BAE / AVRO 146
Originally Posted by Nuasea
Anyone else read this rather large book about the BAe/RJ 146?
Fighting to Be Heard is a love letter to one of the most over-engineered jet aircraft ever built: the British Aerospace 146. This regional aircraft was truly the beginning of the “RJ” (aka Regional Jet), which has become commonplace in air travel today. Although the 146 was ahead of its time, the program, the company, and the aircraft was plagued with many challenges. As a result, the 146 became the last commercial aircraft to be built in the United Kingdom. The title signifies the uphill battle British Aerospace faced in trying to convince airlines to buy and operate the world's quietest jet.
Last edited by Jhieminga; 20th Sep 2022 at 12:22. Reason: Added information about availability.
Originally Posted by Jhieminga
Amazon: "This regional aircraft was truly the beginning of the “RJ” (aka Regional Jet), which has become commonplace in air travel today."
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
That will be news to Fokker ...
What does happen is that aircraft get upgraded in their use. Old hands may remember the BAC One-Eleven being extensively branded as the "Bus Stop Jet". It never particularly got used as such, but was a contrast to the first generation 707/DC8 which initially got used on intercontinental operations. It also seemed to be a bit of an internal BAC dig, where BEA had unwisely gone for a large fleet of turboprop Vanguards, outclassed by many of their European competitors who chose the Caravelle.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WHBM
Or the Yak-40 in the Soviet Union.
What does happen is that aircraft get upgraded in their use. Old hands may remember the BAC One-Eleven being extensively branded as the "Bus Stop Jet". It never particularly got used as such, but was a contrast to the first generation 707/DC8 which initially got used on intercontinental operations. It also seemed to be a bit of an internal BAC dig, where BEA had unwisely gone for a large fleet of turboprop Vanguards, outclassed by many of their European competitors who chose the Caravelle.
What does happen is that aircraft get upgraded in their use. Old hands may remember the BAC One-Eleven being extensively branded as the "Bus Stop Jet". It never particularly got used as such, but was a contrast to the first generation 707/DC8 which initially got used on intercontinental operations. It also seemed to be a bit of an internal BAC dig, where BEA had unwisely gone for a large fleet of turboprop Vanguards, outclassed by many of their European competitors who chose the Caravelle.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bean
Don't agree. BEA bought Comet 4Bs specifically to compete with Caravelles. Very well documented history
KLM made a similar error buying Lockheed Electras instead of Caravelles, and regretted those as well.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: welwyn
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bean
Don't agree. BEA bought Comet 4bs soecifically to compete with Caravelles. Very well documented history
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LynxDriver
Didn't Sud Aviation use the basic Comet nose design for the Caravelle?
There was an unkind rumour that they just sawed the nose sections off the abandoned Comet 1 aircraft laying around by the late 1950s !
Apart from these fuselage sections, and the Rolls-Royce engines, there was contribution from the UK industry for instruments and fitout, etc. The UK component supply industry offerings were much greater than France in the 1950s.
The Comet/Caravelle flight deck windshield design was one of the things rejected by the FAA in the USA when the United Airlines order was made, and flight decks of the Caravelle 6R and later types can be seen to have larger windows, although the earlier Caravelle III type also continued in production to the end of the 1960s for those carriers like Air France/Air Inter who had existing fleets of them. No Comets were ever certified commercially in the USA.
Back to the 146, and the well-regarded landing gear design is apparently pretty much based on that of the Comet. I don't know about whether the Trident, which came from Hatfield between the two, was also similar, or indeed whether any other 146 elements came from the Trident.
Last 146 (actually an Avro RJ) I rode in was May 2019, Jota Aviation, standing in for a BA flight on Dublin to London City. I presume it will be the last British-built airliner I ever use.
Last edited by WHBM; 22nd Sep 2022 at 05:57.
Originally Posted by WHBM
I don't know about whether the Trident, which came from Hatfield between the two, was also similar, or indeed whether any other 146 elements came from the Trident.
) rotating through 90°.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: N . Daarset
Age: 69
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Trident outer engine pylons were licence built from Sud Aviation Caravelle design ..
I Remember the licence plate from 12 years of walkrounds .
The A 320 series has very similar hydraulics and fuel system to the Trident which was copied from the Comet .. Don't know the 146's Hyd. or Fuel sys.
rgds condor
I Remember the licence plate from 12 years of walkrounds .
The A 320 series has very similar hydraulics and fuel system to the Trident which was copied from the Comet .. Don't know the 146's Hyd. or Fuel sys.
rgds condor
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Angular - apparently!
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jhieminga
This one: https://amzn.to/3qOYO5B ? First time I've heard of it (no pun intended). Price does appear to have gone down a tad compared to dixi188's post, but still quite a sum. I think I will await reviews first. Although I might be interested it does seem like an expensive tome and I'd like to be sure about its quality. If others are interested, the blurb from Amazon reads:
Edit: I see that the US site already has it available while the UK site states that it will be published on 20th October. I guess we'll have to wait a bit longer...
Edit: I see that the US site already has it available while the UK site states that it will be published on 20th October. I guess we'll have to wait a bit longer...
The 146 was a lovely aircraft to fly. Classic British design. Well thought out, logical, solid, roomy and slightly over-engineered. At that time - before fuel efficiency became really important - four smaller engines were a good layout, but the thick STOL wing prevented a decent cruise speed. A real shame the RJX got killed, and that there never was a 2 engined version, when engine design improved. Servo tab controls, so you could really feel what you were doing and what the aircraft was doing.
Nice logical system layout and design. Great redundancy. 'Ours' were pretty much manual, with a very strange "toy" navigational computer, which could only load 14 way points !!! Each one of which had to be entered by selecting the letter position with one knob, then turning the other knob to select A,B,C.......1,2,3..... etc, to spell the waypoint name. Took forever.
No auto holding either. Every day, holding for EGLL, one had to fly the hold on the heading bug, doing the maths for crosswind compensation across the hold in your head. Good practice though, and very satisfying when you got it just right.
However, on turbulent approaches, you could overpower the servo tabs - you could feel that you were hitting the end-stops on the flight control surfaces when you reversed control.
I did my best ever landing in a 146, with its trailing link mains. I was only about a quarter way through my flying career at the time, but I just knew I would never do a better landing and wrote it in my log book. And I didn't float it either. Right place in the landing zone and the mains just started turning - no vertical bump at all.
Nice logical system layout and design. Great redundancy. 'Ours' were pretty much manual, with a very strange "toy" navigational computer, which could only load 14 way points !!! Each one of which had to be entered by selecting the letter position with one knob, then turning the other knob to select A,B,C.......1,2,3..... etc, to spell the waypoint name. Took forever.
No auto holding either. Every day, holding for EGLL, one had to fly the hold on the heading bug, doing the maths for crosswind compensation across the hold in your head. Good practice though, and very satisfying when you got it just right.
However, on turbulent approaches, you could overpower the servo tabs - you could feel that you were hitting the end-stops on the flight control surfaces when you reversed control.
I did my best ever landing in a 146, with its trailing link mains. I was only about a quarter way through my flying career at the time, but I just knew I would never do a better landing and wrote it in my log book. And I didn't float it either. Right place in the landing zone and the mains just started turning - no vertical bump at all.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A real shame the RJX got killed
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1975 or so when the 146 was relaunched one of the prospects we identified was Philippine Airways as they and their subsidiaries had a multitude of suitable inter-island routes. Brian Botting and I went to talk to them a couple of times but without success, but the Far Eastern Tour of 1982 went there nevertheless.
I had a CT scan at our local hospital this morning and when the radiographer turned out to be Filipino I told him the above. He recognised the 146 as a small four-engined aeroplane that did operate in the Philippines so it seems we had some success after all.
I had a CT scan at our local hospital this morning and when the radiographer turned out to be Filipino I told him the above. He recognised the 146 as a small four-engined aeroplane that did operate in the Philippines so it seems we had some success after all.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Allan Lupton
it seems we had some success after all.
BAe had quite some success there in past decades with both the 748 and the One-Eleven, so there must have been something of a support network there who they knew, but possibly one more based around Rolls-Royce, who engined not only these but the F-27 and Japanese YS-11, all of which were extensively supplied there.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On BA58/59
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question that has recently bugged me as a result of one of those interweb trails that take you from one place to somewhere you did not expect.....why did the HS(BAe)146 not use the Rolls Royce/SNECMA M45H engines used on the VFW614?
Originally Posted by TCU
A question that has recently bugged me as a result of one of those interweb trails that take you from one place to somewhere you did not expect.....why did the HS(BAe)146 not use the Rolls Royce/SNECMA M45H engines used on the VFW614?
