Happy birthday 146
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flase Capture,
But the 737 was carrying about 50-80 more pax, cost less to maintain and was far less likely to suffer a donkey (or any other sort of) failure. And therein lies the 146's problems.
But the 737 was carrying about 50-80 more pax, cost less to maintain and was far less likely to suffer a donkey (or any other sort of) failure. And therein lies the 146's problems.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Crinkley Bottom
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However if you took like for like then would there still be a big difference in costs? The 737-300 was rolled out a couple of years after the 146, however it could be argued that the 146 really dates back to when the 737-200 was on the go. The 737-200 started off life in the 1960s and it was in the early 1970s when Hawker Siddley announced the HS146 and design work started but was quickly halted due to economic problems. The 146 is really a 70s aircraft that was re-born in the early 80s!
For starters there are not many 737-200s around nowadays which says something but it would be interesting to match maintenance costs between the 737-200 and the 146 - anyone with any figures? To make a cost comparison between the 737 Classic never mind the NG and the 146 is not fair since the two types date from two different eras! With anything in life you will only get a good comparison if you compare 'like with like'
The 146 is designed for short field ops and not for operating between large international airports. For what it was designed for then it does the job very well.
It is slow nowadays but there is probably not a great deal to shout about since over a trip time of three or so hours, then you might of travelled an extra 150nm or so in a 737 or A320 so the 146 does hold its ground fairly well.
Fumes can be a problem but if you handle the APU and Packs correctly you can minimise the likelihood of any incidents occurring. It seems to be a problem, which is linked to APU bleed air rather than Engine bleed air although there are some cases of the former. The B757 and the E145 are two other types that seem to suffer from contaminated air events and some B757 drivers will have you believe that their type is potentially the worst offender!
Next time you are at an airport and look outside at the apron. Look and see how many aircraft you can spot that were potentially built in the early 80s and the 146 will probably be one of the few types that still exist. Nuff said!
For starters there are not many 737-200s around nowadays which says something but it would be interesting to match maintenance costs between the 737-200 and the 146 - anyone with any figures? To make a cost comparison between the 737 Classic never mind the NG and the 146 is not fair since the two types date from two different eras! With anything in life you will only get a good comparison if you compare 'like with like'
The 146 is designed for short field ops and not for operating between large international airports. For what it was designed for then it does the job very well.
It is slow nowadays but there is probably not a great deal to shout about since over a trip time of three or so hours, then you might of travelled an extra 150nm or so in a 737 or A320 so the 146 does hold its ground fairly well.
Fumes can be a problem but if you handle the APU and Packs correctly you can minimise the likelihood of any incidents occurring. It seems to be a problem, which is linked to APU bleed air rather than Engine bleed air although there are some cases of the former. The B757 and the E145 are two other types that seem to suffer from contaminated air events and some B757 drivers will have you believe that their type is potentially the worst offender!
Next time you are at an airport and look outside at the apron. Look and see how many aircraft you can spot that were potentially built in the early 80s and the 146 will probably be one of the few types that still exist. Nuff said!
"Still a few around......."
Last year's Flight airliner census had about 140 still around.
I think quite a lot will get parked now the CSeries is entering service.
They still keep me employed when I want a few extra quid though.
Last year's Flight airliner census had about 140 still around.
I think quite a lot will get parked now the CSeries is entering service.
They still keep me employed when I want a few extra quid though.
Paxing All Over The World
I recall my first 146. in December 1987 G-MIMA started for Manx and I was onboard (by sheer chance) on it's first revenue rotation from LHR. It was midday with the formal launch for the evening rotation.
It replaced the Viscounts and was great. I have always enjoyed the various iterations and will be on one again later in the year in South Africa (SA Airlink).
The aircraft was years late due to the above causes but it was a real groundbreaker. Then came Bombardier in 1991(?) and Embraer in 1995(?) who provided 1990s competition against a 1980s machine. Naturally, designs, materials and engines had all changed radically. The market for RJ sized engines must have been tiny. But now, through 146/EMB/BOM and others, it's a huge market. Also, what about the seating capacity of their competitors against the RJ?
As so often, the Brits were in the right place at the right time and then international crisis and politics grounded them.
(I sit to be corrected)
It replaced the Viscounts and was great. I have always enjoyed the various iterations and will be on one again later in the year in South Africa (SA Airlink).
The aircraft was years late due to the above causes but it was a real groundbreaker. Then came Bombardier in 1991(?) and Embraer in 1995(?) who provided 1990s competition against a 1980s machine. Naturally, designs, materials and engines had all changed radically. The market for RJ sized engines must have been tiny. But now, through 146/EMB/BOM and others, it's a huge market. Also, what about the seating capacity of their competitors against the RJ?
As so often, the Brits were in the right place at the right time and then international crisis and politics grounded them.
(I sit to be corrected)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And perhaps symbolically a Cello BAe 146-200, G-RAJJ, arrived at Ronaldsway this afternoon.
As a one who has flown many times on G-OJET, G-MIMA, G-MABR, G-MANS, G-GNTZ and G-OINV to/from the island this is a great 35th anniversary celebration. Even if as rumoured it brings Tom Jones to entertain us until the wee hours!
As a one who has flown many times on G-OJET, G-MIMA, G-MABR, G-MANS, G-GNTZ and G-OINV to/from the island this is a great 35th anniversary celebration. Even if as rumoured it brings Tom Jones to entertain us until the wee hours!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoever at BAe Systems persuaded management that, in the light of 9/11, commuter flying was dead should be charged with treason by the UK and given a medal by the Canadians and Brasilians. The memorial to their stupidity is parked in the aviation viewing park at Manchester Airport, just a few miles from its birthplace, now a building site for houses after another stupid decision which sees the UK operating ancient RC-135W Rivet Joints and ordering the Poseidon.
, those Fokkers did for the 146!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not talking about the 146 but its updated successor the RJX and your assertion about the Fokker competition doesn't stand up. If you take the F28, over 90% of the airframes had been delivered before the 146 entered service so was hardly a competitor. The F70 and F100 production totalled 331 and production finished in 1997, four years before the last 146 derivative, the AVRO 75/85/100 left the production line after a combined total of 387 airframes had been produced.
Last edited by philbky; 27th Jul 2016 at 17:26.
I worked at Hatfield on the 146 and can assure you that numerous orders for the 146 were lost to the Fk100.
I too was employed to sell 'em but transferred to the Future Projects department in 1985 (I think it was). One of the tasks we had in FP was to explain to the Chief Exec why fitting a 146 with two Tay engines would not see Fokker off, but would certainly see us off. As the saying goes "if I were you I wouldn't start from here" and the last thing we needed was effort wasted on the pipe dreams of those who, although in charge, didn't understand aeroplane design.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the losses to Fokker or Fokker's losses to BAe, the fact remains that the 146 and its derivatives both outlasted and outsold the F70/100 and it was not done for by Fokker but, in the end was done for by BAe only wanting to sell things that guide and deliver things that go bang. The Brasilians and Canadians owe a lot to BAe.
Paxing All Over The World
Ah yes, I'd forgotten the F-word 
mainly because I've only had about two trips in them. I see that the F100 was in service from 1986 and the smaller 70 in service from '94.
None of which denies that the original concept - before fuel and political crisis' - was the right idea. Engine development wasn't there at the time (for not dissimilar reasons) but 'Regional Jet' is now a firmly established market sector.
mainly because I've only had about two trips in them. I see that the F100 was in service from 1986 and the smaller 70 in service from '94.None of which denies that the original concept - before fuel and political crisis' - was the right idea. Engine development wasn't there at the time (for not dissimilar reasons) but 'Regional Jet' is now a firmly established market sector.
Whatever the losses to Fokker or Fokker's losses to BAe, the fact remains that the 146 and its derivatives both outlasted and outsold the F70/100 and it was not done for by Fokker but, in the end was done for by BAe only wanting to sell things that guide and deliver things that go bang. The Brasilians and Canadians owe a lot to BAe.
During the run-down at Hatfield I was briefly in the Corporate Jets bit and we had an MD who had been with a part of BAe Dynamics and had a tendency to talk of production numbers as "rounds" and wasn't too familiar with reusable machines. Can't recall what happened to him after the sale to Raytheon but he'll have had a future in the BAeSystems with what Barry described as things that go bang.