BAE / AVRO 146
 

I remember the weird noise when the flaps went down, both when on the ground and in the cabin. When traveling on Air BC (now Jazz) 146s, the cabin crew would make an announcement about the flap noise, just so it didn't scare the passengers!


Explanation here: https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/1387...ml#post1444337

It was a great aircraft to fly, responsive, with pleasantly light progressive controls; generally viewed as a 'pilot's aeroplane'. It was fairly unreliable, always some fault or other, though this was seldom a problem due to the backups and redundancies in almost all the systems. This, combined with poor fuel economy, made it quite an expensive aircraft to operate. It had a very strong and forgiving undercarriage, so most landings were classed as 'good' by the passengers, even if it was rather plonked on.

It was a busy flightdeck, with plenty of quirks and traps for the unwary. Particularly, the 146 didn't have autothrottle, just a throttle trimming system called TMS, meaning only one vertical mode could be set in the autopilot. The gotcha would be after levelling off at cleared altitude, and being given a speed, to set IAS to hold that speed, which then released the Alt Hold, and an altitude bust was very likely as only the power setting controlled altitude from that point on. You very quickly remembered not to make that mistake again! The RJ had autothrottle which made it simpler. Often the yaw damper was not working as it should, and cabin crew, especially at the back complained of a continual yawing / rolling sensation which could make them feel nauseous.

Flaps, as stated above, were dramatic. The step from between 0 and 18 degrees, causing both a dramatic pitch on their extension and retraction, and the loud noise they made travelling between these 2 stages. But you soon got used to that, making it a non event for the flight and cabin crew alike. With full (33 degree I recall) flap and the speed brake out for landing, it was very draggy, and could be landed in a short space.

It was very under powered - fine on T/O and initial climb, but regularly running out of puff above 20,000', especially in warmer climates. The 146 wasn't RVSM, but that wasn't a significant limitation because they seemed like they anything left when they finally struggled up to 28,000'. The joke was, why did it have 4 engines? Because there wasn't room to fit 6. Some said it just had 5 APUs. But it was flyable on 3 engines - I did a 3 engine ferry (remember the unreliability?), and it was a regular into London City Airport, which was always fun and always interesting - great views of London at close range.

It was of course the most infamous toxic-air culprit, with regular wet sock smells on first using bleed air, especially from the APU.

Hope this helps with your question.

Very interesting and enjoyable read, pilotmike.. thanks for sharing!

I liked the rocker switches in the cockpit.. much cleaner than toggle switches.

Were they used on any other aircraft types?

Anilv

It was originally designed by the De Havilland part of Hawker Siddely ie nothing to do with BAE originally.
I recall that there wan't enough interest in it when first proposed in the '60s so it was put on the back burner until Wedgie Benn (the bloke who gave government money to build the DeLorean car in Northern Ireland) 'discovered' it and pushed for its development.
I found it quite pleasant to fly in; I did 3 fam flights (flight deck rides for Air Traffic Controllers) these being Heathrow - Jersey, Gatwick - Berne and Gatwick - Bergen via Newcasrle and always marvelled at the smooth touchdowns. On departure from Bergen, there was a Hatfield based test pilot in the left hand seat and he demonstrated for me what it could do if allowed; with a full load of pax we were passing 2,000ft before the end of the runway.
I also visited the production line at Hatfield in I think 1985; those 'De Havilland' workers were incredibly proud of the aircraft they were building and took great pride in their product.

I recall at LHR when I was with BMA (around 1981?) that the BAF painted demo 146 G-OBAF came in and was iirc being shown off to Brymon whom we handled there for the NQY and PLH flghts (who then ordered Dash 7's)

Then at LGW we often saw Dan Air 146's go off on quite long IT charter flights CFU AGP and FAO (but I think a tech stop was needed)
Manx used their -100 on weekend ski flights but you could not get all the pax's ski's and boots in the holds and we had to lave some behind and put them on the 757 lol

We had a couple as company coms aircraft, and they were great. I guess I must have had over a hundred flights as a passenger, and they rarely went tech in my experience (certainly far less so than the ATP which preceded them and the Emb145s that succeeded them). As a passenger the 146s were always quiet and comfortable, even in the cheap seats, and didn't suffer the baggage limits of the ATP and 145. That lovely long-stroke trailing link undercarriage flattered even the roughest landings, where the 145 seems to have granite-filled oleos that shatter the spines of any unwary passengers who fail to sit straight and braced for impact...

PDR

...and 250kts, clean, to 4 miles down an ILS was easy.

We had quite a bit of interest in it in 1972/3, but that was a period of high inflation. Our potential customers wanted a fixed-forward price to remove the uncertainty but we were unable to offer such a price as too much was unknown.
We re-launched at about the time that the industry was nationalised to become BAe (1976) and it still carried its de Havilland type number . . .

Nice aircraft to fly in as a passenger - comfortable and smooth flight.

Must say, I liked flying it. I'd forgotten about that howl when the flaps were starting to extend or finishing their retraction. It had an official name. "Flap hoot".
The flaps were so powerful that there was an auto trim system called FTC to keep the thing in trim. Flap trim compensation.
Other funnies included full flap take offs and I even got to try the pitch oscillation that it could get itself into, but only with the autopilot on.
Systems on it were quite complex and the failure modes never went as advertised. Losing a Genny for example, could lead to many unforecast failures. The QRH was of little help, you had to figure it out for yourself. I once had a TRU fail which left the a/c invisible to radar...
I was also lucky enough to get the frozen elevator syndrome, caused by refreezing of device residues. Luckily it flew nicely on the trimmer. No point telling the pax or ATC. They couldn't help us! It felt like the stick was set in concrete.
As another guy posted, it was woefully short of power, but boy, could it descend!
I remember one flight where our rate of climb became zero, much to the concern of ATC, but it just had no puff left. We smashed along at full power until it got lighter, which didn't take long on the RJ100.
The airframe was class, and you knew it was unbreakable, as the Swiss have gone on to prove..
Well, almost unbreakable.
Modern systems would have transformed it, but the RJ-X was killed off post 911.
Mainly good memories of the thing on my part.

Nearly 4 years flying them in Australia (300 series), comfortable flight deck with good lighting, abysmal performance in ISA+15-20, max altitude about FL230 Cairns-Brisbane, very forgiving undercarriage made every landing a greaser, workload increased by the requirement to take off with APU running to supply bleed air for AIRCON/PRESS then switching on engine bleeds when climb thrust established and a reverse procedure on approach, start APU then engine bleeds off on final above 1,500', airbrake not as effective as the F28, brake temperatures could be a problem with noisy fans used on the ground to reduce cooling time........the ice detector on the left forward fuselage was a real "Heath Robinson" apparatus, rotating serated spool which when iced up would contact a static vane and the increased resistance would trigger the ICE DETECTED message in the cockpit, I recall the rudder limiter was actioned by the "Fir Tree" fitting, employing if I recall a rod shaped like a fir tree profile which engaged via an air driven bellows arrangement into an actuating cam on the rudder pedal linkage, the faster you went the more the rod protruded into cam and thus limited rudder movement.....the outstanding memory is that of the smell problem with MOBIL JET2 ingested by both the engines and the Garret 150M APU being fed into the AIRCON system, I know of 3 crew members who suffered from fume inhalation and were forced to stop flying.

I enjoyed flying the 146. It was designed for short haul and at that it was good (up, cuppa tea, down). The criticisms that it was restricted to M.72 and FL310 (later models) are made by folks who were trying to do other things with it. It was just a big turboprop.
mcdhu

Look at the 146/RJ for what it was and not a comparison with modern times; the 146 created many of today’s opportunities.
Post war the 146 concept started as a DC 3 replacement - as did many other aircraft. That changed with foresight, emerging markets, intercity, noise sensitivity, advantages of jet speed / range from difficult airports.

Conventionally the 146 could match short-hall aircraft such as the 1-11, but with added bonus of field performance and some economics.
Performance, short runways, steep approach, opened many new markets. The 146 made LCY what it is today; Lugano, Florence, Aspen, Orange County, were similar firsts.
Air Wisconsin, hub and spoke, ran a bus stop operation - walk on at the front, off at the back; a flexible aircraft. Combi, freighter, VIP, military. Different fuselage lengths considered from the outset. Rough strip, gravel, (grass?) with low pressure tyres.

Flap noise - listen to the lift; the highest CL max of any civil aircraft, still is? Modification reduced the effect, but a full cure would cost the weight of two seats.
Rocker switches also used in the 125; many advantages, a few pitfalls.

The RJ was a digital aircraft, EFIS (some 146), auto throttle, autoland; Cat 3 approval pioneered a new super fail passive category, 150m RVR.
A HUD was evaluated - customer request, but it was no better than the autos and very expensive.

It’s flying characteristics (soft landings spoilt new pilots) added safety with few risks for new world-wide operators or those transitioning from turboprops.
In the landing configuration it went where you pointed it, -3 deg attitude = 3 deg GS. Good view from the flight deck.
Air brakes and independent ground lift dump. Big wheel brakes - reverse not required.

Ahh, places it took me, and some I wish that it had not.

Bounced it
 

Comments re the trailing link gear spot on. Made every landing a "greaser"! Except I threw it on the ground one day so hard we bounced! I loved flying it but the engines and bleed air made it a bit of a dog. The ex-Boeing and Douglas Captains I flew with hated it's lack of performance! But 25K up and down the West Coast made for great sight seeing!
Captain to me. " So you're a Brit? Did you know BAe stands for " Bring another engine?" I pointed out that it was actually "Bring another American engine"! The ALF-502 engine had a sun -and -planet gear box. The tolerances on this were poor and it "made metal". I think we were taking the engines off and rebuilding them at less than 1000 hours. One flight attendant was leaning over to pass a drink to a passenger when an engine let go. Lucky her! Shrapnel came through the fuselage and was found in the overhead bin door. Would have taken her head off!

I've got about 2,000 hours on the 146, in the early nineties. Nice machine, very pleasant to fly. As mcdhu says, it was basically a fast turboprop. In fact, I believe some operators wouldn't count it as jet time on job applications. Easy to land, exactly where you wanted it. I remember one F.O. commenting "You mean you're spot-landing a four-jet?" Yep.

One problem I encountered more than once was that water could get into the engine pylons and freeze the throttle controls. That meant that during descent/approach, one engine would remain at cruise power. When the amount of rudder trim became ridiculous, shut it down: there were three others.

I used to fly as SLF between Stansted and Frankfurt on Air UK 146s and they always seemed to be on time.even in some pretty cruddy Central European winter weather.The later 300 series seemed to have a smoother ride but that is purely subjective. Whatever, they were much more comfortable than some of the Air UK "jungle repo" F-27s that were on the run before them.

146 lot of flights with Air UK
 

Passing Norwich Airport yesterday, at least one 146 parked with
large holes where the engines used to be. John

Three flights on 146s, with Dan-Air to Dublin and back, and on a Belgian registered example back to Heathrow from Brussels. Recall the flap noise on the Brussels trip but not Dublin, though that was over 30 years ago! Do recall walking somewhere in Greenwich one evening when a 146 went overhead inbound Heathrow, startling my companions with the flap noise!

Glad to note that Debonair is not forgotten amongst the respondents. During one of my 146 interviews, ground school wizard asked me to discuss high-speed flight. Response that such was not relevant on 146 somewhat discombombulated the individual. Next question on anhedral of 146 wing elicited response that two engines underneath each wing caused the downward slope of the wings. Chief Pilot, aware of my pedigree, smiled benignly and the job was mine.

Didn't last long enough, but a Barbie-jet swap was too good to miss.

Don't forget it was the only 'jet' which could operate in/out of Berne, Dan Air using it to replace their '748s on that route ex Gatwick.

Miss that sound. Sent me to bed every second night. Last flight in from Zurich short of 2300 just before night break.

Well it was designed at Hatfield but de Havilland had long become Hawker Siddeley by then. And actually Wedgie Benn was the person who refused govt subsidy for it in 1974, when it was then shelved for a few years.
Yes Allan, the type number was in a DH series (as in 106, 121, 125) but it was never the DH146, was it? Always the HS146 from the start. NB I worked with you in 1973-75!
Matthew

Yes I spent a year 'commuting' on the company a/c between Farnborough and 'somewhere in Lancs' - if we were lucky we got the 146,if unlucky we got the ATP (80p) although the ATP was not as bad as the hired in ATR,the only good thing about the ATR was the lovely hosties :)
The only thing I didn't like about the 146 was the Engine Oil Fume/Smell in the cabin from the APU (as previously posted) .
I also did a couple of 146 trips with Buzz from Stansted to Marseilles/Marignane whilst visiting friends - great little airline and exceptionally nice crews.I had a really nice jump seat ride for the landing at Marignane on one occasion,we were landing to the NW so it was a nice pictureskew approach from over near the Chateau d'if :)

That trailing arm arrangement gave a soft landing every time.
A bit like a VW beetle front end.

There's an operator down this way that has an unfortunate habit of putting them off the end of runways, 3 so far, as many accidents as they have aircraft in their fleet

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1be9f91859.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....dff9a2b7a6.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e42962e7f1.jpg

Druk used the 146 into PARO....made that trip a number of times....Glorious!!!

Spent 11 years with RJ85/100, as aircraft engineer on line maintenance. Then 1,5year more on heavy maintenance with these beasts. Need to say it was good time, not easy but gave loads of experience because this aircraft is not "reset and go"-type of machine. After all it was not that bad aircraft from maintenance point of view, but you need to know it or it will bite you and it is not helping you much when trying to troubleshoot some weird symptom... :)

Engines were bad at the beginning. I was one of the boroscoping guy on our company and at some point with our total 11 aircraft fleet i was doing inspections after inspection and very often you drop the engine. Later on Honeywell get biggest problems fixed and life was much easier. (better combustion chamber, oil consumtion/oil leaks fixed by changing oil type to better type which didn't cook hot end bearings/seals -> oil problem moved to auxialiary gearbox but this was piece of cake if you compare it to eng change)
They were newer problem free, but ok-ish. Eng change for this aircraft is actually very easy and quick, if you have built ready engine to go in.

Fuel system is very sensitive to icing and FQIS suffers contamination. Lots of work with fuel tanks, at some point our hangar was smelling more kerosene than fuelling company. :D

Landing gear position indication system/WOW, very bad quality proximity switches with too sensitive system... this was another huge workload before Eldec managed to get those switches to work relatively well. After many years...

One may think it is awful aircraft to maintain, but as said earlier, have a good team of competent guys and it will work.

Still missing those noisy brake fans.

Corrosion: yes to the proximity switches. Spent a couple of days once with the engineers. Aircraft on jacks, retraction test OK, wheeled out, test flight, persistent red light, back in hangar etc.

What flies into London City and has 6 engines? 2 BAE 146's

I was fortunate enough to be invited on a few of the customer acceptance trials with flights to Jersey, from Southend via Hatfield.
After it went into service our company used this airplane for charters with Dan Air from both NCL + LGW.
Later we then used it with BAF, and then BWL as BAF later became.
After BWL closed we then used the 146 for charters as supplied by Titan for quite a few years.
In 2019 we came back to Southend and did a 25 flight programme with Jota on the 146 again.

yes there have been a few challenges along the way, but it has been very rare to have had a customer complaint, even in 2019.
For 2020 we have again about 25 flights booked with Jota.
SAM

146
 

I flew it for a couple of years with Debonair. One of our routes was MUC/MGL and a few times in winter with snow and sub zero surface temperature we encountered an inversion during the climb,which led to ice melting on the nosewheel leg and then refreezing. On one occasion I could not get the nosewheel down until I used the alternate procedure
The following day it was decided to ferry it to Exeter with the gear locked down. This took about 2-5 hours and a full tank of fuel. It would fly smoothly at 184 kts but any increase led to buffeting

Didn't mention good things. Roomy and relatively well organized + clean cockpit (compare 737 still on these days, and Douglas), very nice feature is the possibility to enter aircraft via e-bay and floor hatch on cockpit. Electrical bay located under cockpit, roomy enough to work there, nice and "clean". Hydraulic equipments have own compartment between fwd cargo and MLG bay, not most enjoyable place in the earth but at least it is inside of the aircraft and not in dirty wheel well. ECS-bay on the rear, you need to climb there but then you can stand straight when doing work with packs and some valves. Again clean and nice enviroment to work even in winter.
Excellent airstairs, hydraulically operated, these are very good piece of equipment.

Low aircraft, basically all daily items can be done from ground without any ladders or steps, fueling panel on wing l/e... well that is fueling guys problem. :)

About that floor hatch on cockpit. Good memories from days when get called to aircraft after departure preparations and even after engines running -> get in via E-bay and that hatch. Crawl up in to cabin from that small hatch when all passengers are looking at you if CCM forgets to close curtains on galley. :)
This hatch is located just after cockpit door, so it is bit dangerous when left open. If you enter cockpit from front entrance door area you need to turn 90 deg before entering narrow corridor to cockpit door area and at that point you may already looking forward to cockpit and miss open hatch on the floor... OUCH! This happens few times, luckily without any serious wounds. I personally got once gate agent to my shoulders when i was doing something with that famous flap computer. It was quite a surprice when two legs drops on you without any warning, not bad, gate agent was young lady. Luckily she didn't hurt seriously, only some scratchs and bruises to legs.

Cockpit C-window can be opened just like a window at home, very simple handle-locking-hinge, made communication between ground-cockpit very good. About this window, compare it to 737 or DC-9/MD-8x extremely complex over engineered sliding window which is REAL PITA to get adjusted air/water tight. Only thing, it is bit too aft.

White "ivory" rocker switches on roof panel, at least on RJ they worked well. On J31 and J41 they have similar swithes but at least on J31 they failed frequently, can't recall is it same switch. Propably not.

Need to say i have had good luck, or is it just a "luck", being connected to these unique british made aircrafts. RJ, J31 and J41. Maybe this explains why i loose some screws from my head... :E

Best years of my life spent flying the venerable 146. The Engineer's head popping up behind us, Hosties disappearing, coffee in hand suddenly. Brings back many happy memories.

Jogging memory cells here, Corrosion. I recall one very windy day in Amsterdam. We got the pax off OK, but the wind increased to the degree that we couldn't open the cabin doors. In fact, 747s were being blown sideways on the apron. I needed to get to ops, and that hatch to the bay below the flight deck was the answer. I doubt I'm agile enough now. I last flew the type in July '92. Gosh, is it really over 27 years?

Where did the 146 come from; internal magazine article. None were realised.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwc3ptut3k...0from.pdf?dl=0

A 25 yr review; 40 yrs soon and an ‘electric’ 146 yet to come.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ytx9v77p8s...Ae146.pdf?dl=0

And one of several ideas that did not make it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9a7jyz9lk4...20NRA.pdf?dl=0