British built Airliners. How many still flying?
 

I doubt if that Sunderland could fly anytime soon, it has been a long time (mid-90s?) since it last flew.

Well here's one British built 4 engined airliner that, by all accounts, is still flying:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../3/1944349.jpg

Yes, it's based in Sweden.

Just doesn't look right with those flat-sixes, though. :O

Isn't there a Gipsy engined one still flying? I remember flying the Chippy into PFA Wroughton rally some years ago and there was one that flew in. Can't remember if it was a Heron or a Dove?

SSD, I think it could have been the Heron G-AORG. It was (is?) operated by a group in Jersey and was under overhaul at Coventry with Air Atlantique. Is it still there? It's certainly out of C of A at the moment according to G-INFO.

I attended every PFA Rally from 1976 on, usually for virtually the whole w/e and never recall ORG as a visitor. Guess I could be proved wrong!! As far as I know she is still at Baginton.

Another possible airworthy candidate is N82D. Is is currently registered and lives in Oregon. Just had another look, registered but not airworthy, methinks. De Havilland DH.114 Heron 2, N82D, Private

Planemike

And as the OP didn't specify if the airliner should be passenger or cargo here's another, still flying, great Irish invention, the Belslow:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/2084548.jpg

Only 2 engines this time:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/2349522.jpg

one small airline I worked for , many years ago, was interested in buying the BAE ATP.

A representative came out to answer pilot questions. I asked about the performance out of a mountain aiport (about six thousand feet plus).

He said it could carry two passengers and no luggage out of the airport (lake tahoe).

We were shocked. He said: don't worry, you just won't fly it there.

We didn't fly it at all.


I flew the original handley page jetstream with turbomecca astazou engines( one can be seen in the film, "Moonraker" and while I didn't fly it for the movie, I flew it in line service thereafter).

I flew some of the earliest BAE 146.


I guess all of them were the wrong plane at the wrong time. Though the jetstream was nice in that you could stand up in it.

The 146 did well on short airfields, but never made money with them.


I guess the last plane england built that was the wright plane (freudiean)sorry, right plane at the right time was the spitfire.

How dare you :)

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7...ronargiano.jpg

I think "still flying" might be a tad optimistic. By all accounts, it's been stuck at Cairns for more than a year now.

I just recalled something a friend told me about the ATP, apparently it had a water drain hole somewhere in the inlet which went straight through the electrically heated anti-ice mats. Great combination! :ok:

SSD and Planemike. On mature reflection (that's all I can do these days) I think the Heron G-AORG sighting was at a Moth Rally at Woburn where it put in a very elegant whiz past.

I definitely saw the Heron in Jersey colours at PFA Wroughton rally early 90s or late 80s. It was parked at the NW end of the field.

Heron seen by thousands every day

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.35644...15.68,,1,-3.79

I think this is the last airliner built in Britain. BAe RJ85 No. 2394, first flight at Manchester Woodford April 2002, now in service in South Africa.

Photos: British Aerospace Avro 146-RJ85 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Yes, and nobody can deny that it's still "flying", albeit with a little help. :O

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1314992M.jpg

Does anyone have any photos of the AIRLINER version of the Spitfire?!

Some other good British airliners might include the Hornet, Hunter, Lightning, Vulcan and Victor, not to mention the VC10!

The very last airliner built in UK was the second RJX airframe, which never went into pax service after the RJX project was cancelled. That aeroplane is now at Manchester Airport viewing park.

That was not the last RJ/RJX to be built. The RJ was still in production while the RJX was in development. The last RJX's first flight was on 09-01-2002 but the last RJ85's first flight (the one referred to above) was on 26-04-2002.

How can an RJX be classed as an airliner when it never flew for an airline nor with any revenue pax or cargo?

A bit like the Bristol 167?

Because it was designed and built as an airliner.

Would you say that the Lightning was not a fighter because it never shot anything down?

http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-.../41/119806.jpg

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?

The Lightning wasn't a fighter, it was an interceptor - yes, there's a difference.

Built, designed and tested to be an airliner. It makes no difference that it never entered revenue service. It's an airliner. End of.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...psf9b27d64.jpg

And the Nimrod AEW3 was designed and tested to be UK's Airborne Early Warning, it makes no difference that it never entered service ... "end of" :)

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/spy/...imrodaew-3.jpg

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.

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 :rolleyes:

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.

I don't think Jersey Euro (nowadays Flybe) were too disappointed, when the RJX was up for final review BAe offered them to either pay some compensation or build the 12 (I think) they had on order in a quick batch and then shut the line down.

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 ?

It wasn't just an engine change but I take your point that from the outside there isn't much difference between a 146 and an RJ. An avionics engineer (and pilot) would disagree though.

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...x_varient3.jpg

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 tend to agree, although it was certified as one.

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

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.

146M's are being converted by Hawker Beechcraft Services at Broughton, North Wales.

As for the fire bomber, take your choice of Field Aviation Toronto, Neptune Aviation, Tronos Aviation or Minden Air Corporation.

It is certainly doing excellent work and everybody who worked on her should be very proud of that. But given that the ARA ended up with one-off engines, an uprated pressure hull , a changed external shape and its own type certificate, it's a moot point whether there was any real benefit in using the old 3001 airframe.

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.

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.

This is of course the design of the Antonov 148

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.

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CMVH/146_nra.jpg

Oh well, what might have been.