View Full Version : Regional Jet Replacement

24th Sep 2002, 12:50
Rumour has it the jet replacement for the 146 will be put in the Pulse instead of NJS, the bean counters are at it again.

look out NJS:eek:

Dunno how your user name slipped through, but whilst we tolerate some "colourful" ones yours will not be here. Please try again with something a little more original and clever. W

24th Sep 2002, 13:43
Don't bet on it!

More likely that some of the shorter 146 routes will be taken over by D8-400's. Who will operate them is a bigger question.

146 will stay for a while yet as some routes/ports are not suitable for the 717. But likely that 717 will take over longer routes that are suitable.

EMB170 is only jet contender at the moment. Who might get that is anyones guess. And that is at least 3 years away.

Won tok
24th Sep 2002, 13:55
Hey TurdBurger, are you gay? Stirring the pot?:eek:

24th Sep 2002, 14:32
there is no way the DH4's will take over 146 routes, take your hand off it !

This whole topic is a wind up - where is the moderator !

24th Sep 2002, 17:32
Maybe some newly red aboriginal style painted aircraft will change their names from "resolute" etc and take up old ground.

24th Sep 2002, 22:26
Your choice of name clearly is linked to your I.Q.level.
(And it is spelt burglar ..not..burgular)
Your first , and hopefully, your last post.

25th Sep 2002, 00:27
Hey Turd'
This topic has been pondered many times before and discussed here in this forum by many others but still there has been no commitment to any aircraft type for replacing the 146. Although there has been alleged meetings between NJS/QF and an aircraft manufacturer, even to the point of a proposed contender having painted up the proposed aircraft type and it being seen in a hangar in SYD recently... still we are none the wiser.

Ironically any talk on this topic has only ever been discussed around the same times that we hear of another incident with the 146 or it makes the news, needless to say it has been popular.

Its only a matter of time before the replacement is made public, I would say when and if this does ever happen, alot of people at NJS with fingers crossed to hear something possitive will be relieved!

My money's on the Emb.

25th Sep 2002, 06:43
Ahhh.... turd-nudger.. nice name, I like it.

However I think you should immediately proclaim your raving heterosexuality and stand up for your manhood as your inclinations are definitely a bit dubious.

As for the jets, as we all know, they are looking at retiring the -146s and replacing with Avro RJs on a 1 for 1 basis. That'll keep everyone happy.

As for lusim ding dong, you hit the nail with comments on the relationship between names and IQs, before you even said anything.......

26th Sep 2002, 08:07
I just hope tri-a-dic is female! That being the case it would be an absolute pleasure to speculate on who is suitable for the routes;)

Hugh Jarse
26th Sep 2002, 10:38
Who's in for a bet ? :D:D:D:D:D

Jeez, I love rumours!

My ears are burnin' :p

I'm with stupid
1st Oct 2002, 09:01
SK111, that's obviously the Ford Tickford racing version you refer to, Bombardier themselves reckon it will do 350KTAS @ 95% power and I'll bet that's not at ISA+20 either.

Comparitively the the 146-300 has a " cruise " speed of 430KTAS.

1st Oct 2002, 11:24
Sorry mate you are well and truely wrong.

Only yesterday I was cruising M0.71 at F310 which is above 430 kts and of course the lower you fly down to about F240 the higher the TAS at M0.71.

MMO 0.72 and the 300 will do that happily at around 800TGT which is 57 degrees below max continuous.

Take off weight was 42,000 kg approx
M0.72 @ F310 is around 260 indicated up north. ISA + 20 say.
The 300 will happily make F310 not as quick as a real jet but no problems. Climbing 250-M0.62

1st Oct 2002, 13:19
From the book....

FL220 ISA 28000kg

LRC 292kt
HSC 348 kt

Tho I have seen around 260kts at a lower weight, but higher temp.

Certainly a very flexible a/c and way in front of the 146 on shorter sectors and in the TMA.

Passengers care more about ticket price and reliability than if it has props or not.
:) :)

Capt Claret
2nd Oct 2002, 07:49

Are you referring to an ALF-502 powered 146-300? Because if you're referring to the LF507, as RENURPP says, you're wrong.

I use M0.72 @ 40+ tonne @ ISA +15/20, up to FL310, as required to regain schedule. The schedule integrity having of course been compromised due to late inbound pax, or the like ;) :p

Willie Nelson
2nd Oct 2002, 13:42
I was just looking to see what flash new bit of kit I might get to pole come next hiring time.

Besides, I heard that argument about pax dissatisfaction with props from many angles, what I don't understand is if a company's bottom line would (otherwise) be better off with a new fleet of Q400's for example, why doesn't the marketing department get in on the act.

Look at the attention Virgin Blue attracted by throwing in to their radio advertising not too long back a handfull of words about the "brand new Boeing 737-700 series" along with their latest airfares.

WE all know that there is nothing wrong with a prop-jet, obviously there are routes which are simply not well suited to a jet. Maybe I am being naive but I do believe (for a nominal fee) the travelling public can be educated.

I would be more than happy flying the Q400, if that does turn out to be a possibility. I saw the demonstrator at Avalon in 2000 and I was more than impressed, the Bombardier Quick Time promo disc had me reaching for my wallet, only to find myself; Alas!...one big fat cheque short.

Then again a jet is a jet.

There is nothing quite as useless as a meaningless maxim

Capn Bloggs
2nd Oct 2002, 14:49

Could you please advise what is wrong with loading for an aft C of G, given that it makes the mighty Swinebat (and any other aircraft, for that matter) go better? Did you mob not do that on the deathstars in **absett on a regular basis?

BTW, BAe made 10 146-300/507s: NJ got them because they are a great machine in the center. Which brings me to another point: how's the 2nd segment performance of the super-boat at ASP at 42deg trying to get to Perth when "all ahead on the left only" occurs??!!

And to add to the marketing issue, I tell you what I'd rather be in when it's 45deg below Transition, at 250 indicated, and it's not a straight-winged superglider like a Q400! We'd ALL need sports bras on to keep our boobs from bouncing off our chests!!

Propellers are for boats!
Bring on the big bandit!

2nd Oct 2002, 23:45
For Info Only
Dash 8's do a 2 times profile very nicely which keeps everyone out of the turbulence until the last five minutes(below 10,000ft.) and speed is coming back then anyway for the straight in approach.
Secondly, even a Dash 8-100 will beat any jet to the runway in the last 30nm. Trouble is only the Dash 8 drivers know it and the controllers keep wondering why they have to give the Dash "boats" so many slowing vectors to fall in behind the jet "floaters"!!! Heard one day a Dash driver calling the ground controller after landing and vacating to say "... and we still have the slower preceding jet traffic in sight."

3rd Oct 2002, 00:09
Have to agree with you on the ATC remark. Most are good but there are places in this great country of ours that are so bad it makes you want to never return. I was in Townsville a while back and was appalled at the sequencing. They seriously have no idea. And I'm told if they have more than 3 aircraft in their airspace you can expect major speed reductions from 100 miles+ just so it doesn't happen too quick for them. It's flat out attrocious. Would they be RAAF controllers or Civies?

Dirt Track Cowboy
3rd Oct 2002, 12:35
It has to be said, and understood by all Dash drivers, that jets rule!!!:p :p :cool: :D

I'm gone!
3rd Oct 2002, 13:06
Sure the jets are nice at FL400 and above, but show me one that will hold 270 indicated 'til the outer marker and still land on the airfield let alone the TDZ! And in the defence of the Dash, show me a jet that will haul 36 out of Lord Howe!!! :D :D :D

Hugh Jarse
3rd Oct 2002, 13:12
Sure, when the jet takes off out of YSCB and beats me to YSSY by a minute or 2, then ATC says "can you accept a base turn now?" (while we are at 6000' on downwind and just past the landing threshold, while the "faster" jet is a few more miles ahead of us on downwind).

We then get vectored to a short final.

FLEXIBILITY......I'll take (and it seems ATC) flexibility anyday....

We've shut down and disembarked while the faster jet is still on mid-final.

Sure, jets rule :D:D:D:D:D:D

5th Oct 2002, 00:15

which non jet can maintain 270 kts to the outer marker??:confused:

5th Oct 2002, 00:27
The difference between Jets and Props (dash 8) is money in the pay packet...:(
As for ATC i am sure the ATC guys and gals are able to operate the system better but the Pollies control Syd Airport...:mad:

Chimbu chuckles
5th Oct 2002, 01:50
I'm gone!

F28...except 270's a bit slow isn't it.:D


5th Oct 2002, 02:33
Chuckles, the ship you currently fly will going easy.:p :cool:

Won tok
9th Oct 2002, 02:29

Douglas Mcdonnell
9th Oct 2002, 04:48
Bigger equals more MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Douglas Mcdonnell
9th Oct 2002, 08:16
Come on now Hugh. Wouldn't you rather be above all the wx flying in a nice new jet.

Going Boeing
10th Oct 2002, 00:45
If the points that Jim Thorn raise in his article are correct then it would be very hard to not buy (or lease) more B717's. I still see a need for a smaller aircraft (70 seats) for a number of routes so even though it is undesirable to introduce yet another aircraft type, there will be an order for the Brazilizn sports car.

Clearance Clarance
10th Oct 2002, 11:16
Wow, I didn't realise the 717 had a TAS of 500kts!!! (According to Jim, 70kts faster than a 146) Boeing should have sold thousands of these things.

Jim's a well respected guy, however I would have thought his aircraft knowledge (or basic research) would be of a better standard. He obviously has a bee under his bonnet regarding the 146 all of a sudden! And he doesn't have to fly them!!


I'm with stupid
11th Oct 2002, 05:14
I'm sure passenger preference out of Perth would be the 747, but that just ain't gonna happen to Newman is it ?
The 73 only made around 10 mins on us up to KA, hardly the end of the world . ( and that was at our normal crz speed )

Is'nt ground speed directly related to TAS , given similar alts and same track ??

I wish all you blokes that could do 270 to the OM had been flying in Perth, I used to get sick of slowing down for the boats that were supposedly maintaining best speed to the field.

Near Miss
11th Oct 2002, 06:02
I can remember flying into DN in a boat and not being able to get 11 (only a few knots of d/wind) because a 146 was on a 1000nm final for 29 via HWS. As it was we had to slow up and fly a downwind until GTE. We could have kept Vmo until about 5nm and beat it in by heaps (have actually got to do it once and was shut down when it landed). They cruise ok and probably can fly flat out to the field, but when do they?

As for the Dash.... Sorry HJ, but if you find out that you are number two to a Dash, start slowing up right away, even if they are several miles in front, especially if it is a CW one. But you can not argue with their performance, payload vs TODR vs TAS.

My money is on the 717, especially if they can do what has be writen about them, eg. TODR 1900m at MTOW in + ISA. Can anyone who actually flys them post the normal cruise speed and field length req'd?

Airspeed Ambassador
11th Oct 2002, 07:36
Near Miss,

You are right when you boast that you can hold Vmo till short final in a turboprop. That's because flight idle in a turboprop produces a speed brake that a jet pilot would kill for! Remember, most turboprops and jets are doing about the same speed (250kts) below 10,000. The big difference is that by virtue of their much higher weight, the jet needs more airspace to slow down . The 146, through the big tail mounted airbrake, has some flexibility that many other jets lack, and if desired, can maintain 250kts till about 6-7nm (level flight) but full airbrake/speedbrake in any jet, does not feel that great from a pax viewpoint so its not the desired way of slowing down.

One day you might get to find out what it's like to get caught too close, too fast in a jet that doesn't want to slow down in a hurry. Suddenly you have to put your coffee down and pay full attention!:eek:


Clearance Clarance
11th Oct 2002, 11:46
2 daddies,

I read the article again, and still come to the conclusion he says the 717 cruises 70kts faster than the 146. Nowhere does he mention groundspeed. A 146 at F310 will have the same/similar wind component in any case.

I also had a laugh at the comments regarding the 717 cruising at roughly the same speed (Mach .76) as the new 737-800 and the 767-300!

763 drivers must feel insulted about that one!
.76 is even below Econ Cruise for an NG.

They can write what they want, they do anyway, but my point still stands that aviation writers, in an aviation publication, should either know what they are talking about - or at least do a bit of research. I am a subscriber to AA and overall very happy with the magazine.

Sir Topham Hatt
11th Oct 2002, 15:37

"Suddenly you have to put your coffee down and pay full attention!"

and did you use to do that in the cheifton?:p

Airspeed Ambassador
12th Oct 2002, 00:05

Definitely not! Anyone who knows the Chieftain, knows you must slow down slowly into the circuit unless you want to destroy a couple of turbochargers (Boss man not happy). Plus no lovely FA's to deliver hot beverages!:p


I'm with stupid
12th Oct 2002, 03:17
Near miss, I think alot of it comes down to the driver and their knowledge/confidence with their aircraft, also I have found a major factor to be some peoples interpretation of slight, moderate and severe turbulence, ie;have heard guys slowing down for " moderate " turbulence only to find out it was a little light chop.

Near Miss
12th Oct 2002, 07:53
Actually Airspeed Ambassador I have had the pleasure of finding myself a little too fast in a jet coming into land. :o Had to go flight idle and put out the boards to get her down to gear speed. I hate it went I'm half asleep and ATC turn you in a bit (10 track miles) earlier than normal. Oh well, we all want track shortening. :D But at the same time I have also had the pleasure of doing greater than 300 IAS turning base. And before any of you start with the 250 below 10 thing, read it closely, for I was IFR, in Class C, and not at either SY or ML. I was just having a little dig at the 146.

Turboprop vs Jet. I have flown both and think that they each have their advantages. We all know which the well informed pax want, but you can't run a 744 CB to SY 15 times a day. Nor can you run a B1900 SY to PH either. The question here is which one is the best for the job that QFL are going to ask of it? I would still like to get some actual normal (not "I'm giving it all I can Captain") cruise speeds, levels, TODR (at say ISA + 15 to 20) at MTOW, range, and the like for the 717, Dash 8 and 146/RJX, just to compare.

I'm with stupid totally agree. I think a lot more should be taught about what is what, not just with turbulence, but with runway condition and braking, etc.

12th Oct 2002, 09:09
Near Miss,

I can give you rough figures on the 146. I mainly fly the 300 series, therefore i will give you those figures.

87 pax.
payload 10,600kg i.e. crew and catering etc already taken into account.
cruise speed, well that varies. Say from M.62 approx 380 kts up to M.72 around 450 kts.
Range around 1500nm.
With max payload around 1350nm
Don't have the appropriate paperwork with me but we can depart Gove which is 2050mts TORA so some where around 2000 mts.
The above figures vary slightly but would be close for all altitudes between approx F240-F310.

Rough but pretty close.

Won tok
13th Oct 2002, 13:34
2daddies, I too thought that GS was directly related to TAS!! I guess I cant win them all. Typical 717 CRZ speed using the company standard FMS cost index is M0.79.

13th Oct 2002, 22:02
You guys are right, of course. I was thinking IAS.

Doh. :rolleyes:

Having said that, using my usually (?) trusty whiz-wheel I calculate that M0.79 at FL350 on an ISA day equates to a TAS of 445, while M0.72 on the same day at FL310 (can the 146 get to 350?) is 410 knots.

Certainly not a 70 knot difference, but 35 is still fairly big.

Also, how long does it take for a 146 to get to Top of Climb? I'd be happy to guess that it takes a good deal longer than it does for a 717 and perhaps that might then increase the average TAS difference between the two on a given sector.

Have I dug an even bigger hole for myself, or will someone agree with me this time?!? :D

Douglas Mcdonnell
14th Oct 2002, 00:26
Those figures are reasonably close 2dadds. Also, you dont need a can of airfreshener when flying the 717. Best of luck to those who are currently on the fumeagator!

Won tok
14th Oct 2002, 04:52
2daddies, open cut mining can be tough!! Remember, use TAT on that whiz wheel ie. not OAT. Anyways around 470-480kts TAS is typical. Cheers;)

16th Oct 2002, 01:58
As a quick & rough rule just is multiply yer M# by 6 to get TAS. Use 38.94xSqroot of the temp in Kelvin to calculate LSS then LSSxM#=TAS.

Dirt Track Cowboy
16th Oct 2002, 07:45
Does anybody know where the turdburglar is????