and enjoyable read, pilotmike.. thanks for sharing!

[Anilv]

I liked the rocker switches in the cockpit.. much cleaner than toggle switches.

Were they used on any other aircraft types?

Anilv

[chevvron]

I was walking around a static BAE-146 this morning and reminiscing about the passenger jet, I presume it was the last produced British passenger jet? Just wondered if anyone had any memories which they wish to share about this aircraft type? From the flight deck was it a good aircraft to fly? From an operational point of view was it a reliable and liked aircraft? I apologise for using a ‘past tense’ for this aircraft and appreciate that it still flies, I gues it must be in its twilight years now?





It was originally designed by the De Havilland part of Hawker Siddely ie nothing to do with BAE originally.
I recall that there wan't enough interest in it when first proposed in the '60s so it was put on the back burner until Wedgie Benn (the bloke who gave government money to build the DeLorean car in Northern Ireland) 'discovered' it and pushed for its development.
I found it quite pleasant to fly in; I did 3 fam flights (flight deck rides for Air Traffic Controllers) these being Heathrow - Jersey, Gatwick - Berne and Gatwick - Bergen via Newcasrle and always marvelled at the smooth touchdowns. On departure from Bergen, there was a Hatfield based test pilot in the left hand seat and he demonstrated for me what it could do if allowed; with a full load of pax we were passing 2,000ft before the end of the runway.
I also visited the production line at Hatfield in I think 1985; those 'De Havilland' workers were incredibly proud of the aircraft they were building and took great pride in their product.

[rog747]

I recall at LHR when I was with BMA (around 1981?) that the BAF painted demo 146 G-OBAF came in and was iirc being shown off to Brymon whom we handled there for the NQY and PLH flghts (who then ordered Dash 7's)

Then at LGW we often saw Dan Air 146's go off on quite long IT charter flights CFU AGP and FAO (but I think a tech stop was needed)
Manx used their -100 on weekend ski flights but you could not get all the pax's ski's and boots in the holds and we had to lave some behind and put them on the 757 lol

[PDR1]

We had a couple as company coms aircraft, and they were great. I guess I must have had over a hundred flights as a passenger, and they rarely went tech in my experience (certainly far less so than the ATP which preceded them and the Emb145s that succeeded them). As a passenger the 146s were always quiet and comfortable, even in the cheap seats, and didn't suffer the baggage limits of the ATP and 145. That lovely long-stroke trailing link undercarriage flattered even the roughest landings, where the 145 seems to have granite-filled oleos that shatter the spines of any unwary passengers who fail to sit straight and braced for impact...

PDR

[Chesty Morgan]

...and 250kts, clean, to 4 miles down an ILS was easy.

[Allan Lupton]

It was originally designed by the De Havilland part of Hawker Siddeley ie nothing to do with BAE originally.
I recall that there wan't enough interest in it when first proposed in the '60s so it was put on the back burner until Wedgie Benn (the bloke who gave government money to build the DeLorean car in Northern Ireland) 'discovered' it and pushed for its development.

I also visited the production line at Hatfield in I think 1985; those 'De Havilland' workers were incredibly proud of the aircraft they were building and took great pride in their product.
We had quite a bit of interest in it in 1972/3, but that was a period of high inflation. Our potential customers wanted a fixed-forward price to remove the uncertainty but we were unable to offer such a price as too much was unknown.
We re-launched at about the time that the industry was nationalised to become BAe (1976) and it still carried its de Havilland type number . . .

[Asturias56]

Nice aircraft to fly in as a passenger - comfortable and smooth flight.

[Nomad2]

Must say, I liked flying it. I'd forgotten about that howl when the flaps were starting to extend or finishing their retraction. It had an official name. "Flap hoot".
The flaps were so powerful that there was an auto trim system called FTC to keep the thing in trim. Flap trim compensation.
Other funnies included full flap take offs and I even got to try the pitch oscillation that it could get itself into, but only with the autopilot on.
Systems on it were quite complex and the failure modes never went as advertised. Losing a Genny for example, could lead to many unforecast failures. The QRH was of little help, you had to figure it out for yourself. I once had a TRU fail which left the a/c invisible to radar...
I was also lucky enough to get the frozen elevator syndrome, caused by refreezing of device residues. Luckily it flew nicely on the trimmer. No point telling the pax or ATC. They couldn't help us! It felt like the stick was set in concrete.
As another guy posted, it was woefully short of power, but boy, could it descend!
I remember one flight where our rate of climb became zero, much to the concern of ATC, but it just had no puff left. We smashed along at full power until it got lighter, which didn't take long on the RJ100.
The airframe was class, and you knew it was unbreakable, as the Swiss have gone on to prove..
Well, almost unbreakable.
Modern systems would have transformed it, but the RJ-X was killed off post 911.
Mainly good memories of the thing on my part.

[zlin77]

Nearly 4 years flying them in Australia (300 series), comfortable flight deck with good lighting, abysmal performance in ISA+15-20, max altitude about FL230 Cairns-Brisbane, very forgiving undercarriage made every landing a greaser, workload increased by the requirement to take off with APU running to supply bleed air for AIRCON/PRESS then switching on engine bleeds when climb thrust established and a reverse procedure on approach, start APU then engine bleeds off on final above 1,500', airbrake not as effective as the F28, brake temperatures could be a problem with noisy fans used on the ground to reduce cooling time........the ice detector on the left forward fuselage was a real "Heath Robinson" apparatus, rotating serated spool which when iced up would contact a static vane and the increased resistance would trigger the ICE DETECTED message in the cockpit, I recall the rudder limiter was actioned by the "Fir Tree" fitting, employing if I recall a rod shaped like a fir tree profile which engaged via an air driven bellows arrangement into an actuating cam on the rudder pedal linkage, the faster you went the more the rod protruded into cam and thus limited rudder movement.....the outstanding memory is that of the smell problem with MOBIL JET2 ingested by both the engines and the Garret 150M APU being fed into the AIRCON system, I know of 3 crew members who suffered from fume inhalation and were forced to stop flying.

[mcdhu]

I enjoyed flying the 146. It was designed for short haul and at that it was good (up, cuppa tea, down). The criticisms that it was restricted to M.72 and FL310 (later models) are made by folks who were trying to do other things with it. It was just a big turboprop.
mcdhu

[safetypee]

Look at the 146/RJ for what it was and not a comparison with modern times; the 146 created many of today’s opportunities.
Post war the 146 concept started as a DC 3 replacement - as did many other aircraft. That changed with foresight, emerging markets, intercity, noise sensitivity, advantages of jet speed / range from difficult airports.

Conventionally the 146 could match short-hall aircraft such as the 1-11, but with added bonus of field performance and some economics.
Performance, short runways, steep approach, opened many new markets. The 146 made LCY what it is today; Lugano, Florence, Aspen, Orange County, were similar firsts.
Air Wisconsin, hub and spoke, ran a bus stop operation - walk on at the front, off at the back; a flexible aircraft. Combi, freighter, VIP, military. Different fuselage lengths considered from the outset. Rough strip, gravel, (grass?) with low pressure tyres.

Flap noise - listen to the lift; the highest CL max of any civil aircraft, still is? Modification reduced the effect, but a full cure would cost the weight of two seats.
Rocker switches also used in the 125; many advantages, a few pitfalls.

The RJ was a digital aircraft, EFIS (some 146), auto throttle, autoland; Cat 3 approval pioneered a new super fail passive category, 150m RVR.
A HUD was evaluated - customer request, but it was no better than the autos and very expensive.

It’s flying characteristics (soft landings spoilt new pilots) added safety with few risks for new world-wide operators or those transitioning from turboprops.
In the landing configuration it went where you pointed it, -3 deg attitude = 3 deg GS. Good view from the flight deck.
Air brakes and independent ground lift dump. Big wheel brakes - reverse not required.

Ahh, places it took me, and some I wish that it had not.

[Fly.Buy]

As a passenger I had the pleasure of flying in a number of BAE146’s, About a decade ago, I remember walking along the ramp of LCY (London City) to see a line up of 146’s all with the lettering of ‘AVRO’ inscribed along the fuselage followed by ‘146’. The fact that the wording of ‘AVRO’ can still be found on aircraft is very nostalgic in today’s modern aviation.
On a separate note I also flew on Turkish Airlines 146’s, but I believe their experiences of the aircraft were very different. They had 1 hull loss. In addition the airline had to suspend operations due to a concern over corrosion but I don’t think it was connected to the hull loses. I believe they gave the 146’s a nickname of ‘Bring another Engine’ an acronym for ‘BAE’. When they finally gave up their fleet of 146’s their engineers were so elated that they slaughtered a camel on the apron of Istanbul Ataturk airport to celebrate, unfortunately they did this in front of parked aircraft full of passengers which caused a few complaints! (Unfortunate for the camel as well!)

[flown-it]

Comments re the trailing link gear spot on. Made every landing a "greaser"! Except I threw it on the ground one day so hard we bounced! I loved flying it but the engines and bleed air made it a bit of a dog. The ex-Boeing and Douglas Captains I flew with hated it's lack of performance! But 25K up and down the West Coast made for great sight seeing!
Captain to me. " So you're a Brit? Did you know BAe stands for " Bring another engine?" I pointed out that it was actually "Bring another American engine"! The ALF-502 engine had a sun -and -planet gear box. The tolerances on this were poor and it "made metal". I think we were taking the engines off and rebuilding them at less than 1000 hours. One flight attendant was leaning over to pass a drink to a passenger when an engine let go. Lucky her! Shrapnel came through the fuselage and was found in the overhead bin door. Would have taken her head off!

[Herod]

I've got about 2,000 hours on the 146, in the early nineties. Nice machine, very pleasant to fly. As mcdhu says, it was basically a fast turboprop. In fact, I believe some operators wouldn't count it as jet time on job applications. Easy to land, exactly where you wanted it. I remember one F.O. commenting "You mean you're spot-landing a four-jet?" Yep.

One problem I encountered more than once was that water could get into the engine pylons and freeze the throttle controls. That meant that during descent/approach, one engine would remain at cruise power. When the amount of rudder trim became ridiculous, shut it down: there were three others.

[VictorGolf]

I used to fly as SLF between Stansted and Frankfurt on Air UK 146s and they always seemed to be on time.even in some pretty cruddy Central European winter weather.The later 300 series seemed to have a smoother ride but that is purely subjective. Whatever, they were much more comfortable than some of the Air UK "jungle repo" F-27s that were on the run before them.

[esa-aardvark]

Passing Norwich Airport yesterday, at least one 146 parked with
large holes where the engines used to be. John

[treadigraph]

Three flights on 146s, with Dan-Air to Dublin and back, and on a Belgian registered example back to Heathrow from Brussels. Recall the flap noise on the Brussels trip but not Dublin, though that was over 30 years ago! Do recall walking somewhere in Greenwich one evening when a 146 went overhead inbound Heathrow, startling my companions with the flap noise!

[JENKINS]

Glad to note that Debonair is not forgotten amongst the respondents. During one of my 146 interviews, ground school wizard asked me to discuss high-speed flight. Response that such was not relevant on 146 somewhat discombombulated the individual. Next question on anhedral of 146 wing elicited response that two engines underneath each wing caused the downward slope of the wings. Chief Pilot, aware of my pedigree, smiled benignly and the job was mine.

Didn't last long enough, but a Barbie-jet swap was too good to miss.

[chevvron]

Don't forget it was the only 'jet' which could operate in/out of Berne, Dan Air using it to replace their '748s on that route ex Gatwick.

[BDAttitude]

I remember the weird noise when the flaps went down, both when on the ground and in the cabin. When traveling on Air BC (now Jazz) 146s, the cabin crew would make an announcement about the flap noise, just so it didn't scare the passengers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNZ92B7QsOA

Explanation here: https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/138702-bae-146-avro-rj-banshee-flap-extension-noise.html#post1444337
Miss that sound. Sent me to bed every second night. Last flight in from Zurich short of 2300 just before night break.

[possel]

It was originally designed by the De Havilland part of Hawker Siddely ie nothing to do with BAE originally.
I recall that there wan't enough interest in it when first proposed in the '60s so it was put on the back burner until Wedgie Benn (the bloke who gave government money to build the DeLorean car in Northern Ireland) 'discovered' it and pushed for its development.
Well it was designed at Hatfield but de Havilland had long become Hawker Siddeley by then. And actually Wedgie Benn was the person who refused govt subsidy for it in 1974, when it was then shelved for a few years.
We had quite a bit of interest in it in 1972/3, but that was a period of high inflation. Our potential customers wanted a fixed-forward price to remove the uncertainty but we were unable to offer such a price as too much was unknown.
We re-launched at about the time that the industry was nationalised to become BAe (1976) and it still carried its de Havilland type number . . .
Yes Allan, the type number was in a DH series (as in 106, 121, 125) but it was never the DH146, was it? Always the HS146 from the start. NB I worked with you in 1973-75!
Matthew

[Fly.Buy]

Thanks so much everyone for your contributions and replies, all very interesting. Some of you have made comments to the 'forgiving' hard landings. Reminds me of one such landing at LCY London City, (see link below). In all fairness I think that there was an element of cross wind involved in this one? Needless to say just goes to show how robust the aircraft was!

https://youtu.be/nfYfFKcTfDg

Thanks again everyone. Please do continue if you have more memories to share.

[longer ron]

We had a couple as company coms aircraft, and they were great. I guess I must have had over a hundred flights as a passenger, and they rarely went tech in my experience (certainly far less so than the ATP
PDR

Yes I spent a year 'commuting' on the company a/c between Farnborough and 'somewhere in Lancs' - if we were lucky we got the 146,if unlucky we got the ATP (80p) although the ATP was not as bad as the hired in ATR,the only good thing about the ATR was the lovely hosties :)
The only thing I didn't like about the 146 was the Engine Oil Fume/Smell in the cabin from the APU (as previously posted) .
I also did a couple of 146 trips with Buzz from Stansted to Marseilles/Marignane whilst visiting friends - great little airline and exceptionally nice crews.I had a really nice jump seat ride for the landing at Marignane on one occasion,we were landing to the NW so it was a nice pictureskew approach from over near the Chateau d'if :)

[WingNut60]

.... It had a very strong and forgiving undercarriage, so most landings were classed as 'good' by the passengers, even if it was rather plonked on...


That trailing arm arrangement gave a soft landing every time.
A bit like a VW beetle front end.

[Harry Wayfarers]

There's an operator down this way that has an unfortunate habit of putting them off the end of runways, 3 so far, as many accidents as they have aircraft in their fleet

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1400x1044/syjet_siargao_2cd6c288e6dc6ab89e364f5dd52f981be9f91859.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/950x633/skyjet_coron_f51078674723a0a76bc236c007d48adff9a2b7a6.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x561/skyjet_balesin_0cc7d9fbca0baedd1e3db5448ed31fe42962e7f1.jpg

[BlankBox]

Druk used the 146 into PARO....made that trip a number of times....Glorious!!!

[Corrosion]

Spent 11 years with RJ85/100, as aircraft engineer on line maintenance. Then 1,5year more on heavy maintenance with these beasts. Need to say it was good time, not easy but gave loads of experience because this aircraft is not "reset and go"-type of machine. After all it was not that bad aircraft from maintenance point of view, but you need to know it or it will bite you and it is not helping you much when trying to troubleshoot some weird symptom... :)

Engines were bad at the beginning. I was one of the boroscoping guy on our company and at some point with our total 11 aircraft fleet i was doing inspections after inspection and very often you drop the engine. Later on Honeywell get biggest problems fixed and life was much easier. (better combustion chamber, oil consumtion/oil leaks fixed by changing oil type to better type which didn't cook hot end bearings/seals -> oil problem moved to auxialiary gearbox but this was piece of cake if you compare it to eng change)
They were newer problem free, but ok-ish. Eng change for this aircraft is actually very easy and quick, if you have built ready engine to go in.

Fuel system is very sensitive to icing and FQIS suffers contamination. Lots of work with fuel tanks, at some point our hangar was smelling more kerosene than fuelling company. :D

Landing gear position indication system/WOW, very bad quality proximity switches with too sensitive system... this was another huge workload before Eldec managed to get those switches to work relatively well. After many years...

One may think it is awful aircraft to maintain, but as said earlier, have a good team of competent guys and it will work.

Still missing those noisy brake fans.

[Herod]

Corrosion: yes to the proximity switches. Spent a couple of days once with the engineers. Aircraft on jacks, retraction test OK, wheeled out, test flight, persistent red light, back in hangar etc.

[Onions]

What flies into London City and has 6 engines? 2 BAE 146's

[renard]

Six years flying the RJ and in general it was a very nice aeroplane to fly.

A smooth ride and responsive to the controls and a flattering undercarriage.

Airstairs were a nice feature.

It could go down very quickly when it had to. On the other side, it did run out of puff in the climb.

What I don’t miss is the air system. Lots of switch changes after take off and before landing. The air conditioning was poor. After a turnaround in Spain in the summer months it would be about 40 minutes after take off before the temperature became bearable. In the winter if the aircraft had been de-iced before you arrived then you could use the APU to power the packs until after landing so the aircraft would be very cold till some time after take off.

[sam dilly]

I was fortunate enough to be invited on a few of the customer acceptance trials with flights to Jersey, from Southend via Hatfield.
After it went into service our company used this airplane for charters with Dan Air from both NCL + LGW.
Later we then used it with BAF, and then BWL as BAF later became.
After BWL closed we then used the 146 for charters as supplied by Titan for quite a few years.
In 2019 we came back to Southend and did a 25 flight programme with Jota on the 146 again.

yes there have been a few challenges along the way, but it has been very rare to have had a customer complaint, even in 2019.
For 2020 we have again about 25 flights booked with Jota.
SAM

[Brookmans Park]

I flew it for a couple of years with Debonair. One of our routes was MUC/MGL and a few times in winter with snow and sub zero surface temperature we encountered an inversion during the climb,which led to ice melting on the nosewheel leg and then refreezing. On one occasion I could not get the nosewheel down until I used the alternate procedure
The following day it was decided to ferry it to Exeter with the gear locked down. This took about 2-5 hours and a full tank of fuel. It would fly smoothly at 184 kts but any increase led to buffeting

[Corrosion]

Spent 11 years with RJ85/100, as aircraft engineer on line maintenance. Then 1,5year more on heavy maintenance with these beasts. Need to say it was good time, not easy but gave loads of experience because this aircraft is not "reset and go"-type of machine. After all it was not that bad aircraft from maintenance point of view, but you need to know it or it will bite you and it is not helping you much when trying to troubleshoot some weird symptom... :)

Engines were bad at the beginning. I was one of the boroscoping guy on our company and at some point with our total 11 aircraft fleet i was doing inspections after inspection and very often you drop the engine. Later on Honeywell get biggest problems fixed and life was much easier. (better combustion chamber, oil consumtion/oil leaks fixed by changing oil type to better type which didn't cook hot end bearings/seals -> oil problem moved to auxialiary gearbox but this was piece of cake if you compare it to eng change)
They were newer problem free, but ok-ish. Eng change for this aircraft is actually very easy and quick, if you have built ready engine to go in.

Fuel system is very sensitive to icing and FQIS suffers contamination. Lots of work with fuel tanks, at some point our hangar was smelling more kerosene than fuelling company. :D

Landing gear position indication system/WOW, very bad quality proximity switches wih too sensitive system... this was another huge workload before Eldec managed to get those switches to work relatively well. After many years...

One may think it is awful aircraft to maintain, but as said earlier, have a good team of competent guys and it will work.

Still missing those noisy brake fans.

Didn't mention good things. Roomy and relatively well organized + clean cockpit (compare 737 still on these days, and Douglas), very nice feature is the possibility to enter aircraft via e-bay and floor hatch on cockpit. Electrical bay located under cockpit, roomy enough to work there, nice and "clean". Hydraulic equipments have own compartment between fwd cargo and MLG bay, not most enjoyable place in the earth but at least it is inside of the aircraft and not in dirty wheel well. ECS-bay on the rear, you need to climb there but then you can stand straight when doing work with packs and some valves. Again clean and nice enviroment to work even in winter.
Excellent airstairs, hydraulically operated, these are very good piece of equipment.

Low aircraft, basically all daily items can be done from ground without any ladders or steps, fueling panel on wing l/e... well that is fueling guys problem. :)

About that floor hatch on cockpit. Good memories from days when get called to aircraft after departure preparations and even after engines running -> get in via E-bay and that hatch. Crawl up in to cabin from that small hatch when all passengers are looking at you if CCM forgets to close curtains on galley. :)
This hatch is located just after cockpit door, so it is bit dangerous when left open. If you enter cockpit from front entrance door area you need to turn 90 deg before entering narrow corridor to cockpit door area and at that point you may already looking forward to cockpit and miss open hatch on the floor... OUCH! This happens few times, luckily without any serious wounds. I personally got once gate agent to my shoulders when i was doing something with that famous flap computer. It was quite a surprice when two legs drops on you without any warning, not bad, gate agent was young lady. Luckily she didn't hurt seriously, only some scratchs and bruises to legs.

Cockpit C-window can be opened just like a window at home, very simple handle-locking-hinge, made communication between ground-cockpit very good. About this window, compare it to 737 or DC-9/MD-8x extremely complex over engineered sliding window which is REAL PITA to get adjusted air/water tight. Only thing, it is bit too aft.

White "ivory" rocker switches on roof panel, at least on RJ they worked well. On J31 and J41 they have similar swithes but at least on J31 they failed frequently, can't recall is it same switch. Propably not.

Need to say i have had good luck, or is it just a "luck", being connected to these unique british made aircrafts. RJ, J31 and J41. Maybe this explains why i loose some screws from my head... :E

[RVF750]

Best years of my life spent flying the venerable 146. The Engineer's head popping up behind us, Hosties disappearing, coffee in hand suddenly. Brings back many happy memories.

[Herod]

Jogging memory cells here, Corrosion. I recall one very windy day in Amsterdam. We got the pax off OK, but the wind increased to the degree that we couldn't open the cabin doors. In fact, 747s were being blown sideways on the apron. I needed to get to ops, and that hatch to the bay below the flight deck was the answer. I doubt I'm agile enough now. I last flew the type in July '92. Gosh, is it really over 27 years?

[safetypee]

Where did the 146 come from; internal magazine article. None were realised.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwc3ptut3kf1mka/Where%20did%20the%20146%20come%20from.pdf?dl=0

A 25 yr review; 40 yrs soon and an ‘electric’ 146 yet to come.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ytx9v77p8sumphm/25%20yrs%20of%20the%20BAe146.pdf?dl=0

And one of several ideas that did not make it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9a7jyz9lk4o33no/BAe%20146%20NRA.pdf?dl=0

[DaveReidUK]

Where did the 146 come from; internal magazine article. None were realised.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwc3ptut3kf1mka/Where%20did%20the%20146%20come%20from.pdf?dl=0

Would have benefitted from a bit of spell-checking.

[Mister Geezer]

I accumulated around 2500 on the 146 and I have many fond memories of flying her. As as been said already, she is a joy to fly and I recall when I did my type rating course and one of my colleagues who had been flying her for a number of years, said to me that what the 146 lacks in airborne performance, is compensated for by the nice handling characteristics. That was a phrase that I always remembered and thought was very appropriate. Flying it certainly maintained a sharp instrument scan, which stood me in good stead for my next type and was a technique I soon noticed had eroded significantly once flying a modern EFIS machine!

The first stage of flap was 18 degrees, which is rather significant compared to many other commercial aircraft and such a significant deployment of flap in one single motion did result in a noticeable change in attitude and drag. I personally found on departure, that it was often easier to hand fly until the flaps were up, since the rather rudimentary autopilot was at times more a hinderance than a help in managing the speed acceleration during flap retraction.

One thing I fondly remember was being able to outsmart the BAe long range cruise (LRC) published performance figures, as the manufacturer had stipulated a fixed LRC speed, irrespective of decreasing aircraft weight and most computer flight planning systems used this fixed speed for LRC planning calculations. Armed with a copy of the specific range charts from the AFM, along with some accurate thrust management, meant it was possible to fly farther than the computer flight planning system would allow. I recall assuring the ops manager in one company on a couple of empty positioning flights, that we could make it to where we needed to get to but that we would have to ‘divert’ to the intended destination, given that the computer said we could not make it!!

It was a great aircraft for STOL airports and it opened the way for jet operations to airfields that previously had only seen turboprops. It had just as many fans as it had people who loathed it for various reasons!!!!

[Allan Lupton]

Where did the 146 come from; internal magazine article. None were realised.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwc3ptut3kf1mka/Where%20did%20the%20146%20come%20from.pdf?dl=0
As it says it's British Aircraft Corporation, one can safely say that it has nothing to do with the 146 and its origins which were the province of the Hatfield (former de Havilland) part of Hawker Siddeley Aviation.
Which magazine is it from?

[safetypee]

Alan, re BAC, I recall that we have disagreed about this point before.
Although the source document is headed BAC, it describes a wide ranging work packages shared between Government - DTI, MOD PE, and industry. The breakdown of cost was split between the Ministry, BAC, and HSA.
HSA specific responsibilities concerned marketing, modelling, noise, future projects, simulation, flight test, and ENF acoustics (shrouded propeller, ducted fan?), but there was integrated exchange of ideas amongst all parties.
Within the projects it is possible to identify the separation between those which contributed to Airbus A300 and the 146, although at that time there appears significant military influence with a larger aircraft and STOL.

My first association with this programme was with RAE - terminal area studies, ATC, noise, steep approach, and ground and airborne equipment (significant avionics content). Also, the advanced flight deck, physically at Weybridge but operationally managed by Hatfield with RAE oversight.

The extract was published in the Woodford Design department internal magazine ‘Team 146’; date wise after the demise of Hatfield.

[Corrosion]

One more from memories. As i really like this beast, i was lucky enough to being that person who send last company RJ away from our base at HEL year 2011. Later on, think two years, i was doing check for that same aircraft when it came back from sub-lease before handed back to BAe.
May sound silly, because these are only machines, but i have good feeling on my head as in addition of that last RJ sent away i was doing last maintenance for couple of SWISS RJ:s when they phased out. Including the last one. There was nice seremony at PIK when aircraft arrived. Think second last aircraft made low fly-by over PIK main runway when they left towards new adventures. :)
https://www.chevron.org.uk/the-last-bae-146/

Last contact with RJ was at Cranfield 2018, and later on at PIK when one of ex-SWISS stored plane was taken from long term storage and put back in flight condition. Heading to Libya.

[DaveReidUK]

Alan, re BAC, I recall that we have disagreed about this point before.
Although the source document is headed BAC, it describes a wide ranging work packages shared between Government - DTI, MOD PE, and industry. The breakdown of cost was split between the Ministry, BAC, and HSA.
HSA specific responsibilities concerned marketing, modelling, noise, future projects, simulation, flight test, and ENF acoustics (shrouded propeller, ducted fan?), but there was integrated exchange of ideas amongst all parties.
Within the projects it is possible to identify the separation between those which contributed to Airbus A300 and the 146, although at that time there appears significant military influence with a larger aircraft and STOL.

My first association with this programme was with RAE - terminal area studies, ATC, noise, steep approach, and ground and airborne equipment (significant avionics content). Also, the advanced flight deck, physically at Weybridge but operationally managed by Hatfield with RAE oversight.

The extract was published in the Woodford Design department internal magazine ‘Team 146’; date wise after the demise of Hatfield.

Courtesy of FSF:

"Dan Gurney [the author of the extract] served in the British Royal Air Force as a fighter pilot, instructor and experimental test pilot. He is a co-author of several research papers on all-weather landings. Gurney joined BAE Systems in 1980 and was involved in the development and production of the HS125 and BAe 146, and was the project test pilot for the Avro RJ."

[Webby737]

I worked on them for a couple of years. Overall I think it was a good aircraft, Corrosion has pretty much covered most of what they were like to work on, I'd forgotten about the inwards opening C window, you just had to be sure you slid the sun visor out of the way first, don't ask how I remember that one :)

I used to do a lot of NDT inspections on them, and of course being British they loved to x-ray things (all British aircraft I've worked on always had a lot of x-ray inspections), a couple I remember was the inspection on Wing Rib Zero that required access into the centre tank though the wing leading edge via a slide, easy enough to get into but a real pig to try and push yourself back out again !
Then there was the fuselage frame inspections where you would wallpaper fuselage with film from floor level to floor level, this used almost 100 meters of film that all had to be cut to size beforehand and then processed and viewed afterwards, this from start to finish would take about 4 days !
We never found anything on these inspections.
There were also more inspections on the wing lower skins back in the late 90s due to fuel contamination, I remember blending out some corrosion inside the wing, we kept going till we could see the hangar floor ! I believe several aircraft had complete wing skin replacements because of this. This is why you had to check the water drains every night.

They could be hard work but once you found your way around them they where pretty good to work on.

[ZFT]

Courtesy of FSF:

"Dan Gurney [the author of the extract] served in the British Royal Air Force as a fighter pilot, instructor and experimental test pilot. He is a co-author of several research papers on all-weather landings. Gurney joined BAE Systems in 1980 and was involved in the development and production of the HS125 and BAe 146, and was the project test pilot for the Avro RJ."

Slight thread drift but does anyone know what happened to another Hatfield 146 TP Peter Smith?

[chevvron]

Would that be the same Pete Smith who was at Fanborough in the '80s?

[ZFT]

Would that be the same Pete Smith who was at Fanborough in the '80s?

That I'm not sure about. Peter was very involved with the development of both the Hatfield and PSA simulators in the mid 80s.

[pilotmike]

Slight thread drift but does anyone know what happened to another Hatfield 146 TP Peter Smith?

Peter was imparting great breadth and depth of knowledge to airlines operating the BAe146 certainly up to 2011, particularly the yearly tech refresher classroom days. It was always a pleasure to learn from such a knowledgeable yet unassuming master of the 146. A true gentleman.

Edited to add: another quirk of the 146 was in the avionics bay, looking up at the electromagnetic indicators (dolls eyes colloquially) after each flight to see what had over-temped or cut out during that flight.... They were back to front, all the left ones on the right and vice versa. I asked Peter if there was a good reason for that, as it appeared confusing. His answer: when the printed circuit board was laid up, the technician forgot that the writing and all component placement on the underside of the board needed to be 'reflected' to appear backwards on laying up, for it to appear correctly in the finished PCB. By the time it was discovered, it was deemed to expensive to re-order all the PCBs. Which is why all the indictors were ar$£ about face!

[Rivet gun]

Loved the 146, flew it as FO and Captain. Had to shut down an engine once due to vibration (off top of the scale). By the time I disembarked the engineers had removed the hot end from the offending engine to show turbine blade missing. Also only transport aircraft I have stalled (intentionally) as far as stick pusher.

[Asturias56]

4 engines tho'... not that attractive to small airlines TBH

[meleagertoo]

A sad mistake. Had DeHaviland/BAe been able to source suitable engines to have made it a twin it could have been a world beater. As it was it comfortably outsold any other UK airliner - ever.
The Russians managed it...they even had the bloody cheek to call it the An 148! No pretence spared there, then!
What's the betting the dolls-eye indicators on that are arsey-versey too?

[Nomad2]

I've always wondered about the An-148. It really is extremely similar to the 146.
Did they get formal permission to modify the original, or is it an original it's own right?

[DaveReidUK]

I've always wondered about the An-148. It really is extremely similar to the 146.
Did they get formal permission to modify the original, or is it an original it's own right?

It's clearly not a copy in the sense that some Chinese designs are reverse-engineered Russian types. Heck, they didn't even get the number of engines right. :O

Joking aside, there isn't an infinite number of viable airliner configurations. How many low-wing twin designs with underwing engines can you think of ?

[Brian 48nav]

I thought the 146 TP was Peter Sedgwick - ex 48 Sqn Hercules co-pilot and skipper. IIRC at one time Hatfield had 3 ex48 pilots of my vintage (67-69 ) on the payroll. Peter, Mike Preston ( RIP ) and Neil Smith.

[spekesoftly]

In 1981, when the 146 first flew, the CTP at Hatfield was Mike Goodfellow, and the deputy CTP was Peter Sedgwick.

[old,not bold]

I was dispatched from Southend one day in late 1980/early 1981, I guess, to go to Hatfield, do a bit of digging, and come back with a report on the BAe 146's suitability for BAF as a replacement for the Heralds on ACMI work, a role eventually filled by the ex-BA Viscounts. He reckoned that sales prospects were so poor that he could acquire the aircraft on a lease for peanuts, but he was dubious about the claims being made for it. It had not yet made its first flight.

I gave the report to Mike K a week later. I had summarised its operating data and costs, and the commercial aspects, summarised the maintenance prgramme requirements and so on and so forth. I made much of the design feature that allowed a spare engine to be carried (without the nacelle, IIRC) in the forward hold, and the advantage this would bring.

MK glanced through the report without comment until he got to the bit about the spare engine.

"You stupid f****r," he said, with the gracious courtesy that was typical of him, "why do you think they need to put a spare on board? It's because they know f****g well that those f*****g Lycomings are designed for helicopters and are s**t, but they are the only ones they can use on that aircraft. It's called Whisperjet because they'll usually be stopped".

As usual he was way ahead of me.

[VORDME2]

I would say I have one good memory about the 146 : the speed brake!
smell terrible, underpowered, slow,heavy controls, over complicated systems, never ending checklist on the 1st flight...
Why to make it simple if you can make it complicated?
5 years and 3000hrs

[Centaurus]

Flew a BAE 146 simulator for the first time the other day. Found the throttles very stiff to operate and quite distracting. Are the throttles in the real aeroplane like that?

[Herod]

Are the throttles in the real aeroplane like that?

Not that I recall, but it was many years ago.

[rogerg]

I seem to remember that the 146 made its mark by being the only jet allowed to operate into airfields in the LA area that had a jet ban due to noise.

[Stationair8]

Just like grandma’s Austin 1800, I always thought.

The Bring Another Engine was always very comfortable to fly in as a passenger- flown in them with Ansett, East- West and Southern Airlines.

Mate in Ansett reckons it was the only aeroplane that could get a bird strike up the rear, it was that slow.

[Corrosion]

Flew a BAE 146 simulator for the first time the other day. Found the throttles very stiff to operate and quite distracting. Are the throttles in the real aeroplane like that?

There is 100% mechanical connection from throttle lever to eng FCU, they are "firm" to use and over time they tends to stiffens. You are talking simutor but in real life they are anot feather light to use.
From levers there is rod down to autothrottle clutches, directly under pedestal on E-bay, from there all the way up to the each engine pylon you will find steel cables and pulleys, from pylon to FCU is teleflex cable. (which needs frequent lubrication with thin oil to avoid extra stiffness)

If my memory serves right, throttles were quite unsophisticated to use. They felt all the time like something is chafing... Not pilot, but had hands on experience when doing eng ground runs.
Don't know how it was in the air if you need to adjust power, but on ground runs if you need to find some exact values for test purposes, moving these throttles requires sometimes few try to find correct position. :)

[JENKINS]

In the air I found 'Boeing' to be the answer, since engine control was such that one could demand and synchronise temperstures as required, the numbers 717, 727, 737, and 747 from memory giving reasonable results.

Aircraft model shop at Castle Donington produced a replica for their display featuring two big engines and winglets. Such dreamers!

[safetypee]

History and nostalgia to aid reminiscence - some large files

146 described
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i1oqswgdzynzsbm/BAE%20146%20Described.pdf?dl=0

Production list, operators, and historical location, 2012
https://www.dropbox.com/s/53ypihjnhjrqj08/146RJ1203.pdf?dl=0

146 Design features, tech sales
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cajqtqsjwugxr3y/BAe%20146%20100%20Design%20features.pdf?dl=0

146 Flightdeck features tech sales
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6c3ii2eim5msf96/BAE%20146%20100-300%20GA%20Description%20.pdf?dl=0

[Vendee]

There is 100% mechanical connection from throttle lever to eng FCU, they are "firm" to use and over time they tends to stiffens. You are talking simutor but in real life they are anot feather light to use.
From levers there is rod down to autothrottle clutches, directly under pedestal on E-bay, from there all the way up to the each engine pylon you will find steel cables and pulleys, from pylon to FCU is teleflex cable.

....... with the TMS actuator the very last link between the teleflex and the FCU. I think the throttles could be a bit stiff. The fire handles/fuel shutoff were even worse as they didn't get used so often.

[Corrosion]

....... with the TMS actuator the very last link between the teleflex and the FCU. I think the throttles could be a bit stiff. The fire handles/fuel shutoff were even worse as they didn't get used so often.
Yes, i forget that because i haven't done almost any real work with 146. Only with RJ, no TMS but FADEC, which is different especially on engine/engine controils area, as everyone here knows. ;)

Think i work once with old 146 which was converted to RJ, that was bit strange bird as it is kind of mixture of both. It was one of the Braathens old birds on last C-check.

[possel]

Just like grandma’s Austin 1800, I always thought.

The Bring Another Engine was always very comfortable to fly in as a passenger- flown in them with Ansett, East- West and Southern Airlines.

Mate in Ansett reckons it was the only aeroplane that could get a bird strike up the rear, it was that slow.
No, we all know that was the Shorts Belfast (or "Belslow"!)

[rogerg]

414 kts, mach .68 was not to bad as it also could land on a six pence

[Dairyground]

I have a vague recollection from the early 1960s that what became the 146 originated as a Handley Page concept, but was not proceeded with because of a lack of suitable sized engines. Then the Continentals came along, and the concept was resurrected.

[DaveReidUK]

As it was it comfortably outsold any other UK airliner - ever.

No, it didn't.

[G-ARZG]

A mere 387 examples (!), outstripped by 445 Viscounts...

[treadigraph]

380 748s, only slightly fewer!

I suggest "UK airliner" could also include the Dove and the Rapide both of which comfortably outsold even the Viscount!

[spekesoftly]

Well if we are throwing the Dove into the mix then its replacement, the DH125, outsold it many times over. ;)

[treadigraph]

And the Islander? :)

[DaveReidUK]

Here we go again ... :O

PPRuNe: Best Selling British Airliner? (2012) (https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/503518-best-selling-british-airliner.html)

[dixi188]

A mere 387 examples (!), outstripped by 445 Viscounts...
I have a photo somewhere of my father in front of the last Viscount built with a sign saying 444th aircraft. (or maybe the 444th delivered)

[Fareastdriver]

Here we go again ... https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/embarass.gif

PPRuNe: Best Selling British Airliner? (2012) (https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/503518-best-selling-british-airliner.html)

Clicked on the link and my anti-virus (AVG) immediately neutralised a threat.

[halas]

Many years on the 146 in Oz.
Flying with some of the older captains was a lot of fun whilst they would demonstrate what she could do. No QAR/Acars- nothing. GPWS would never keeping up with some of them (in clear wx).

TOD was POB. Barber-pole to 10 miles. Stabilized at 500'. Vacate after 500m. It had every device available to go down, slow down and stop. Nothing the other way round!
Under powered it was, as has been mentioned above.
Operating in ISA +25*, full flap, full power, curvature of the earth takeoff.
Even on descent in icing, power had to be above 80% to cope with the bleed load of the anti-icing

Icing was it's nemesis. Engine roll-backs were happening all the time. Descents in cruise were normal to get out of ice and of course that exacerbated the range issue.
We went everywhere and then some. Remote islands and remote inland destinations. Many right on the limit on it's range and they all had the pannier LR tanks installed. 14 aircraft if l remember.
Lots of 'Jeppesen whizz-wheel' action going on recalculating continually and some times replanning or diverting.

No APU was a good one in remote hot places. Shut down 1,2 & 3. Get PAX off. Start 1 shut down 4. Refuel and get bags off/on. After that start 4 shut down 1 and load PAX shut door start 1, 2 & 3.
This was all done to keep the electrics available and a pack on. No bleed required for starting, as it was electric starters all round.
And not starter/gen's either. Each motor had an individual electric starter. Then the inboards had hydraulic pumps, the outer had generators. Weird.

Living on the radius of my base airports visual arrival was perfect. At max flap extension, start feeding them out. The missus would hear it and come and pick me up! Also gave her a chance to get rid of the boyfriend :D
​​​​​​​
Every maintenance issue was a nightmare with the QRH/FCOM/MEL pages everywhere trying to figure out what worked and what didn't.
Yes it had redundancies with hydraulics helping electrics vis a vie and other stuff but it all came with caveats. That's why there was a lot of head scratching.

Earlier someone mentioned the fir tree rudder limiter. It was called the Q-pot limiter. Don't know why. Weird
Another engineering oddity was the use of screws around the whole aircraft.
Not Philips head but some sort of proprietary three pointed thing. Bit like an offset Mercedes emblem. Weird
The 300 series was prone to tail strike.
Mitigation? Put a four foot metal strap longitudinally where it would strike. Weird.
The 200 series we operated were all steam driven gauges.
The HSI/DBI was located behind the yoke. Weird

Could go on but wont. 🤣

halas

[safetypee]

halas,

Q pot. Q is the aero abbreviation for dynamic pressure which is used to adjust control feel. The rudder ‘fir tree’ wasn’t directly associated with feel, more rudder / fin strength, but still speed related. It was rumoured that the Q pot design (and build) was the same as used in the Comet.

‘Tri Wing’ screws; new at the time, cheaper, stronger than cross head, lighter than slotted head.

300 series tailstrike - flight test (ground test) of minimum unstick speed during take off it was ‘discovered’ that the tail bumper was in the wrong place. Something to do with centre of rotation on the ground and compressed oleos. Cheaper to add rubbing strip than reposition tail bumper, which was removed. Also taken off other series as a wt / drag reduction ?

Love or hate; it was fun.

[meleagertoo]

No, it didn't.
No, you're right.
I don't know where I got that from. Best selling jet airliner perhaps?

mea culpa.

[Nomad2]

Everyone says how slow it was, we used to cruise at a pedestrian .70.
But over the typical sector length, an hour or so, it really didn't make much difference.
Other factors conspired to affect actual sector times much more than cruise speed.
The final version, the RJ-100, was quite an effective aeroplane although it could certainly take advantage of cheap oil....

[Corrosion]

halas,

Q pot. Q is the aero abbreviation for dynamic pressure which is used to adjust control feel. The rudder ‘fir tree’ wasn’t directly associated with feel, more rudder / fin strength, but still speed related. It was rumoured that the Q pot design (and build) was the same as used in the Comet.

‘Tri Wing’ screws; new at the time, cheaper, stronger than cross head, lighter than slotted head.



About Q pot, don't know how it looks on Comet but at least that big and fat pitot tube for Q pot is very similar with Comet unit. Also, if remember correctly, that OAT probe is very similar with Comet... you remember that odd curved thin metal pin on LH side of the nose. Very often this probe get loose and it just hangs downwards instead fwd. :) Lower doors handles, cargo/equipments bays, are at least very similar with older british designed aircraft. I am talking about these circularbody handles, which very often hangs because springs are dead. Ah, this brings that sound to my mind when you close the door... thumb(when door pulled closed, then mechanical klonk when handle turned and shoot bolts engages, finally "KLIK" when handle released and it retracts.. (if springs works)

Screws, tri-wing is not that bad at all. I would say that basic slotted head screws should be banned from use everywhere... doesn't matter is it tri- or four- wing or regular phillips / pozidriv they all are better than slotted heads. Only problems is, you need correct tooling, but why should anyone without proper equipment touch anywhere.

This thread brings loads of good, and not so good, memories from interesting years. Relatively small airline with fleet of totally 11 of these tempremental birds, good/quite enthuastic group of guys work with, flight/cabin department good, company did everything in house except C-check:s...
Nowadays working with EXTREMELY boring 737CL/NG and Airbuses, these scentless-bland-bulk aircrafts not ringing any of the bells in my head. Offcourse life is bit easier, but boring.

[NutLoose]

halas,

‘Tri Wing’ screws; new at the time, cheaper, stronger than cross head, lighter than slotted head.



Yup bloody awful things

https://phillips-screw.com/drive-system/tri-wing

[pilotmike]

I would say I have one good memory about the 146 : the speed brake!
smell terrible, underpowered, slow,heavy controls, over complicated systems, never ending checklist on the 1st flight...
Why to make it simple if you can make it complicated?
5 years and 3000hrs

I don't know many who would accuse it of having 'heavy' controls. It was the lightness of the controls, ailerons particularly, that made it so sweet to hand fly.

[meleagertoo]

I've noticed over the years that in the main pilots who like to rubbish the 146/RJ are almost without exception the ones who never flew it. I even heard one or two people express the opinion that it wasn't really a jet and that it shouldn't be counted as jet hours! Those that did fly it generally loved it. It wasn't really in competition with the 737 for legs over 90 minutes, it's forte was the shorter routes where the lower clinb & cruise performnce was not much of a handicap especially into shorter strips. As a local cityhopper it was pretty good but put it up against a 737 from London to Barcelona and it wasn't at its best. It was a delight to fly, once the engneers had got on top of it the reliability wasn't bad (lots had spent extended time laid up outdoors which does no aeroplane any good) and passengers loved them.
By contrast the 737 was a dog to fly but clearly in another class as a passenger-transporter which ultimately is what it is all about.
In it's niche the 146 was terrific, just a shame they didn't design the niche a bit (a whole lot) bigger.
Two VORs, one DME and an NDB developed your nav skills wonderfully, I found it the perfect intro to a career in airlines after a year on a single turbine and 3 months on the Do228.

[rog747]

A challenge on IT routes like Palma AGP Faro and even down to Corfu....

[possel]

Everyone says how slow it was, we used to cruise at a pedestrian .70.Which is exactly what it was designed to do
But over the typical sector length, an hour or so, it really didn't make much difference.And that's why!

[dixi188]

Never had an issue with Tri-Wing fasteners. Use the right bit and they are fine.
I didn't know they went up to size 15, the biggest I recall is #7 for the tank panels and leading edges.
First aircraft I came accross them was the DC-10.

[WHBM]

I used them extensively from London City when they were the main jet type here. Never had a single tech issue I can recall in more than 25 years operation. And you can still see them here, Aer Lingus-liveried Avros still operate to Dublin, provided by Cityjet. I always look up to see one pass.

For those who go on about poor power performance, for a long time no other jet was able to make the takeoff from the short runway here at LCY, and their initial climb performance to the 3,000ft initial level off was and is no different to the more recent types. Spool up against the brakes, and when you let go they are off like a rocket. They are notably quieter than the comparably sized, next-generation Embraer 190. They were, of course, by quite a substantial margin, the best selling British jet airliner of all time.

The much-admired main gear I understand is based very much in design on what was done on the Comet 4, from the same drawing office a generation before.

The flap movement noise always seems to be a fascination (see above) though I never saw anyone distressed by it or even particularly comment on it. Apparently it was a considerable surprise on the first test flight, it had not been apparent in the wind tunnel. A modification was devised which however was the weight of two passengers, so no takers apart from, I understand, the two early aircraft supplied to the Royal Flight. I believe it's an airflow harmonic between the flap inside edge and the fuselage. For westerly departures from LCY, which all turn downwind passing Canary Wharf at the 3,000ft, the noise is quite audible from Stratford station platform down below as the aircraft completes the turn above you and cleans up.

[meleagertoo]

Good to hear some applause for this most inpressive and capable liltle airliner.

Bear in mind it was deemed good enough for the Royal Flight too and though lacking in range when staging out for longer deployments was notably visible in all sorts of unlikely places once in theatre, both paved and unpaved.
I once took a Royal Flight crew for a recce of a potential landing strip in my aircraft to save them the risk and expense of doing it in their 146, having previously taken them for a ride at 70mph over the (dirt) home field in a land cruiser to prove it's freedom from ruts.They were a practical bunch.

[rog747]

I recall the BAC 1-11 also had the flap noise too...

[olympus]

Well, I had eight years and some 5000 hours on the 146 and frankly I didn't recognise most of the sneering comments and general denigration of an aeroplane which was generally a delight to fly. Yes, it could run out of steam when heavily laden on a hot day and the APU really wasn't man enough for the job but the controls were well-harmonised and the trailing-link undercarriage permitted a soft landing almost every time. Everyone likes to criticise the Lycoming engine but in my eight years I never had any problems certainly no in-flight shutdowns and the only impact of the so-called roll-back problem was the restriction to FL260 and the need to memorise another page of check-list items for one's recurrent checks.

The APU did fail on a regular basis so we all became adept at operating without it. There was also a period where flap failures were common due, I think, to the incorrect lubrication being used at the time. Again most crews became familiar with the flapless landing procedure. Regarding the smelly cabin, I can only recall one instance when we were due to take over an aircraft in which the cabin stank to high heaven. Snagging it in the tech log resulted in an aircraft change and the engineers sorted out the problem.

I was very happy to spend a fairly large part of my flying career on what was essentially Britain's last airliner.

[Fris B. Fairing]

and passengers loved them. .

Unless you were seated under the wing where the overhead locker could accommodate not much more than an ironed shirt.

[mcdhu]

The TQF 100s had a little extra fuel in 2 'fillet tanks' - around 700kgs? and were seen in all sorts of unusual places - Walney, Plymouth, Gilgit, Santos Dumont, Islay!! to name but a few.
Capable machine.
mcdhu

[Nuasea]

Anyone else read this rather large book about the BAe/RJ 146?

[Blink182]

Poor quality photo I took of G-OBAF when I was a flying spanner on the Route Proving flights ....

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1366x977/146_at_dusseldorf_5492b1fa96da50311f2dccc748f05711caef0044.j pg

[dixi188]

Anyone else read this rather large book about the BAe/RJ 146?
At £80 I'm not likely to buy it.
2nd best selling British airliner after the Viscount I think, but with a bit more development it could have sold a lot more.

[DH106]

2nd best selling British airliner after the Viscount I think, but with a bit more development it could have sold a lot more.

Avro/HS 748?

[Jhieminga]

Anyone else read this rather large book about the BAe/RJ 146?
This one: https://amzn.to/3qOYO5B ? First time I've heard of it (no pun intended). Price does appear to have gone down a tad compared to dixi188's post, but still quite a sum. I think I will await reviews first. Although I might be interested it does seem like an expensive tome and I'd like to be sure about its quality. If others are interested, the blurb from Amazon reads:
Fighting to Be Heard is a love letter to one of the most over-engineered jet aircraft ever built: the British Aerospace 146. This regional aircraft was truly the beginning of the “RJ” (aka Regional Jet), which has become commonplace in air travel today. Although the 146 was ahead of its time, the program, the company, and the aircraft was plagued with many challenges. As a result, the 146 became the last commercial aircraft to be built in the United Kingdom. The title signifies the uphill battle British Aerospace faced in trying to convince airlines to buy and operate the world's quietest jet.
Edit: I see that the US site already has it available while the UK site states that it will be published on 20th October. I guess we'll have to wait a bit longer...

[DaveReidUK]

Amazon: "This regional aircraft was truly the beginning of the “RJ” (aka Regional Jet), which has become commonplace in air travel today."

That will be news to Fokker ...

[WHBM]

That will be news to Fokker ...
Or the Yak-40 in the Soviet Union.

What does happen is that aircraft get upgraded in their use. Old hands may remember the BAC One-Eleven being extensively branded as the "Bus Stop Jet". It never particularly got used as such, but was a contrast to the first generation 707/DC8 which initially got used on intercontinental operations. It also seemed to be a bit of an internal BAC dig, where BEA had unwisely gone for a large fleet of turboprop Vanguards, outclassed by many of their European competitors who chose the Caravelle.

[bean]

Or the Yak-40 in the Soviet Union.

What does happen is that aircraft get upgraded in their use. Old hands may remember the BAC One-Eleven being extensively branded as the "Bus Stop Jet". It never particularly got used as such, but was a contrast to the first generation 707/DC8 which initially got used on intercontinental operations. It also seemed to be a bit of an internal BAC dig, where BEA had unwisely gone for a large fleet of turboprop Vanguards, outclassed by many of their European competitors who chose the Caravelle.
Don't agree. BEA bought Comet 4bs soecifically to compete with Caravelles. Very well documented history

[possel]

Avro/HS 748?
I think the HS748 series sold about ten fewer aircraft than the 146 series (but that's close enough for a recount!)

[dixi188]

Avro/HS 748?
Go back to post #74 and see the chat.
Dixi

[WHBM]

Don't agree. BEA bought Comet 4Bs specifically to compete with Caravelles. Very well documented history
Only ordered for the longer runs, principally to the Eastern Med, and they then also got used on a few fill-in turns. They only had 13 of them, compared to 20 Vanguards, which were long used on unsuitable lengthy routes into the late 1960s, such as to Malta.

KLM made a similar error buying Lockheed Electras instead of Caravelles, and regretted those as well.

[LynxDriver]

Don't agree. BEA bought Comet 4bs soecifically to compete with Caravelles. Very well documented history
Didn't Sud Aviation use the basic Comet nose design for the Caravelle?

[WHBM]

Didn't Sud Aviation use the basic Comet nose design for the Caravelle?
De Havilland actually designed and built the Caravelle nose section under subcontract, and shipped them over to Toulouse for assembly.

There was an unkind rumour that they just sawed the nose sections off the abandoned Comet 1 aircraft laying around by the late 1950s !

Apart from these fuselage sections, and the Rolls-Royce engines, there was contribution from the UK industry for instruments and fitout, etc. The UK component supply industry offerings were much greater than France in the 1950s.

The Comet/Caravelle flight deck windshield design was one of the things rejected by the FAA in the USA when the United Airlines order was made, and flight decks of the Caravelle 6R and later types can be seen to have larger windows, although the earlier Caravelle III type also continued in production to the end of the 1960s for those carriers like Air France/Air Inter who had existing fleets of them. No Comets were ever certified commercially in the USA.

Back to the 146, and the well-regarded landing gear design is apparently pretty much based on that of the Comet. I don't know about whether the Trident, which came from Hatfield between the two, was also similar, or indeed whether any other 146 elements came from the Trident.

Last 146 (actually an Avro RJ) I rode in was May 2019, Jota Aviation, standing in for a BA flight on Dublin to London City. I presume it will be the last British-built airliner I ever use.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't know about whether the Trident, which came from Hatfield between the two, was also similar, or indeed whether any other 146 elements came from the Trident.

The 146/RJ may well have inherited some features from the Trident, but not the landing gear. The latter had (uniquely, AFAIK) strange double-tyred wheels and a wonderful MLG retraction/extension sequence which involved the axle axis (:O) rotating through 90°.

[chevvron]

That will be news to Fokker ...
And Canadair.

[condor17]

The Trident outer engine pylons were licence built from Sud Aviation Caravelle design ..
I Remember the licence plate from 12 years of walkrounds .
The A 320 series has very similar hydraulics and fuel system to the Trident which was copied from the Comet .. Don't know the 146's Hyd. or Fuel sys.

rgds condor

[barry lloyd]

This one: https://amzn.to/3qOYO5B ? First time I've heard of it (no pun intended). Price does appear to have gone down a tad compared to dixi188's post, but still quite a sum. I think I will await reviews first. Although I might be interested it does seem like an expensive tome and I'd like to be sure about its quality. If others are interested, the blurb from Amazon reads:

Edit: I see that the US site already has it available while the UK site states that it will be published on 20th October. I guess we'll have to wait a bit longer...

I have a copy of it because I made some contributions to it. I know the person who wrote it who, for reasons which he cannot define, became a huge fan of the 146. He did an enormous amount of research, including visits to the UK and the book has been some years in production. Call me biased, but I think it's a very comprehensive overview of the aircraft. Yes, it's quite a tome and definitely a coffee-table job, but without doubt a useful 'go-to' book for anything related to the 146.

[Uplinker]

The 146 was a lovely aircraft to fly. Classic British design. Well thought out, logical, solid, roomy and slightly over-engineered. At that time - before fuel efficiency became really important - four smaller engines were a good layout, but the thick STOL wing prevented a decent cruise speed. A real shame the RJX got killed, and that there never was a 2 engined version, when engine design improved. Servo tab controls, so you could really feel what you were doing and what the aircraft was doing.

Nice logical system layout and design. Great redundancy. 'Ours' were pretty much manual, with a very strange "toy" navigational computer, which could only load 14 way points !!! Each one of which had to be entered by selecting the letter position with one knob, then turning the other knob to select A,B,C.......1,2,3..... etc, to spell the waypoint name. Took forever.

No auto holding either. Every day, holding for EGLL, one had to fly the hold on the heading bug, doing the maths for crosswind compensation across the hold in your head. Good practice though, and very satisfying when you got it just right.

However, on turbulent approaches, you could overpower the servo tabs - you could feel that you were hitting the end-stops on the flight control surfaces when you reversed control.

I did my best ever landing in a 146, with its trailing link mains. I was only about a quarter way through my flying career at the time, but I just knew I would never do a better landing and wrote it in my log book. And I didn't float it either. Right place in the landing zone and the mains just started turning - no vertical bump at all.

[Reverserbucket]

A real shame the RJX got killed

Here's a (poor quality) picture of one of the RJX's in the U.S. just prior to returning home following the announcement that the project was cancelled.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_4461_f2571d46ef183fe1461e3fbb8a5d44cd5610f40b.jpg

[Allan Lupton]

In 1975 or so when the 146 was relaunched one of the prospects we identified was Philippine Airways as they and their subsidiaries had a multitude of suitable inter-island routes. Brian Botting and I went to talk to them a couple of times but without success, but the Far Eastern Tour of 1982 went there nevertheless.
I had a CT scan at our local hospital this morning and when the radiographer turned out to be Filipino I told him the above. He recognised the 146 as a small four-engined aeroplane that did operate in the Philippines so it seems we had some success after all.

[WHBM]

it seems we had some success after all.
Well BAe didn't, as a new one was never sold there. There were a scatter of Filipino operators who ran third-hand ones in more recent times, just one or two each, not sure any are left.

BAe had quite some success there in past decades with both the 748 and the One-Eleven, so there must have been something of a support network there who they knew, but possibly one more based around Rolls-Royce, who engined not only these but the F-27 and Japanese YS-11, all of which were extensively supplied there.

[TCU]

A question that has recently bugged me as a result of one of those interweb trails that take you from one place to somewhere you did not expect.....why did the HS(BAe)146 not use the Rolls Royce/SNECMA M45H engines used on the VFW614?

[DaveReidUK]

A question that has recently bugged me as a result of one of those interweb trails that take you from one place to somewhere you did not expect.....why did the HS(BAe)146 not use the Rolls Royce/SNECMA M45H engines used on the VFW614?

I have no doubt there were a number of reasons, but for a start the M45H had a BPR half that of the ALF502, so there wouldn't have been any point in registering the prototype 146 G-SSSH ...

[Allan Lupton]

Thanks for putting the record straight WHBM. We thought of it as a 748 replacement.
I don't remember considering using the M45H but I do remember, after the 146 had several years in service, someone in authority asking us to consider using two R-R Tays. We said, more or less "if that's what you want you can't start from here" and referred them to (by then) our Weybridge office where they had investigated a Tay-powered 1-11.

[WHBM]

someone in authority asking us to consider using two R-R Tays. We said, more or less "if that's what you want you can't start from here" and referred them to (by then) our Weybridge office where they had investigated a Tay-powered 1-11.
Isn't that called the Fokker F100 ? :)

[Herod]

Isn't that called the Fokker F100 ? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

And a very fine aircraft.

[DaveReidUK]

Isn't that called the Fokker F100 ? :)

Not necessarily. :O

Farnborough Show 1990:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/837x555/n650dh_9e51478a18bdc3912e642d15dfa77bc41ad2d4a1.jpg

Not exactly the most successful of programmes. :O

Dee Howard and the Tay 1-11 (http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/bac1-11jet.co.uk%20Specialfeature%2021.htm)

[Jhieminga]

A question that has recently bugged me as a result of one of those interweb trails that take you from one place to somewhere you did not expect.....why did the HS(BAe)146 not use the Rolls Royce/SNECMA M45H engines used on the VFW614?
Next to the BPR/noise issue mentioned above, have a look at the timeline. The VFW614 first flew in 1971, the BAe146 in 1981. Ten years later they were looking for a different generation of engine. Another one is that the M45H engine was developed for a very specific short stage length. The BAe146 was aimed at a more flexible market.

[safetypee]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x446/146_development_2_fcf6ddad5d16e93cb895066e2e9ca05b39ea6d4b.j pg

There were thoughts

and some others


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/709x539/146_nra_2_39c247c9fc10130c388abe59e5ccc684a69244ee.jpg


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/827x582/for_raf_2_73616b664206b3499351eb7642ef1878cf635530.jpg


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x511/prop_windtunnel_2_d291f01426e87e96d0ba4a1108c1736375ccb4c8.j pg

[washoutt]

What is BPR, please?

[SWBKCB]

What is BPR, please?


The bypass ratio (BPR) of a turbofan engine is the ratio between the mass flow rate of the bypass stream to the mass flow rate entering the core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio

[TCU]

The VFW614 first flew in 1971, the BAe146 in 1981.

I get the eventual launch date issue, but the HS146 was "launched" in 1973, so the RR engine must have surely been in the mixing pot as a developable option? Most "launch" engines eventually get improved (including BRP)....one only has to look at the M45H's bigger cousin the RB211

Those images above are superb, although I have to say, the 146 looks much better, more purposeful, with 4 pods rather than 2.

Have a soft spot for the 146 having enjoyed many flights on Meridiana's 146's into and out of FLR

[Jhieminga]

How does this one fit in the BAe146 history?

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x578/bac_qstol_28ac44a8e30f0f4b86c252f735e64642750dc2af.jpg

[TCU]

BAe146 first flight cover

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/cb6163ad_6168_4891_aa22_41b080222ef5_d2ebd2b894dbc008179710e 778a7c922e9cc24f4.jpeg

[treadigraph]

The QSTOL looks as though it owed more than a little to the 1-11!

[chevvron]

BAe146 first flight cover

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/cb6163ad_6168_4891_aa22_41b080222ef5_d2ebd2b894dbc008179710e 778a7c922e9cc24f4.jpeg
Must've been about 1987/8 that Talkdownman and I plus a couple of others flew up to Hatfield to visit the '146 production line.

[treadigraph]

I did the 146 production several times during open days which I think usually coincided with the PFA Fly In at Cranfield, 1983 and 1984 certainly and probably on several later occasions. Recall a Guppy doing a low pass (and a Fred Olsen Electra coincidentally flying over out of Heathrow!) as well plus the DH-88 displaying as it was based there - it eventually got slightly bent when it ground-looped at one of these events, cue another rebuild!

Somewhat ashamed that my colleagues were involved in designing the de Havilland Campus which consumed the hallowed site a couple of decades ago, but such is the price of progress...

[safetypee]

How does this one fit in the BAe146 history?
The QSTOL looks as though it owed more than a little to the 1-11!

Could be; several ideas from the BAC and HSA design studies with government research funding.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1415x1779/img_0072_3dde765f9f34a70230acce5d97819baddb80aff1.jpg


Hatfield open day 1980

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pzfwx0oo18vyip/Hatfield open day 1980.pdf?dl=0

[rog747]

Loved flying on the 146 - Dan Air used it on IT charters at night IBZ and PMI and Manx on Ski flights.
Capital had a couple.
Palmair had a nice example flying from BOH SOU EXT and JER to the Med.
Aegean in the Greek Islands.

Brymon were shown the demo 146 (BAF colours) but went with the Dash 7.

Looking forward to possibly flying one again from Punta Arenas to King George Island to join an Antarctica Grand Circle expedition cruise to go below 66 degrees South - saves throwing up for 3 days in the Drake Passage.
Aerovias DAP have about 6 146's and a few in store.

[WHBM]

Somewhat ashamed that my colleagues were involved in designing the de Havilland Campus which consumed the hallowed site a couple of decades ago, but such is the price of progress...
This was at that time commonly overflown at quite low altitude by inbound traffic from Scotland/Ireland to London City, Scot Airways Dorniers etc, from which I got good views over time of the demolition, raw earth, and then rebuilding. There wasn't a radio point there or anything, but it was just on a line heading to transit overhead Lambourne VOR. Routing has changed now to a much wider loop, out beyond Southend, and often (bizarrely, coming from such a direction) with a view of the French coast.

[possel]

I get the eventual launch date issue, but the HS146 was "launched" in 1973, so the RR engine must have surely been in the mixing pot as a developable option? Most "launch" engines eventually get improved (including BRP).
To be precise, the 146 was in design (with the ALF502) in 1973 when I arrived at Hatfield as a brand new graduate, and then it was "put on ice" at about the end of 1974 as feedback from airlines indicated that it was "ahead of its time" (and I suspect the 1973 oil crisis had something to do with it). I left HSA in 1975 and was pleasantly surprised to see a 146 flying in 1984 for Dan Air in (sort of) RAF colours (who had trialled two).

To me the surprising thing was that they persevered with the ALF502 when they resurrected it. The delay could have been used to that end?

[chevvron]

The QSTOL looks as though it owed more than a little to the 1-11!
The Emb C390 is also pretty close, and it's in production.

[old,not bold]

In 1981 I was dispatched to Hatfield to do a report evaluating the BAe146 for European/North African operations, mainly ACMI, using De Havilland's predicted performance figures.

I made a lot of the claim, as did BAe, that a complete spare engine could be carried in the hold, enabling fast return to service if a change were needed away from base (SEN).

The Chairman read the report, looked at me and in his inimitable fashion said "You stupid prat, why the f**k do you think it's important to carry a spare?" I muttered about lower costs of recovery, blah, blah.

"It's because those f*****g Lycoming engines are designed for helicopters and are f*****g unreliable".

That was the last we heard of the BAe 146.

[WHBM]

In 1981 I was dispatched to Hatfield to do a report evaluating the BAe146 for European/North African operations, mainly ACMI, using De Havilland's predicted performance figures.

I made a lot of the claim, as did BAe, that a complete spare engine could be carried in the hold, enabling fast return to service if a change were needed away from base (SEN).

The Chairman read the report, looked at me and in his inimitable fashion said "You stupid prat, why the f**k do you think it's important to carry a spare?" I muttered about lower costs of recovery, blah, blah.

"It's because those f*****g Lycoming engines are designed for helicopters and are f*****g unreliable".

That was the last we heard of the BAe 146.
I wonder why the aforementioned Chairman (who some of us can take a guess at, principally by the language :) ) thought that a brand-new (as it would have been in 1981), technically unknown anywhere aircraft would do well in the ACMI market, where said Chairman had considerable success, but with long superannuated, known Dart-powered, cheap to buy, easy to stand down for some months, aircraft. Let alone if he knew it was a no-no, why spend the money on the expenses to conduct such a study.

Incidentally, that airline did pick up several used examples in the mid-1990s, by when they were available at a considerably discounted price, plus there was 10 years of engineering experience, and use them for exactly such work.

[bean]

I wonder why the aforementioned Chairman (who some of us can take a guess at, principally by the language :) ) thought that a brand-new (as it would have been in 1981), technically unknown anywhere aircraft would do well in the ACMI market, where said Chairman had considerable success, but with long superannuated, known Dart-powered, cheap to buy, easy to stand down for some months, aircraft. Let alone if he knew it was a no-no, why spend the money on the expenses to conduct such a study.

Incidentally, that airline did pick up several used examples in the mid-1990s, by when they were available at a considerably discounted price, plus there was 10 years of engineering experience, and use them for exactly such work.
BWA only ever had two, probably for a special contract, same as the ATRs.
Keegan wouldn't have had to pay for the survey as Bae would have been falling over themselves to sell him some,same as they were falling over themselves trying to get Jack Walker to take some of the unwanted 146s which were lying around for JEA in the mid 90s (he told me himself)
Also a "technically unknown" aircraft would be the last thing an airline would want to wet lease

[LGWAlan]

Loved flying on the 146 - Dan Air used it on IT charters at night IBZ and PMI and Manx on Ski flights.
Capital had a couple.
Palmair had a nice example flying from BOH SOU EXT and JER to the Med.
Aegean in the Greek Islands.

Brymon were shown the demo 146 (BAF colours) but went with the Dash 7.

Looking forward to possibly flying one again from Punta Arenas to King George Island to join an Antarctica Grand Circle expedition cruise to go below 66 degrees South - saves throwing up for 3 days in the Drake Passage.
Aerovias DAP have about 6 146's and a few in store.

Loganair had 2 as well - G-OLCA and G-OLCB. MAN based but did IT flights on a weekend - one of which went down to SEN to do a a SEN-AGP. The MAN based one did a double MAN-AGP and I remember an overnight delay on the AGP-MAN sector as we arrived to check in just as the first AGP-MAN was taking off.

[WHBM]

Dan-Air had a couple of the early, short ones. Must have been around 1984, when flying Palma to Gatwick, a Dan-Air, one was taxying out at Palma in front of our transfer bus, at a time when they were still a novelty, and commented on. Arriving at Gatwick, there it apparently was on stand. Seemed a pretty low capacity aircraft for such a trunk route. Only much later did I find they were the two separate aircraft, the first was operating a weekend charter to (I think) Teesside, the second was standing between operations from Gatwick on Dan-Air's oddball schedules to Berne etc.

Much later I became a regular on one of this pair, frame number 6, around 1997, which had by then passed to Cityjet and was their first aircraft on London City to Dublin when I was a weekly regular. It had bright orange seats, I don't know if those were the originals. Shortly afterwards it became Bernie Ecclestone's business jet, and turned up at wherever Formula One racing was taking place for many years afterwards, I think based at Biggin Hill.

[Grumpyauldgit]

I have enjoyed reading all the views of the 146. I was a Captain and then training Captain for 8 years on type. It was a very happy and fun time. I was there during the early days of a new operation into Innsbruck and Chambery. We didn't shave going into those places in those days! When the operation first started we had to go down there for real base training with the CAA. Of course there was also the operation into Bern which was also very interesting.
The 146 certainly had its faults. (I had 4 engine failures in 8 years) but whatever people think it was great fun to operate especially on the routes, as mentioned, for which it was perfect. If you want to read more of my time on the 146 and others, it's in my book. " That's fast enough".

[JW411]

That's very interesting. I flew the 146 for 19 years and only had ONE engine failure.

[chevvron]

Dan-Air had a couple of the early, short ones.
I flew in one of those Dan Air aircraft Gatwick - Newcastle - Bergen - Stavanger and return in late 1984. I also flew in one on the Gatwick - Berne run but I'm not sure when.

[OUAQUKGF Ops]

Grumpy - Quote 'If you want to read more of my time on the 146 and others, it's in my book. " That's fast enough".'

Where can I obtain a copy ?

Cheers Tom.

[Grumpyauldgit]

Amazon or Waterstones. Just enter the title. Any problems PM me.

[OUAQUKGF Ops]

Thanks - I've ordered a copy.

[bean]

Grumpy. I remember that you were one of the stars of a book about the 146 circa 1986

[Grumpyauldgit]

Yes! You can't keep a good man down! I still have my copy!!

[Jhieminga]

Amazon or Waterstones. Just enter the title. Any problems PM me.
I guess it's this one: https://amzn.to/3UaFYSu
Did you have anything to do with VC10s perhaps? That would make it easier for me to smuggle it into the house past my better half...;)

[Grumpyauldgit]

I guess it's this one: https://amzn.to/3UaFYSu
Did you have anything to do with VC10s perhaps? That would make it easier for me to smuggle it into the house past my better half...;)
Yes, that's the one. No, I didn't have anything to do with VC10s but I knew a man who flew them. I did a lot of stuff from the HS748 to the 747.​​​​​ Regarding the smuggling problem, I use an empty cardboard box and if anything is said just tell the Missus it's Christmas soon and she shouldn't look.

[dc9-32]

just tell the Missus it's Christmas soon and she shouldn't look.

I use that tactic year round !!

[WHBM]

just tell the Missus it's Christmas soon and she shouldn't look.

I use that tactic year round !!
Much of my library was steadily consigned to the attic, as household size rose from one to two, and then when there's two ... it has a habit of increasing to three, and ...

However, this is, fortunately, the time of year when the aforementioned Christmas decorations have to be extracted from the selfsame attic. Which is a chance to rediscover things, possibly at length.

"Taking a long time up there, you OK ?"
"Just moving some things around here ... um ... er ... making space for the garden furniture over the winter, you know".
"Not reading those old aeroplane books, are you ?"
"Oh NO dear ...".

[Fishtailed]

"Taking a long time up there, you OK ?"
"Just moving some things around here ... um ... er ... making space for the garden furniture over the winter, you know".
"Not reading those old aeroplane books, are you ?"
"Oh NO dear ...".

Brilliant!!!

[Jhieminga]

Regarding the smuggling problem, I use an empty cardboard box and if anything is said just tell the Missus it's Christmas soon and she shouldn't look.
She's starting to get suspicious.... just carried box no.14 inside. The only Christmas prezzie I could think of is a new tube of toothpaste, do you think she'll notice?

[Grumpyauldgit]

She's starting to get suspicious.... just carried box no.14 inside. The only Christmas prezzie I could think of is a new tube of toothpaste, do you think she'll notice?

I doubt it. 14 is a fairly unnoticeable amount at Christmas. Just don't mix up the toothpaste with the haemorrhoid cream.

[RezaShah]

Guys I'm looking for Avro 146 RJ FCOM V4 (4A & 4B) pdf which is the differences between RJ and BAe. Does any one of you guys have that? If so I'd appreciate with best regards 🙏🏻