Avro/HS 748?

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...

That will be news to Fokker ...

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.

Don't agree. BEA bought Comet 4bs soecifically to compete with Caravelles. Very well documented history

I think the HS748 series sold about ten fewer aircraft than the 146 series (but that's close enough for a recount!)

Go back to post #74 and see the chat.
Dixi

Only ordered for the longer runs, principally to the Eastern Med, and they then also got used on a few fill-in turns. They only had 13 of them, compared to 20 Vanguards, which were long used on unsuitable lengthy routes into the late 1960s, such as to Malta.

KLM made a similar error buying Lockheed Electras instead of Caravelles, and regretted those as well.

Didn't Sud Aviation use the basic Comet nose design for the Caravelle?

De Havilland actually designed and built the Caravelle nose section under subcontract, and shipped them over to Toulouse for assembly.

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.

The 146/RJ may well have inherited some features from the Trident, but not the landing gear. The latter had (uniquely, AFAIK) strange double-tyred wheels and a wonderful MLG retraction/extension sequence which involved the axle axis (:O) rotating through 90°.

And Canadair.

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 have a copy of it because I made some contributions to it. I know the person who wrote it who, for reasons which he cannot define, became a huge fan of the 146. He did an enormous amount of research, including visits to the UK and the book has been some years in production. Call me biased, but I think it's a very comprehensive overview of the aircraft. Yes, it's quite a tome and definitely a coffee-table job, but without doubt a useful 'go-to' book for anything related to the 146.

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.

Here's a (poor quality) picture of one of the RJX's in the U.S. just prior to returning home following the announcement that the project was cancelled.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cd5610f40b.jpg

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.

Well BAe didn't, as a new one was never sold there. There were a scatter of Filipino operators who ran third-hand ones in more recent times, just one or two each, not sure any are left.

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.

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?

I have no doubt there were a number of reasons, but for a start the M45H had a BPR half that of the ALF502, so there wouldn't have been any point in registering the prototype 146 G-SSSH ...