Happy birthday 146
All three-engine ferry take-offs are, by definition, outwith Perf A. Therefore there is no V1 but it is to all practical purposes replaced by VR. In other words if another engine fails before VR then any sensible person will stay glued to the earth and after VR will continue to fly.
Three-engine ferry take-offs in the BAe 146 are a piece of p*ss.
I loved flying it and never allowed it to poison me for I learned how to control the packs.
It's most endearing feature was that it ran out of fuel after about 3½ hours which, after years of long haul, was absolute heaven!
I would love to fly one again.
Three-engine ferry take-offs in the BAe 146 are a piece of p*ss.
I loved flying it and never allowed it to poison me for I learned how to control the packs.
It's most endearing feature was that it ran out of fuel after about 3½ hours which, after years of long haul, was absolute heaven!
I would love to fly one again.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Suffolk
Age: 65
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My most vivid memory of the 146 is the Royal Squadron jet which almost came a cropper at Stansted when it landed on one engine. (It was all over the news, servicing error, no oil seals in the engines). The crew were amazing, so calm. 
Wonder why GB Airways don't get one for the Tangier run? It would seem to be a good replacement for the Viscount they 'lost' (broke) several years ago.
And how about the one HRH nearly wrote off in the Highlands and Islands.
And how about the one HRH nearly wrote off in the Highlands and Islands.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 39N 77W
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twenty-five years? Hrumph Just a Whipper-snapper. The first flight of the 737 was 9 April 1967 39-1/2 years ago.
One shouldn't compare the 146 with the 737 since they were designed for quite different applications. Unfortunately there didn't turn out to be enough places that required the short-field performance of the 146 to make it a winning product.
The 737-100 was also a bad guess, but the -200 was there to save Boeing's hide. The very-first 737 was flown to its final museum home at Boeing Field just three years ago.
One shouldn't compare the 146 with the 737 since they were designed for quite different applications. Unfortunately there didn't turn out to be enough places that required the short-field performance of the 146 to make it a winning product.
The 737-100 was also a bad guess, but the -200 was there to save Boeing's hide. The very-first 737 was flown to its final museum home at Boeing Field just three years ago.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soddit, admittedly it was nearly eight years ago I did the 146 type rating. However, the performance manager (A.S. at the time) did go through the figures with us; you had to be at min weight (from MGL you had barely enough fuel to make it back to LTN) but it would work.
Glad I never had to actually do one though!
Glad I never had to actually do one though!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Crinkley Bottom
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 146 is my current type and I remember being told when converting onto it that what the aircraft lacks in speed and vertical performance is made up by the nice handling characteristics. After a very pleasant year of flying it so far then I could not of summed it up any better! It’s a solid yet forgiving aircraft that shines when operating out of small airfields. It is undoubtedly an old type nowadays but it is still in use since there is no other aircraft in its size that can perform so well in the STOL environment.
It is great fun to hand fly and a greaser in the 146 is not noticing when you have touched down!!!
Someone said to me recently - how many Embraer 135/145s will be around when they are 25 years old? Just highlights the fact that the 146 is one of the few aircraft that is over engineered as opposed to the norm today which is under engineered!
I am led to believe that the airframe life for the 146 is 50,000 cycles and some of the early airframes will be approaching this limit. The life extension program will probably cost more than the airframe so many will probably 'die' when they reach that limit. Also the B-RNAV to P-RNAV mod for the 146 is costly (think Atlantic in Faroe have modded one so far?) and that could put the writing on the wall for some airframes.
The RJ will be around for a bit longer but I look forward to many more happy hours in the 146 while it is still around before I do my RJ differences course!!
It is great fun to hand fly and a greaser in the 146 is not noticing when you have touched down!!!
Someone said to me recently - how many Embraer 135/145s will be around when they are 25 years old? Just highlights the fact that the 146 is one of the few aircraft that is over engineered as opposed to the norm today which is under engineered!
I am led to believe that the airframe life for the 146 is 50,000 cycles and some of the early airframes will be approaching this limit. The life extension program will probably cost more than the airframe so many will probably 'die' when they reach that limit. Also the B-RNAV to P-RNAV mod for the 146 is costly (think Atlantic in Faroe have modded one so far?) and that could put the writing on the wall for some airframes.
The RJ will be around for a bit longer but I look forward to many more happy hours in the 146 while it is still around before I do my RJ differences course!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Donegal, Ireland
Age: 70
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must be living on a different plane of existence to most of you guys n' gals...the 146 was - as stated by the President of United Airlines ' a thoroughly unsatisfactory aircraft'.
It completely ruined Air UK's ability to make its prime LGW-EDI/GLA routes work due to its shocking reliability; although pax liked it for its 'whisperjet' status and Britishness, in reality it quickly became unpopular with regulars due to its internal noise, cramped cabin layout and unreliability. One year, Air UK Engineering had to deal with 127 unscheduled engine changes!!
As I understand it (and no doubt I may be corrected!) its engine was originally designed for a military helicopter - thereby making it totally unsuited for commercial commuter work.
Pilots may love (some) of its flying characteristics, but an airliner is only a decent airliner when it flies passengers - you know, paying customers - from A to B on time and in comfort...
Another 25 years?? Another 25 weeks maybe - I presume Flybe/BE/JEA are on the point of getting shot of theirs (to an enormous sigh of relief...)
It completely ruined Air UK's ability to make its prime LGW-EDI/GLA routes work due to its shocking reliability; although pax liked it for its 'whisperjet' status and Britishness, in reality it quickly became unpopular with regulars due to its internal noise, cramped cabin layout and unreliability. One year, Air UK Engineering had to deal with 127 unscheduled engine changes!!
As I understand it (and no doubt I may be corrected!) its engine was originally designed for a military helicopter - thereby making it totally unsuited for commercial commuter work.
Pilots may love (some) of its flying characteristics, but an airliner is only a decent airliner when it flies passengers - you know, paying customers - from A to B on time and in comfort...
Another 25 years?? Another 25 weeks maybe - I presume Flybe/BE/JEA are on the point of getting shot of theirs (to an enormous sigh of relief...)
Last edited by oldlag53; 4th Sep 2006 at 09:15.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Turkey
Age: 82
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It completely ruined Air UK's ability to make its prime LGW-EDI/GLA routes work due to its shocking reliability; although pax liked it for its 'whisperjet' status and Britishness, in reality it quickly became unpopular with regulars due to its internal noise, cramped cabin layout and unreliability. One year, Air UK Engineering had to deal with 127 unscheduled engine changes!!
Perhaps you should blame Air UK, not the aircraft. I remember my last company hiring one Air UK 146 pilot who wanted out because of their 'shoddy flying procedures and engineering practices' (his quote, not mine). He went on to fly happily on type with us for many years.
We operated a large fleet and found it to be a superb workhorse with very acceptable reliability.
In about 6000 hours on type I never had an unscheduled shutdown; only one engine replacement after it ingested several seagulls - I hadn't noticed any adverse engine indications, but certainly noticed the other 15 birds that hit the airframe (without damage).
I never experienced air-conditioning 'fumes' that other posters have mentioned because I was taught, and subsequently taught others, how to use the packs and APU correctly.
I've got absolutely nothing against Boeings but the 146 and 737 should not be compared; they fulfil different requirements. I don't ever remember getting in any other aircraft's way because of the 146's 'inferior' performance, but do remember a few occasions, when operating 'slickly', wishing that the 737 in front would get a move on - but never had the bad manners to say so as some pilots do these days.
I always felt secure, as I had previously flying the BAC1-11, operating a good old British brick-built s***house. Sadly, thanks to cr** governments past and present and crass BAe management, there won't be more like those.
It was, of course, a real drag on the 'long-haul' IST-LGG and similar, but that was not what it was designed for - if operated on short sectors at its optimum levels it had adequate performance.
I've retired now, but have very fond memories of the 146. It was an excellent first jet for the hundreds of pilots I've trained on it, and it was forgiving enough to let first commands 'find their feet' in it without too many sleepless nights for me.
Happy Birthday 146, if they'd let me I'd probably be happy to fly you for another 25 years (but not night freighters).
regards,
rts
Last edited by rodthesod; 4th Sep 2006 at 13:25. Reason: edited to correct hours and typo
Old Lag. Quite right the ALF 502 was a derivation of an helicopter engine. As I have stated previously these were the weak link on the Limey Liner. PSA found the gearbox, which I believe Avco specifically built to turn the engine into the 504, was not built to the finest of tolerances and consequently made more metal than thrust!!! Think at one stage they were rebuilding the gearbox after about 300 hours.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A place with no name
Age: 46
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well my experience with the 146 is recovery from windshear. I do know of one which on early initiated recovery from windshear the plan sunk INTO tress, flew through some and popped out the other side!
The recovery was attributed to mainly the crew but they did say that the quick spool up time of the engines was a main factor in the recovery.
Slow but sturdy is this fine machine!
Trees = 0 BAe 146 = 3
The recovery was attributed to mainly the crew but they did say that the quick spool up time of the engines was a main factor in the recovery.
Slow but sturdy is this fine machine!
Trees = 0 BAe 146 = 3
There is a low key ceremony at Cranfield, the home of E3001 (ex E1001) this weekend.
"Peter Sedgwick and Mike Goodfellow in the flight deck of E1001"
Also on the flight where Roger de Mercado and Ron Hammond, the flight test engineers, who where sat in the back.
DC
"Peter Sedgwick and Mike Goodfellow in the flight deck of E1001"
Also on the flight where Roger de Mercado and Ron Hammond, the flight test engineers, who where sat in the back.
DC
Thought you might like to see this earlier photo of Roger, taken when he was involved with Trident test flights. I knew him in the 60s, when he was OC the WGC ATC Sqn.
Thread Starter
Wow. What a picture.
I believe that I can name 4 of the 6 people in the picture. Any help in confirming the others and whether I've got the 4 correct would be helpful.
From left to right:
Bill Gill; UNK; John Cunningham; UNK; Roger de Mercado; John Johnstone
I believe that I can name 4 of the 6 people in the picture. Any help in confirming the others and whether I've got the 4 correct would be helpful.
From left to right:
Bill Gill; UNK; John Cunningham; UNK; Roger de Mercado; John Johnstone
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I can add more to the picture. It must have been taken on a Saturday! Dress code you see. Lounge suits on weekdays and one didn't fly on Sundays!
Seriously, I got a rollocking from my Chief Test Pilot for turning out to fly in a sports jacket and flannels on a Saturday when lounge suits were a requirement for pilots at the manufacturers for whom I flew. Never found out who snitched on me but obviously dress code was a bit tighter around the River Severn!
As far as the 146 goes, what a little gem, which was let down by its engines. It was originally advertised that these four engines had fewer (moving?) parts than two JT8s and would therefore be that much more economical. Unfortunatley, the maintenance costs turned out to be nearly the same per ENGINE, therefore the projected saving was unavailable and engine maintenance costs per aircraft were much higher than forecast. The engine manufacturer never seemed to want to develop the engine to anywhere near the original maintenance guarantees. Eventually, but too late, this engine and its derivatives were ditched. Fuel consumption was, however, 8% better from 4 ALFs than 2 JT8s on comparable seat/miles as far as I remember the figures. Contrary to some posts, a three-engined take-off was a doddle. No V1 as has been said and max 10 kts XWC. With no payload, it was airborne in no time. Nobody has mentioned the very nice flightdeck - a very pleasant place to savour the delightful flying qualities.
Seriously, I got a rollocking from my Chief Test Pilot for turning out to fly in a sports jacket and flannels on a Saturday when lounge suits were a requirement for pilots at the manufacturers for whom I flew. Never found out who snitched on me but obviously dress code was a bit tighter around the River Severn!
As far as the 146 goes, what a little gem, which was let down by its engines. It was originally advertised that these four engines had fewer (moving?) parts than two JT8s and would therefore be that much more economical. Unfortunatley, the maintenance costs turned out to be nearly the same per ENGINE, therefore the projected saving was unavailable and engine maintenance costs per aircraft were much higher than forecast. The engine manufacturer never seemed to want to develop the engine to anywhere near the original maintenance guarantees. Eventually, but too late, this engine and its derivatives were ditched. Fuel consumption was, however, 8% better from 4 ALFs than 2 JT8s on comparable seat/miles as far as I remember the figures. Contrary to some posts, a three-engined take-off was a doddle. No V1 as has been said and max 10 kts XWC. With no payload, it was airborne in no time. Nobody has mentioned the very nice flightdeck - a very pleasant place to savour the delightful flying qualities.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polly's Pedigree
146 was schemed in 1971 in the context of (DH)HSAL's China Trident contact. Lousy Russian experience caused CAAC to serve Lhasa,Tibet only with more-than-2 engines, which why T55 choppermotor was chosen, absent anything else. HS Board chose not to find their 50% of R&D, net of Govt Launch Aid, so it was shelved in 1974. PM Callaghan found himself in 1978 trying to employ BAe., which had not-a-lot on. 50% Launch Aid was again granted (we taxpayers were also paying the other 50%, as we owned BAe.). Launch expense was shared by putting the back end into SAAB, wing plus engines into AVCO. What was not done was to update systems and re-compete rotables. China did take 10, believed at the time to be a sweetener for HKG/1997 negotiations.
Later, privatised BAe. sketched twins - CFM-56 146NRA and BR700 RJX(original version) - but could not make the numbers work.
Later, privatised BAe. sketched twins - CFM-56 146NRA and BR700 RJX(original version) - but could not make the numbers work.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all, i Work in Oz and I just love the 146's.
Amazing piece of work they are. Ok, they're us sometimes, but they're great for up north in the hot minesite runways.
And yes, you cant compare it to a 737.
Pity the RJX project didn't continue, would have been pretty cool to see them in Oz.
Amazing piece of work they are. Ok, they're us sometimes, but they're great for up north in the hot minesite runways.
And yes, you cant compare it to a 737.
Pity the RJX project didn't continue, would have been pretty cool to see them in Oz.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember flying a 146 at FL240 and M0.70 whilst a B737 was above us at FL360 and M0.76. The TAS in both cases was about 430kts and the fuel flows were the same.
The best bit, if we'd shut an engine down then we could still maintain our cruising level (ie. FL240) AND continue to our destination.
The best bit, if we'd shut an engine down then we could still maintain our cruising level (ie. FL240) AND continue to our destination.