BAe146 Freighter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Somewhere between here and there....
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe146 Freighter
I see that Cranfield Aerospace have come up with an alternative conversion to that offered by Pemco. However, the cargo door is located on the right hand side which is a radical move from other conversions. In fact, I don't think cargo doors have been installed on this side in the past (I may be wrong).
I wonder how airlines will react to this move and is there a market for more Bae146 conversions ?
I wonder how airlines will react to this move and is there a market for more Bae146 conversions ?
Evertonian
If they put it on the RHS, then it's out of the wind I suppose!
I think the reason Main deck cargo doors are on the LHS, is because the Lower deck doors are on the RHS on the big fellas. With the 146, I guess there's no serious equipment conflicts when loading as the belly is just lose cargo. Anyway, that's my 2c worth!
I think the reason Main deck cargo doors are on the LHS, is because the Lower deck doors are on the RHS on the big fellas. With the 146, I guess there's no serious equipment conflicts when loading as the belly is just lose cargo. Anyway, that's my 2c worth!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to demand for more 146 freighters it depends:-
On the economy picking up
COST and most important capital cost. Most short/medium freighters in Europe work a small number of hours per day. For this to pay the capital cost of the aircraft is relatively more important than the per hour cost.
One big advantage of the 146 is that it is very quiet, for night ops this is more and more important.
I think this is the situation in Europe, anyone like to comment on other parts of the world.
On the economy picking up
COST and most important capital cost. Most short/medium freighters in Europe work a small number of hours per day. For this to pay the capital cost of the aircraft is relatively more important than the per hour cost.
One big advantage of the 146 is that it is very quiet, for night ops this is more and more important.
I think this is the situation in Europe, anyone like to comment on other parts of the world.
Talking of wind direction, I am minded of of the surprise that we got with our existing equipment. We have a 50 knot limit on the cargo door. When we first started, we used to go to great lengths in high wind conditions to park the aircraft so that the cargo door was downwind and really thought that we were doing the right thing.
After a while the manufacturers got to hear about this practice and threw their hands in the air with horror. They had assumed that we would park into wind. What they were concerned about was not the cargo door per se but the stress created on the fuselage structure around the cargo door when parked in high winds with the door open.
Put simply, if you open the door in a 50 knot wind whilst parked cross wind you create a structural weak point and could eventually end up with a very expensive banana! I have to say that none of us had considered this but neither had we been told that this was the way they wanted us to do it!
I would also have thought that putting a cargo door on a BAe 146 at the front on the right side would dramatically increase the risk of (at best) damaging leading-edge engine cowls with the hi-lo or (at worst) knocking the engines off. Mind you, we all know how careful hi-lo drivers are!
I would also think that it would be very difficult to load the forward belly hold whilst a hi-lo is in position. That is going to increase loading times.
After a while the manufacturers got to hear about this practice and threw their hands in the air with horror. They had assumed that we would park into wind. What they were concerned about was not the cargo door per se but the stress created on the fuselage structure around the cargo door when parked in high winds with the door open.
Put simply, if you open the door in a 50 knot wind whilst parked cross wind you create a structural weak point and could eventually end up with a very expensive banana! I have to say that none of us had considered this but neither had we been told that this was the way they wanted us to do it!
I would also have thought that putting a cargo door on a BAe 146 at the front on the right side would dramatically increase the risk of (at best) damaging leading-edge engine cowls with the hi-lo or (at worst) knocking the engines off. Mind you, we all know how careful hi-lo drivers are!
I would also think that it would be very difficult to load the forward belly hold whilst a hi-lo is in position. That is going to increase loading times.
Guest
Posts: n/a
...but they save at least the costs to position the aft outflow valve to thr RHS.....
There is a market, I am very sure. Containerized 9 - 11 to freight with no noise limitations for reasonable distances and very short turnarounds...and with the amount of birds going into storage presently as well as the more than 30 still to be parked, the price-tag will be well worth a consideration.
There is a market, I am very sure. Containerized 9 - 11 to freight with no noise limitations for reasonable distances and very short turnarounds...and with the amount of birds going into storage presently as well as the more than 30 still to be parked, the price-tag will be well worth a consideration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Somewhere between here and there....
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly_146 I had heard that TNT were getting into B737-300's but whether they would replace the 146's I'm not sure. If they did, there would certainly be a lot of 146 freighters on the market, and all with left hand cargo doors - at the rear !!
In connection with the Cranfield project, I wonder why they didn't decided to put the door on the left at the front !
In connection with the Cranfield project, I wonder why they didn't decided to put the door on the left at the front !
Evertonian
Ahh yes, TNT's 146F's, fully funded by AN. If only some of it went back into AN at the time.....pity.
At least the 146 doesn't have far to tip with an aft cargo door!
At least the 146 doesn't have far to tip with an aft cargo door!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cranfield cite two reasons for the front door choice - it would avoid making a double-curved skin door; so it would be cheaper. Also, and this seems a bit odd to me, it would be out of the way of the cargo loader's cab - are they all RHD then???
It will be a smallish door, 96x76 inches, and is currently only proposed for the -300. The -200, if proceeded with, would have a narrower door.
Good luck to 'em, anyway....if 146 values fall enough it looks like a sound idea.
The TNT 146QT's are here for the forseeable; no plans to get shot of them just yet - just as well really, as they are doing a good job of keeping Mrs.Nopax in custard powder and knickers!
It will be a smallish door, 96x76 inches, and is currently only proposed for the -300. The -200, if proceeded with, would have a narrower door.
Good luck to 'em, anyway....if 146 values fall enough it looks like a sound idea.
The TNT 146QT's are here for the forseeable; no plans to get shot of them just yet - just as well really, as they are doing a good job of keeping Mrs.Nopax in custard powder and knickers!
Still Trampin' the Ramp
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Right in the middle of UK
Age: 76
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting!
Nopax, yes, most loaders have the drivers position on the RHS although FedEx did have some built with LHD for the A310 due to the proximity of the nacelle to the cargo door.
From Cranfields logical point of view, it makes perfect sense to put the door on the right BUT..... as every other bird has the door on the left, you then have to know is it a BAe built aircraft or Cranfield conversion before you position the GSE. Also, I still have reservations about putting the driver furthest away from the danger area.
Whatever, I wish Cranfield luck although, if TNT do put even some of theirs on the market, I'm not sure that there is that great a market for the size/capacity.
Nopax, yes, most loaders have the drivers position on the RHS although FedEx did have some built with LHD for the A310 due to the proximity of the nacelle to the cargo door.
From Cranfields logical point of view, it makes perfect sense to put the door on the right BUT..... as every other bird has the door on the left, you then have to know is it a BAe built aircraft or Cranfield conversion before you position the GSE. Also, I still have reservations about putting the driver furthest away from the danger area.
Whatever, I wish Cranfield luck although, if TNT do put even some of theirs on the market, I'm not sure that there is that great a market for the size/capacity.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really doubt if we will see any further 146 conversions. At the end of the day TNT is the only real player on this market but going to switch to 737s. 737s are more pespective freighters, just a bit over 146-300 capacity but offering more volume and much wider choise of airframes. 737-300/400 costs are falling down and keep in mind that 2 engines are always less expensive to maintain even if they are bigger, 146 is a really niche aircraft. Niche aircraft nowadays means expensive. As a person who is in charge with costs, analysis and all about that, today 733 costs the same money as 146 to operate.
If we are looking on commercial forecasts for pax-to-freighter conversions short-to-medium haul market, there is nothing about 146, it is all about 733/734/312/313/752.
If I'm a pilot I wouldn't put any single euro in getting 146 rating folks
P.S. Ofcourse it doesn't mean TNT will phase out 146s soon. There is simply no market to accomodate them, so they will be flying for some few years I recon.
edited for P.S.
If we are looking on commercial forecasts for pax-to-freighter conversions short-to-medium haul market, there is nothing about 146, it is all about 733/734/312/313/752.
If I'm a pilot I wouldn't put any single euro in getting 146 rating folks
P.S. Ofcourse it doesn't mean TNT will phase out 146s soon. There is simply no market to accomodate them, so they will be flying for some few years I recon.
edited for P.S.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Cargo,
Sounds like you've condemned the 146 4eva, so do you think a fully laden 737 with its extra couple of tons on board will be able to find a runway long enough to land on without ending up on the ring road......They tell me the brakes aren't exactly sharp when big loads are involved.
Also doesn't a fully loaded 73 come into a much more expensive L/fees bracket, sounds like an expensive couple of extra tons to me.
I reckon theres life in the old dogs yet, and when no-one else anywhere in the world wants them sell them to Emerald, they'll get another 30 or so years outa them......
Sounds like you've condemned the 146 4eva, so do you think a fully laden 737 with its extra couple of tons on board will be able to find a runway long enough to land on without ending up on the ring road......They tell me the brakes aren't exactly sharp when big loads are involved.
Also doesn't a fully loaded 73 come into a much more expensive L/fees bracket, sounds like an expensive couple of extra tons to me.
I reckon theres life in the old dogs yet, and when no-one else anywhere in the world wants them sell them to Emerald, they'll get another 30 or so years outa them......
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bodjit,
Just think about it:
- how many 146F operating in the world at all
- what is the % of all world-wide 146F fleet collected at TNT
- which destinations TNT is now covering with 146 where the rwy is too short for 733
- the commercial aviation is driven not by pilots but bean counters and I'm one of them
Talking every day with colleaugues around I haven't heard any word that some one is really studing the possibility to put 146F into operations
Just think about it:
- how many 146F operating in the world at all
- what is the % of all world-wide 146F fleet collected at TNT
- which destinations TNT is now covering with 146 where the rwy is too short for 733
- the commercial aviation is driven not by pilots but bean counters and I'm one of them
Talking every day with colleaugues around I haven't heard any word that some one is really studing the possibility to put 146F into operations
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Cargo1, about the 146 not being a good rating. It is true, not a lot of them are flying around. On the other hand a lot of pilots have converted to other aircrafts, so ther are not a lot of 146 rated pilots left. Also with the 146-rating you can easily (3 days conversion) go on the RJ as well.
When you are flexible, you can get a job very easily on the 146, especially in the UK.
It still is a 4 engined aeroplane with over 40 tons. So you get some good hours with it.
When you are flexible, you can get a job very easily on the 146, especially in the UK.
It still is a 4 engined aeroplane with over 40 tons. So you get some good hours with it.
