BAE / AVRO 146
Thanks for putting the record straight WHBM. We thought of it as a 748 replacement.
I don't remember considering using the M45H but I do remember, after the 146 had several years in service, someone in authority asking us to consider using two R-R Tays. We said, more or less "if that's what you want you can't start from here" and referred them to (by then) our Weybridge office where they had investigated a Tay-powered 1-11.
I don't remember considering using the M45H but I do remember, after the 146 had several years in service, someone in authority asking us to consider using two R-R Tays. We said, more or less "if that's what you want you can't start from here" and referred them to (by then) our Weybridge office where they had investigated a Tay-powered 1-11.
Not necessarily. 
Farnborough Show 1990:
Not exactly the most successful of programmes.
Dee Howard and the Tay 1-11
Farnborough Show 1990:
Not exactly the most successful of programmes.
Dee Howard and the Tay 1-11
Next to the BPR/noise issue mentioned above, have a look at the timeline. The VFW614 first flew in 1971, the BAe146 in 1981. Ten years later they were looking for a different generation of engine. Another one is that the M45H engine was developed for a very specific short stage length. The BAe146 was aimed at a more flexible market.
The bypass ratio (BPR) of a turbofan engine is the ratio between the mass flow rate of the bypass stream to the mass flow rate entering the core.
I get the eventual launch date issue, but the HS146 was "launched" in 1973, so the RR engine must have surely been in the mixing pot as a developable option? Most "launch" engines eventually get improved (including BRP)....one only has to look at the M45H's bigger cousin the RB211
Those images above are superb, although I have to say, the 146 looks much better, more purposeful, with 4 pods rather than 2.
Have a soft spot for the 146 having enjoyed many flights on Meridiana's 146's into and out of FLR
Those images above are superb, although I have to say, the 146 looks much better, more purposeful, with 4 pods rather than 2.
Have a soft spot for the 146 having enjoyed many flights on Meridiana's 146's into and out of FLR
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,619
Received 294 Likes
on
162 Posts
The QSTOL looks as though it owed more than a little to the 1-11!
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,619
Received 294 Likes
on
162 Posts
I did the 146 production several times during open days which I think usually coincided with the PFA Fly In at Cranfield, 1983 and 1984 certainly and probably on several later occasions. Recall a Guppy doing a low pass (and a Fred Olsen Electra coincidentally flying over out of Heathrow!) as well plus the DH-88 displaying as it was based there - it eventually got slightly bent when it ground-looped at one of these events, cue another rebuild!
Somewhat ashamed that my colleagues were involved in designing the de Havilland Campus which consumed the hallowed site a couple of decades ago, but such is the price of progress...
Somewhat ashamed that my colleagues were involved in designing the de Havilland Campus which consumed the hallowed site a couple of decades ago, but such is the price of progress...
How does this one fit in the BAe146 history?
The QSTOL looks as though it owed more than a little to the 1-11!
Could be; several ideas from the BAC and HSA design studies with government research funding.
Hatfield open day 1980
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pzfwx0oo18vyip/Hatfield open day 1980.pdf?dl=0
The QSTOL looks as though it owed more than a little to the 1-11!
Could be; several ideas from the BAC and HSA design studies with government research funding.
Hatfield open day 1980
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pzfwx0oo18vyip/Hatfield open day 1980.pdf?dl=0
Loved flying on the 146 - Dan Air used it on IT charters at night IBZ and PMI and Manx on Ski flights.
Capital had a couple.
Palmair had a nice example flying from BOH SOU EXT and JER to the Med.
Aegean in the Greek Islands.
Brymon were shown the demo 146 (BAF colours) but went with the Dash 7.
Looking forward to possibly flying one again from Punta Arenas to King George Island to join an Antarctica Grand Circle expedition cruise to go below 66 degrees South - saves throwing up for 3 days in the Drake Passage.
Aerovias DAP have about 6 146's and a few in store.
Capital had a couple.
Palmair had a nice example flying from BOH SOU EXT and JER to the Med.
Aegean in the Greek Islands.
Brymon were shown the demo 146 (BAF colours) but went with the Dash 7.
Looking forward to possibly flying one again from Punta Arenas to King George Island to join an Antarctica Grand Circle expedition cruise to go below 66 degrees South - saves throwing up for 3 days in the Drake Passage.
Aerovias DAP have about 6 146's and a few in store.
This was at that time commonly overflown at quite low altitude by inbound traffic from Scotland/Ireland to London City, Scot Airways Dorniers etc, from which I got good views over time of the demolition, raw earth, and then rebuilding. There wasn't a radio point there or anything, but it was just on a line heading to transit overhead Lambourne VOR. Routing has changed now to a much wider loop, out beyond Southend, and often (bizarrely, coming from such a direction) with a view of the French coast.
To me the surprising thing was that they persevered with the ALF502 when they resurrected it. The delay could have been used to that end?
In 1981 I was dispatched to Hatfield to do a report evaluating the BAe146 for European/North African operations, mainly ACMI, using De Havilland's predicted performance figures.
I made a lot of the claim, as did BAe, that a complete spare engine could be carried in the hold, enabling fast return to service if a change were needed away from base (SEN).
The Chairman read the report, looked at me and in his inimitable fashion said "You stupid prat, why the f**k do you think it's important to carry a spare?" I muttered about lower costs of recovery, blah, blah.
"It's because those f*****g Lycoming engines are designed for helicopters and are f*****g unreliable".
That was the last we heard of the BAe 146.
I made a lot of the claim, as did BAe, that a complete spare engine could be carried in the hold, enabling fast return to service if a change were needed away from base (SEN).
The Chairman read the report, looked at me and in his inimitable fashion said "You stupid prat, why the f**k do you think it's important to carry a spare?" I muttered about lower costs of recovery, blah, blah.
"It's because those f*****g Lycoming engines are designed for helicopters and are f*****g unreliable".
That was the last we heard of the BAe 146.