|
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10632679)
Where did the 146 come from; internal magazine article. None were realised.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwc3ptut3k...0from.pdf?dl=0 |
I accumulated around 2500 on the 146 and I have many fond memories of flying her. As as been said already, she is a joy to fly and I recall when I did my type rating course and one of my colleagues who had been flying her for a number of years, said to me that what the 146 lacks in airborne performance, is compensated for by the nice handling characteristics. That was a phrase that I always remembered and thought was very appropriate. Flying it certainly maintained a sharp instrument scan, which stood me in good stead for my next type and was a technique I soon noticed had eroded significantly once flying a modern EFIS machine! The first stage of flap was 18 degrees, which is rather significant compared to many other commercial aircraft and such a significant deployment of flap in one single motion did result in a noticeable change in attitude and drag. I personally found on departure, that it was often easier to hand fly until the flaps were up, since the rather rudimentary autopilot was at times more a hinderance than a help in managing the speed acceleration during flap retraction. One thing I fondly remember was being able to outsmart the BAe long range cruise (LRC) published performance figures, as the manufacturer had stipulated a fixed LRC speed, irrespective of decreasing aircraft weight and most computer flight planning systems used this fixed speed for LRC planning calculations. Armed with a copy of the specific range charts from the AFM, along with some accurate thrust management, meant it was possible to fly farther than the computer flight planning system would allow. I recall assuring the ops manager in one company on a couple of empty positioning flights, that we could make it to where we needed to get to but that we would have to ‘divert’ to the intended destination, given that the computer said we could not make it!! It was a great aircraft for STOL airports and it opened the way for jet operations to airfields that previously had only seen turboprops. It had just as many fans as it had people who loathed it for various reasons!!!! |
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10632679)
Where did the 146 come from; internal magazine article. None were realised.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwc3ptut3k...0from.pdf?dl=0 Which magazine is it from? |
Alan, re BAC, I recall that we have disagreed about this point before.
Although the source document is headed BAC, it describes a wide ranging work packages shared between Government - DTI, MOD PE, and industry. The breakdown of cost was split between the Ministry, BAC, and HSA. HSA specific responsibilities concerned marketing, modelling, noise, future projects, simulation, flight test, and ENF acoustics (shrouded propeller, ducted fan?), but there was integrated exchange of ideas amongst all parties. Within the projects it is possible to identify the separation between those which contributed to Airbus A300 and the 146, although at that time there appears significant military influence with a larger aircraft and STOL. My first association with this programme was with RAE - terminal area studies, ATC, noise, steep approach, and ground and airborne equipment (significant avionics content). Also, the advanced flight deck, physically at Weybridge but operationally managed by Hatfield with RAE oversight. The extract was published in the Woodford Design department internal magazine ‘Team 146’; date wise after the demise of Hatfield. |
One more from memories. As i really like this beast, i was lucky enough to being that person who send last company RJ away from our base at HEL year 2011. Later on, think two years, i was doing check for that same aircraft when it came back from sub-lease before handed back to BAe.
May sound silly, because these are only machines, but i have good feeling on my head as in addition of that last RJ sent away i was doing last maintenance for couple of SWISS RJ:s when they phased out. Including the last one. There was nice seremony at PIK when aircraft arrived. Think second last aircraft made low fly-by over PIK main runway when they left towards new adventures. :) https://www.chevron.org.uk/the-last-bae-146/ Last contact with RJ was at Cranfield 2018, and later on at PIK when one of ex-SWISS stored plane was taken from long term storage and put back in flight condition. Heading to Libya. |
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10633127)
Alan, re BAC, I recall that we have disagreed about this point before.
Although the source document is headed BAC, it describes a wide ranging work packages shared between Government - DTI, MOD PE, and industry. The breakdown of cost was split between the Ministry, BAC, and HSA. HSA specific responsibilities concerned marketing, modelling, noise, future projects, simulation, flight test, and ENF acoustics (shrouded propeller, ducted fan?), but there was integrated exchange of ideas amongst all parties. Within the projects it is possible to identify the separation between those which contributed to Airbus A300 and the 146, although at that time there appears significant military influence with a larger aircraft and STOL. My first association with this programme was with RAE - terminal area studies, ATC, noise, steep approach, and ground and airborne equipment (significant avionics content). Also, the advanced flight deck, physically at Weybridge but operationally managed by Hatfield with RAE oversight. The extract was published in the Woodford Design department internal magazine ‘Team 146’; date wise after the demise of Hatfield. "Dan Gurney [the author of the extract] served in the British Royal Air Force as a fighter pilot, instructor and experimental test pilot. He is a co-author of several research papers on all-weather landings. Gurney joined BAE Systems in 1980 and was involved in the development and production of the HS125 and BAe 146, and was the project test pilot for the Avro RJ." |
I worked on them for a couple of years. Overall I think it was a good aircraft, Corrosion has pretty much covered most of what they were like to work on, I'd forgotten about the inwards opening C window, you just had to be sure you slid the sun visor out of the way first, don't ask how I remember that one :)
I used to do a lot of NDT inspections on them, and of course being British they loved to x-ray things (all British aircraft I've worked on always had a lot of x-ray inspections), a couple I remember was the inspection on Wing Rib Zero that required access into the centre tank though the wing leading edge via a slide, easy enough to get into but a real pig to try and push yourself back out again ! Then there was the fuselage frame inspections where you would wallpaper fuselage with film from floor level to floor level, this used almost 100 meters of film that all had to be cut to size beforehand and then processed and viewed afterwards, this from start to finish would take about 4 days ! We never found anything on these inspections. There were also more inspections on the wing lower skins back in the late 90s due to fuel contamination, I remember blending out some corrosion inside the wing, we kept going till we could see the hangar floor ! I believe several aircraft had complete wing skin replacements because of this. This is why you had to check the water drains every night. They could be hard work but once you found your way around them they where pretty good to work on. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10633276)
Courtesy of FSF:
"Dan Gurney [the author of the extract] served in the British Royal Air Force as a fighter pilot, instructor and experimental test pilot. He is a co-author of several research papers on all-weather landings. Gurney joined BAE Systems in 1980 and was involved in the development and production of the HS125 and BAe 146, and was the project test pilot for the Avro RJ." |
Would that be the same Pete Smith who was at Fanborough in the '80s?
|
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10633651)
Would that be the same Pete Smith who was at Fanborough in the '80s?
|
Originally Posted by ZFT
(Post 10633532)
Slight thread drift but does anyone know what happened to another Hatfield 146 TP Peter Smith?
Edited to add: another quirk of the 146 was in the avionics bay, looking up at the electromagnetic indicators (dolls eyes colloquially) after each flight to see what had over-temped or cut out during that flight.... They were back to front, all the left ones on the right and vice versa. I asked Peter if there was a good reason for that, as it appeared confusing. His answer: when the printed circuit board was laid up, the technician forgot that the writing and all component placement on the underside of the board needed to be 'reflected' to appear backwards on laying up, for it to appear correctly in the finished PCB. By the time it was discovered, it was deemed to expensive to re-order all the PCBs. Which is why all the indictors were ar$£ about face! |
Loved the 146, flew it as FO and Captain. Had to shut down an engine once due to vibration (off top of the scale). By the time I disembarked the engineers had removed the hot end from the offending engine to show turbine blade missing. Also only transport aircraft I have stalled (intentionally) as far as stick pusher.
|
4 engines tho'... not that attractive to small airlines TBH
|
A sad mistake. Had DeHaviland/BAe been able to source suitable engines to have made it a twin it could have been a world beater. As it was it comfortably outsold any other UK airliner - ever.
The Russians managed it...they even had the bloody cheek to call it the An 148! No pretence spared there, then! What's the betting the dolls-eye indicators on that are arsey-versey too? |
I've always wondered about the An-148. It really is extremely similar to the 146.
Did they get formal permission to modify the original, or is it an original it's own right? |
Originally Posted by Nomad2
(Post 10633855)
I've always wondered about the An-148. It really is extremely similar to the 146.
Did they get formal permission to modify the original, or is it an original it's own right? Joking aside, there isn't an infinite number of viable airliner configurations. How many low-wing twin designs with underwing engines can you think of ? |
I thought the 146 TP was Peter Sedgwick - ex 48 Sqn Hercules co-pilot and skipper. IIRC at one time Hatfield had 3 ex48 pilots of my vintage (67-69 ) on the payroll. Peter, Mike Preston ( RIP ) and Neil Smith.
|
In 1981, when the 146 first flew, the CTP at Hatfield was Mike Goodfellow, and the deputy CTP was Peter Sedgwick.
|
I was dispatched from Southend one day in late 1980/early 1981, I guess, to go to Hatfield, do a bit of digging, and come back with a report on the BAe 146's suitability for BAF as a replacement for the Heralds on ACMI work, a role eventually filled by the ex-BA Viscounts. He reckoned that sales prospects were so poor that he could acquire the aircraft on a lease for peanuts, but he was dubious about the claims being made for it. It had not yet made its first flight.
I gave the report to Mike K a week later. I had summarised its operating data and costs, and the commercial aspects, summarised the maintenance prgramme requirements and so on and so forth. I made much of the design feature that allowed a spare engine to be carried (without the nacelle, IIRC) in the forward hold, and the advantage this would bring. MK glanced through the report without comment until he got to the bit about the spare engine. "You stupid f****r," he said, with the gracious courtesy that was typical of him, "why do you think they need to put a spare on board? It's because they know f****g well that those f*****g Lycomings are designed for helicopters and are s**t, but they are the only ones they can use on that aircraft. It's called Whisperjet because they'll usually be stopped". As usual he was way ahead of me. |
I would say I have one good memory about the 146 : the speed brake! smell terrible, underpowered, slow,heavy controls, over complicated systems, never ending checklist on the 1st flight... Why to make it simple if you can make it complicated? 5 years and 3000hrs |
Flew a BAE 146 simulator for the first time the other day. Found the throttles very stiff to operate and quite distracting. Are the throttles in the real aeroplane like that?
|
Are the throttles in the real aeroplane like that? |
I seem to remember that the 146 made its mark by being the only jet allowed to operate into airfields in the LA area that had a jet ban due to noise.
|
Just like grandma’s Austin 1800, I always thought. The Bring Another Engine was always very comfortable to fly in as a passenger- flown in them with Ansett, East- West and Southern Airlines. Mate in Ansett reckons it was the only aeroplane that could get a bird strike up the rear, it was that slow. |
Originally Posted by Centaurus
(Post 10634266)
Flew a BAE 146 simulator for the first time the other day. Found the throttles very stiff to operate and quite distracting. Are the throttles in the real aeroplane like that?
From levers there is rod down to autothrottle clutches, directly under pedestal on E-bay, from there all the way up to the each engine pylon you will find steel cables and pulleys, from pylon to FCU is teleflex cable. (which needs frequent lubrication with thin oil to avoid extra stiffness) If my memory serves right, throttles were quite unsophisticated to use. They felt all the time like something is chafing... Not pilot, but had hands on experience when doing eng ground runs. Don't know how it was in the air if you need to adjust power, but on ground runs if you need to find some exact values for test purposes, moving these throttles requires sometimes few try to find correct position. :) |
In the air I found 'Boeing' to be the answer, since engine control was such that one could demand and synchronise temperstures as required, the numbers 717, 727, 737, and 747 from memory giving reasonable results.
Aircraft model shop at Castle Donington produced a replica for their display featuring two big engines and winglets. Such dreamers! |
History and nostalgia to aid reminiscence - some large files
146 described https://www.dropbox.com/s/i1oqswgdzy...ribed.pdf?dl=0 Production list, operators, and historical location, 2012 https://www.dropbox.com/s/53ypihjnhj...J1203.pdf?dl=0 146 Design features, tech sales https://www.dropbox.com/s/cajqtqsjwu...tures.pdf?dl=0 146 Flightdeck features tech sales https://www.dropbox.com/s/6c3ii2eim5...on%20.pdf?dl=0 |
Originally Posted by Corrosion
(Post 10634650)
There is 100% mechanical connection from throttle lever to eng FCU, they are "firm" to use and over time they tends to stiffens. You are talking simutor but in real life they are anot feather light to use.
From levers there is rod down to autothrottle clutches, directly under pedestal on E-bay, from there all the way up to the each engine pylon you will find steel cables and pulleys, from pylon to FCU is teleflex cable. |
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10634839)
....... with the TMS actuator the very last link between the teleflex and the FCU. I think the throttles could be a bit stiff. The fire handles/fuel shutoff were even worse as they didn't get used so often.
Think i work once with old 146 which was converted to RJ, that was bit strange bird as it is kind of mixture of both. It was one of the Braathens old birds on last C-check. |
Originally Posted by Stationair8
(Post 10634556)
Just like grandma’s Austin 1800, I always thought. The Bring Another Engine was always very comfortable to fly in as a passenger- flown in them with Ansett, East- West and Southern Airlines. Mate in Ansett reckons it was the only aeroplane that could get a bird strike up the rear, it was that slow. |
414 kts, mach .68 was not to bad as it also could land on a six pence
|
I have a vague recollection from the early 1960s that what became the 146 originated as a Handley Page concept, but was not proceeded with because of a lack of suitable sized engines. Then the Continentals came along, and the concept was resurrected.
|
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
(Post 10633806)
As it was it comfortably outsold any other UK airliner - ever.
|
A mere 387 examples (!), outstripped by 445 Viscounts...
|
380 748s, only slightly fewer!
I suggest "UK airliner" could also include the Dove and the Rapide both of which comfortably outsold even the Viscount! |
Well if we are throwing the Dove into the mix then its replacement, the DH125, outsold it many times over. ;)
|
And the Islander? :)
|
|
Originally Posted by G-ARZG
(Post 10635096)
A mere 387 examples (!), outstripped by 445 Viscounts...
|
Clicked on the link and my anti-virus (AVG) immediately neutralised a threat.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.