BAe-146/Avro -- Why Four Engines?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: California
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe-146/Avro -- Why Four Engines?
Yes, I realize the obvious (and silly) answers, such as: "because three was not enough" or "five was too many", etc.
What I'm interested in is the design reasons why the BAe-146 was designed with four eggbeaters as opposed to two stronger, somewhat-larger engines. I understand that the aircraft has a higher redundancy reliability with 4 as opposed to two, but this seems to have been a bit overkill, even if engine noise is reduced. Twins are (in most cases) cheaper to maintain and it's always struck me as odd that BAe decided in favor of 4 small fans vs. two somewhat-larger ones. Certainly this is driving a faster retirement of even the newer Avro versions..?
I'd love to hear your feedback!
What I'm interested in is the design reasons why the BAe-146 was designed with four eggbeaters as opposed to two stronger, somewhat-larger engines. I understand that the aircraft has a higher redundancy reliability with 4 as opposed to two, but this seems to have been a bit overkill, even if engine noise is reduced. Twins are (in most cases) cheaper to maintain and it's always struck me as odd that BAe decided in favor of 4 small fans vs. two somewhat-larger ones. Certainly this is driving a faster retirement of even the newer Avro versions..?
I'd love to hear your feedback!
When 146 production finally started in the early 1980s (it went through a number of false starts due to company changes/1973 fuel crisis etc) suitable engine choice was limited. With an eye to the American market, where a number of airports* were already introducing much more stringent aircraft noise restrictions, four small engines was the only way of achieving the required power/sfc/noise compromise.
*I believe that in the early days, the 146 was the only public transport aircraft that could comply with the night-time noise restrictions at Orange County (John Wayne) Airport.
*I believe that in the early days, the 146 was the only public transport aircraft that could comply with the night-time noise restrictions at Orange County (John Wayne) Airport.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: California
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Granted it's a quiet little bird, but historically economical use has been the driving force with successful jet sales. I'm surprised that at the very least the BAe didn't have a twin option at some point.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was once a model at BAe Woodford, albeit a small one (about 2 foot long) that had two engines.
Two larger engines would reduce ground clearance and hence not be as good when used on rough landing strips
Two larger engines would reduce ground clearance and hence not be as good when used on rough landing strips
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Age: 52
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 146 was designed for rough/ short strip operations. In addition to the given John Wayne Airport I think its the only jet that can operate out of Jersey (JSY) and until recently London City (LCY).
The RJX, which was the replacement 146 was cancelled by BAE systems as it was upa against the Dornier 728 and the old C-Series. With just 30 orders from Fly BE thay caned it, whoch seems a shame as the 728 bit the dust and the C-Series went offline for many years before it was reborn. Maybe a twin-engine RJX would fo sold better.
I think that BAE missed a mark here. Going off at a tangent a little, but............
How many mew build, long range. 4 engine MPA can you buy for an Airforce today? None. With all the cash that is being spent developing the Nimrod MR4, they are going to gain 0 export sales. Why, lack of airframes.
The RJX would of been easy to double-bubble and add sensors to. At low level on patrol two of the four engines could be idled.
Shame.
Steve
The RJX, which was the replacement 146 was cancelled by BAE systems as it was upa against the Dornier 728 and the old C-Series. With just 30 orders from Fly BE thay caned it, whoch seems a shame as the 728 bit the dust and the C-Series went offline for many years before it was reborn. Maybe a twin-engine RJX would fo sold better.
I think that BAE missed a mark here. Going off at a tangent a little, but............
How many mew build, long range. 4 engine MPA can you buy for an Airforce today? None. With all the cash that is being spent developing the Nimrod MR4, they are going to gain 0 export sales. Why, lack of airframes.
The RJX would of been easy to double-bubble and add sensors to. At low level on patrol two of the four engines could be idled.
Shame.
Steve
The 4-engine configuration was advantageous for STOL operations and/or hot/high work, always a British obsession (VC10 et al).
Another reason might have been what I was shown in 1980 at Hatfield when evaluating the aircraft; a spare engine could be carried in relatively few boxes in the hold, being quite small; this was meant to be hugely attractive.
My boss at the time, an engineer who ran an airline, said when I reported back to him about this fantastic benefit, "you silly sod; why do you suppose they think it's necessary to have a spare always available?"
Except he wasn't so polite.
Another reason might have been what I was shown in 1980 at Hatfield when evaluating the aircraft; a spare engine could be carried in relatively few boxes in the hold, being quite small; this was meant to be hugely attractive.
My boss at the time, an engineer who ran an airline, said when I reported back to him about this fantastic benefit, "you silly sod; why do you suppose they think it's necessary to have a spare always available?"
Except he wasn't so polite.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: California
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a real shame, as the high-wing configuration of the 146 seemed to be a perfect candidate for a 2-engine model, whilst retaining the STOL and relatively-quiet characteristics.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The An148.......
Not similar in anyway
, but then the Russians never did copy other peoples designs, did they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148
Not similar in anyway
, but then the Russians never did copy other peoples designs, did they?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Jersey
Age: 43
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 146 was designed for rough/ short strip operations. In addition to the given John Wayne Airport I think its the only jet that can operate out of Jersey (JSY) and until recently London City (LCY)."
JER on the other hand once had an L1011 in here, although the largest scheduled type at the minute is the 320 (EI,BD,S4).
Last edited by GGFFB; 9th Jun 2008 at 11:20. Reason: Type
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An answer not really explained above...
An engine failure at rotate/V1 loses a 146 25% of thrust, a "126" 50%. If it now needs to climb over an obstruction, the twin will have a large payload penalty, or the twin needs much bigger (and expensive) engines to start off with.
Unfortunately, while there are routes (LCY) where this is/was needed, not enough to base/justify a whole design on...
NoD
An engine failure at rotate/V1 loses a 146 25% of thrust, a "126" 50%. If it now needs to climb over an obstruction, the twin will have a large payload penalty, or the twin needs much bigger (and expensive) engines to start off with.
Unfortunately, while there are routes (LCY) where this is/was needed, not enough to base/justify a whole design on...
NoD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: California
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its unfortunate, because I firmly believe that the same advantages that the 146's 4-engine configuration have led to the model's relatively recent unpopularity with carriers.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An added bonus that got us out of trouble more than once when I worked for TAY was that if you had an engine problem away from base you could fly home (non-revenue) on three.
But of course the real reason was "Not enough room for eight!"
(sorry, had to do it!
)
But of course the real reason was "Not enough room for eight!"
(sorry, had to do it!
)
Hot & High was the reasons that stick in my mind. I have of course the complete encyclopaedia of Aircraft (in weekly parts) from around the relevant period, that I will consult for the definitive answer.
From one who was there, they were (are) astonishingly quiet.
From one who was there, they were (are) astonishingly quiet.