British built Airliners. How many still flying?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can an RJX be classed as an airliner when it never flew for an airline nor with any revenue pax or cargo?
Would you say that the Lightning was not a fighter because it never shot anything down?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you say that the Lightning was not a fighter because it never shot anything down?
With armaments like that I'd suggest that it was a fighter, now show me an RJX in front line service with fare paying punters on board?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Built, designed and tested to be an airliner. It makes no difference that it never entered revenue service. It's an airliner. End of.
The last out of Woodford was actually the BAe-146-301 ARA in 2004. Admittedly that airframe had several previous lives, but it's British built and still working.
Also an interesting debating point about whether it's an airliner or not mind you.
Also an interesting debating point about whether it's an airliner or not mind you.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJX not an airliner? I guess Jersey European and Druk who had some orders for it would disappointed to find out that it wasn't an airliner.
So, by this reckoning, the A350 is not an airliner yet as it hasn't entered revenue service. Really
I would say that G-LUXE is not an airliner though. Not in its current guise. Prior to being the met aeroplane it could be classed as a prototype airliner. It was never meant to enter revenue service. The first two RJXs were built with a mind to re-sell once the development was finished. It was not to be though.
So, by this reckoning, the A350 is not an airliner yet as it hasn't entered revenue service. Really
I would say that G-LUXE is not an airliner though. Not in its current guise. Prior to being the met aeroplane it could be classed as a prototype airliner. It was never meant to enter revenue service. The first two RJXs were built with a mind to re-sell once the development was finished. It was not to be though.
Jersey took the money willingly.
In all truth, just like the RJ is not THAT different to the 146, using broadly the same tooling, the RJX was not THAT different to the RJ. Just different (and not UK) engines.
When it gets to UK content, I think any Airbus widebody with Rolls engines has way more UK aerospace content in terms of man-hours and value than an RJX. In fact, the UK may be the lead nation contributing to the value of these Airbus widebodies, more value than France or Germany. What was that about aircraft final assembly - 10% of the value and 90% of the problems ?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all truth, just like the RJ is not THAT different to the 146, using broadly the same tooling, the RJX was not THAT different to the RJ. Just different (and not UK) engines.
The 146/RJ/RJX suffered from the same thing as many British projects. A lack of forward planning and lack of decent investment. If BAe had built the planned RJX from the mid 1990s it could have transformed the industry but there was no will-power in the industry to take that risk.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That looks remarkably like an Embraer!
I heard that BAe cancelled the RJX (using the 9/11 related downturn as an excuse) because they realised there was more money to be had on military contracts than the tougher civil market.
I heard that BAe cancelled the RJX (using the 9/11 related downturn as an excuse) because they realised there was more money to be had on military contracts than the tougher civil market.
I would say that G-LUXE is not an airliner though. Not in its current guise. Prior to being the met aeroplane it could be classed as a prototype airliner. It was never meant to enter revenue service. The first two RJXs were built with a mind to re-sell once the development was finished. It was not to be though
What's left of one of the two RJ-X airframes is still parked up at Prestwick next to the BAeS HQ that moved up there after the closure of Woodford. It was mooted at one point to be the airframe for the ARA, but in the end they went for the old 146 prototype airframe: in retrospect probably the wrong decision as the ARA was a couple of years late anyhow, and the RJ-X would have been the more capable aircraft.
BAeS now are doing a slow conversion of second hand 146s into either the military 146M or a water bomber variant. It's all managed from Prestwick, although I'm not sure where all the actual work is being done. They've also just converted a couple of RJs for test pilot training at ETPS.
G
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the RJX/ARA being spoken about around the time ARA was started but the RJX never got a type certificate and support for what became a unique airframe would have been difficult. What would have been much more realistic would have been to make the ARA from one of the last RJ100 airframes.
Having spent so much time in G-LUXE, it's nice to see it being used fruitfully and the whole reason for BAe's proposal to FAAM in the late 1990s was to use airframe; otherwise it was being scrapped.
Having spent so much time in G-LUXE, it's nice to see it being used fruitfully and the whole reason for BAe's proposal to FAAM in the late 1990s was to use airframe; otherwise it was being scrapped.
BAeS now are doing a slow conversion of second hand 146s into either the military 146M or a water bomber variant. It's all managed from Prestwick, although I'm not sure where all the actual work is being done. They've also just converted a couple of RJs for test pilot training at ETPS.
G
As for the fire bomber, take your choice of Field Aviation Toronto, Neptune Aviation, Tronos Aviation or Minden Air Corporation.
Last edited by Newforest2; 29th Nov 2013 at 19:28.
I remember the RJX/ARA being spoken about around the time ARA was started but the RJX never got a type certificate and support for what became a unique airframe would have been difficult. What would have been much more realistic would have been to make the ARA from one of the last RJ100 airframes.
Having spent so much time in G-LUXE, it's nice to see it being used fruitfully and the whole reason for BAe's proposal to FAAM in the late 1990s was to use airframe; otherwise it was being scrapped.
Having spent so much time in G-LUXE, it's nice to see it being used fruitfully and the whole reason for BAe's proposal to FAAM in the late 1990s was to use airframe; otherwise it was being scrapped.
G
Gengis et al, the subtle distinction is in the certification status. RJX was only a test aircraft, G-LUXE was at best a special category, and as FAAM, perhaps only certificated for aerial work.
The one which got away was the twin 146-100 (246? With 2 Roller engines). With hindsight it should have fared as well if not better than the RJ, in particular being more attractive for cheaper Chinese manufacture.
However, the long term marketing view required more speed, which required sweepback, which required powered elevators, which required money, which required French participation (ATR / AIR), which wasn’t what the French required. Thus the low-wing-twin project evaluation, but ATR wanted to stay with turboprops, BAE didn’t, and the down-hill spiral.
Thus the demise of the British-built airliner was due the lack of ‘sweepback’, and many, many more interwoven aspects,
And … ‘any real benefit in using the old 3001 airframe’; 1001 actually, and because it was cheap and could not economically be certificated as an airliner; similar to 2008.
The one which got away was the twin 146-100 (246? With 2 Roller engines). With hindsight it should have fared as well if not better than the RJ, in particular being more attractive for cheaper Chinese manufacture.
However, the long term marketing view required more speed, which required sweepback, which required powered elevators, which required money, which required French participation (ATR / AIR), which wasn’t what the French required. Thus the low-wing-twin project evaluation, but ATR wanted to stay with turboprops, BAE didn’t, and the down-hill spiral.
Thus the demise of the British-built airliner was due the lack of ‘sweepback’, and many, many more interwoven aspects,
And … ‘any real benefit in using the old 3001 airframe’; 1001 actually, and because it was cheap and could not economically be certificated as an airliner; similar to 2008.
Quote
The one which got away was the twin 146-100 (246? With 2 Roller engines). With hindsight it should have fared as well if not better than the RJ, in particular being more attractive for cheaper Chinese manufacture.
However, the long term marketing view required more speed, which required sweepback, which required powered elevators, which required money, which required French participation (ATR / AIR), which wasn’t what the French required. Thus the low-wing-twin project evaluation, but ATR wanted to stay with turboprops, BAE didn’t, and the down-hill spiral.
a) I presume, like Arfur Daly, when you write Roller you mean a product of the Derby cranemaker Royce! At Hatfield we had a Chief Exec., formerly a test pilot, who was convinced we could re-engine a 146 with a couple of RR Tays regardless of the simple facts that the 146 had been closely designed round the four ALF-502s and the feederliner mission. We had to waste a lot of time convincing him.
b) We did do a lot of work on a New Regional Airliner project which was designed from a fresh start, but drew on our company's experience with the 146 and of course with Airbus. It was in many ways the equivalent of a 737 designed thirty years later or a slightly smaller A320. Launching an all-new aeroplane around 1990 would have been a massive financial committment (as Jack Steiner put it, anent the 747 launch, we would have " bet the company") so it didn't happen.
The one which got away was the twin 146-100 (246? With 2 Roller engines). With hindsight it should have fared as well if not better than the RJ, in particular being more attractive for cheaper Chinese manufacture.
However, the long term marketing view required more speed, which required sweepback, which required powered elevators, which required money, which required French participation (ATR / AIR), which wasn’t what the French required. Thus the low-wing-twin project evaluation, but ATR wanted to stay with turboprops, BAE didn’t, and the down-hill spiral.
a) I presume, like Arfur Daly, when you write Roller you mean a product of the Derby cranemaker Royce! At Hatfield we had a Chief Exec., formerly a test pilot, who was convinced we could re-engine a 146 with a couple of RR Tays regardless of the simple facts that the 146 had been closely designed round the four ALF-502s and the feederliner mission. We had to waste a lot of time convincing him.
b) We did do a lot of work on a New Regional Airliner project which was designed from a fresh start, but drew on our company's experience with the 146 and of course with Airbus. It was in many ways the equivalent of a 737 designed thirty years later or a slightly smaller A320. Launching an all-new aeroplane around 1990 would have been a massive financial committment (as Jack Steiner put it, anent the 747 launch, we would have " bet the company") so it didn't happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148
Over the last 20 years of its development (similar to the RJ twin period being discussed here) they have managed to get 21 of them into service, not a very auspicious market.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was this one that should have been built. A massive investment would have been required though.
0.8MMO, FBW, I think CFM56 engines.
Oh well, what might have been.
0.8MMO, FBW, I think CFM56 engines.
Oh well, what might have been.