Lots of BAE 146 in a boneyard - shocking
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vick
The RJs are offered at very competitive lease rates: the killer comes in he maintenance and the other DOCs. Unless the type is being subsidised e.g by long haul operation, it is not feasible to operate and make a profit.
The F100 on the other hand has higher lease rates but lower DOCs and maintenance costs: it flies faster and higher and has very similar short field performance to the 146.
Both of these aircraft are ideal for competing against turboprops: take them beyond 1 hour block time into long runways and you come up against serious seat/mile costs compared to the 737 and A320.
The RJs are offered at very competitive lease rates: the killer comes in he maintenance and the other DOCs. Unless the type is being subsidised e.g by long haul operation, it is not feasible to operate and make a profit.
The F100 on the other hand has higher lease rates but lower DOCs and maintenance costs: it flies faster and higher and has very similar short field performance to the 146.
Both of these aircraft are ideal for competing against turboprops: take them beyond 1 hour block time into long runways and you come up against serious seat/mile costs compared to the 737 and A320.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 100 Group Country
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RSS
I understand what your saying and to some extent I agree with you.
However from a base maintenance point of view there aint a lot in it cost wise between the F100 and ARJ. Spares for the Fokker tend to be more expensive for the Fokker too.
Short field performance on the F100 similar to the 146? Hmmm maybe the F70 but not the 100.
I understand what your saying and to some extent I agree with you.
However from a base maintenance point of view there aint a lot in it cost wise between the F100 and ARJ. Spares for the Fokker tend to be more expensive for the Fokker too.
Short field performance on the F100 similar to the 146? Hmmm maybe the F70 but not the 100.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, great toy. Delight to fly, strong as hell, but why, oh why four engines?
Just look at the latest offering from Russia. Unashamed copy of the 146 with, guess what, just two engines! Guess who will clean up here?
Talk about a missed opportunity.
Just look at the latest offering from Russia. Unashamed copy of the 146 with, guess what, just two engines! Guess who will clean up here?
Talk about a missed opportunity.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why four engines?
I believe the original concept came from Handley Page, when the UK still had several aircraft manufacturers, and they thought, in those long ago days, that four engines would be needed to get it off the ground. Then they waited until Avro, who inherited the design, found four with enough power and finally built it.
I never understood why they didn't spend a few (thousand? million?)pounds on redesigning the innards of the wing to take the loads at one set of points rather than two.
I never understood why they didn't spend a few (thousand? million?)pounds on redesigning the innards of the wing to take the loads at one set of points rather than two.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it may be confusion with the Jetstream (HP Radlett with 2 donks)compounded by some bright bugger renaming the ATP (HSA Woodford with 2 donks) "Jetstream" when support moved over the Border.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Warrington
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why 4 engines ?
I thought I'd read somewhere that the the original concept was that this plane could visit places (say in deepest Africa) with no ground support whatsoever, and in the event of an engine problem could ferry back to civilisation (no passengers) on three engines. When the project was ressurected, the economics of the time didn't warrant a re-design.
Regards,
Graham
Regards,
Graham
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G2400:obscure places: China, specifically high Lhasa, where CAAC's experience was that more than 2 engines would be good, but runway was short, so no Tu.104. Trident, sold to CAAC in 1969, was seen by them as too big for Tibet traffic, but seen by UK Govt/HSAL as an opening for UK to clean up while US excluded itself from China business. 146 initiated 1971. In Feb.1972 Nixon visited Mao; Avco Lycoming had an Aerostructures business, and a turboshaft which might drive a compressor fan as a thrust engine in a 4-config. So, T56/ALF502 +Avco-supplied, HS-designed wing, making all the people happy. But Nixon let Boeing sell 10 707-320B, so China lost interest in 146. On hold.
In 1977 Callaghan became proud owner of empty Hatfield, so scratched around to employ it. He threw Launch Aid at retread 146, bid to nationalised BA's 1-11/500 replacement. Silly man. BA don't do British, but took 737-200ADV on an innovative "walkaway" lease. Project drifted on vaguely, surviving change of Govt. in 1979, and then 1981 part-privatisation of BAe. because the alternative would have been to remove Hatfield from the "assets" on offer to investors, and from the Wing Centre of Excellence notion justifying UK's privilege in A310 workshare. A twin-version was sketched, but any Govt. Launch Aid would have cannibalised our Aid to Shorts to do F70/100 wing.
In 1977 Callaghan became proud owner of empty Hatfield, so scratched around to employ it. He threw Launch Aid at retread 146, bid to nationalised BA's 1-11/500 replacement. Silly man. BA don't do British, but took 737-200ADV on an innovative "walkaway" lease. Project drifted on vaguely, surviving change of Govt. in 1979, and then 1981 part-privatisation of BAe. because the alternative would have been to remove Hatfield from the "assets" on offer to investors, and from the Wing Centre of Excellence notion justifying UK's privilege in A310 workshare. A twin-version was sketched, but any Govt. Launch Aid would have cannibalised our Aid to Shorts to do F70/100 wing.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA are not a charity and suffered enough heartache with much of the UK produced junk that we were forced to purchase to prop up an industry going nowhere fast. However, we have now been flying 146/RJ's for the last 15+ years and will continue to do so for sometime to come.
The a/c fails to fit into the present requiments for most airlines the cabin is not wide enough to comfortably fit 3-3 seats.
The a/c fails to fit into the present requiments for most airlines the cabin is not wide enough to comfortably fit 3-3 seats.
Whatever it's faults, could I put in a vote for the usefulness of the 146s operated by Air UK on the Stansted-Frankfurt route. I suppose anything would have been better than the F-27s they'd dragged out of the Congolese (?) rain forests but the 146s were always on time when I flew with them and quite comfortable for the 1 hour sector. Another "near miss" for the UK industry.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What??????
HZ123 wrote "BA are not a charity and suffered enough heartache with much of the UK produced junk that we were forced to purchase to prop up an industry going nowhere fast"
That's a rather distorted view. BA (through its various "divisions" and associate companies) has only purchased the HS 748, ATP, 146 and Jetstream and the Shorts 330 from the British aircraft industry and I don't recall any of those purchases being "forced" - rather BA et al came late to all the types which had sold in reasonable quantities around the world, the exception in timing and sales being the ATP.
When BA's predecessors were forced to buy British they played a game with the British aircraft industry which all but destroyed it.
BOAC's supposed "needs" added so much weight to the V1000 it died, the VC10 was so close to BOAC's spec for hot and high airfield performance it was useless for trans Atlantic operations which other airlines could have used it for and, by the time the Super VC10 was added to the catalogue, Boeing had mopped up.
BEA managed not to ruin the Viscount but so closely specified the Vanguard only TCA gave it a second glance and the original Trident spec (which Boeing aped perfectly with the 727) was reduced so much in size and power when it flew as the Trident 1 that it took years for the company to admit its errors and specify the Trident 3.
At least BEA had learnt their lesson with the BAC 1-11 500 and pretty much managed not to meddle.
That's a rather distorted view. BA (through its various "divisions" and associate companies) has only purchased the HS 748, ATP, 146 and Jetstream and the Shorts 330 from the British aircraft industry and I don't recall any of those purchases being "forced" - rather BA et al came late to all the types which had sold in reasonable quantities around the world, the exception in timing and sales being the ATP.
When BA's predecessors were forced to buy British they played a game with the British aircraft industry which all but destroyed it.
BOAC's supposed "needs" added so much weight to the V1000 it died, the VC10 was so close to BOAC's spec for hot and high airfield performance it was useless for trans Atlantic operations which other airlines could have used it for and, by the time the Super VC10 was added to the catalogue, Boeing had mopped up.
BEA managed not to ruin the Viscount but so closely specified the Vanguard only TCA gave it a second glance and the original Trident spec (which Boeing aped perfectly with the 727) was reduced so much in size and power when it flew as the Trident 1 that it took years for the company to admit its errors and specify the Trident 3.
At least BEA had learnt their lesson with the BAC 1-11 500 and pretty much managed not to meddle.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus bisporus. There are some mentions of the 4 versus 2 considerations here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/questio...-not-twin.html
http://www.pprune.org/forums/questio...-not-twin.html
Hi all
BAe brochures showed an artist's impression of a 146 with two engines, which looked just like the Kawasaki jet the Japanese Self-Defence Forces used.Over here in the Former State Airline of Ireland, the pilots loved to fly the 14-sick but us mechs hated it (except when it generated overtime).Can anyone confirm the rumour/myth that it had Lancaster bomb shackles as control cable brackets?
regards
TDD
BAe brochures showed an artist's impression of a 146 with two engines, which looked just like the Kawasaki jet the Japanese Self-Defence Forces used.Over here in the Former State Airline of Ireland, the pilots loved to fly the 14-sick but us mechs hated it (except when it generated overtime).Can anyone confirm the rumour/myth that it had Lancaster bomb shackles as control cable brackets?
regards
TDD
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vick Van Guard, do you have any details on the pic that you posted.
That must have been fun to fly, because of lack of thrust from the remaining three
That must have been fun to fly, because of lack of thrust from the remaining three
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I'd read somewhere that the the original concept was that this plane could visit places (say in deepest Africa) with no ground support whatsoever, and in the event of an engine problem could ferry back to civilisation (no passengers) on three engines. When the project was ressurected, the economics of the time didn't warrant a re-design.
Regards,
Graham
Regards,
Graham
At our airline in 86, we had so many engine failures that the company decided to three engine takeoff qual all of us! They realized that all of us would be at an out station and need to ferry it home to the mtc base sooner or later!
The ALF 502's and 503's were so poor, and we had so many engine failures from ops over .72 mach, That we used to say that BAe stood for "Bring Another Engine."