RAf to Fill Airlift Gap with old BAe-146s??
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that their are a whole bunch of 748's in Liverpool that belonged to Emerald before they went bust which could probably be bought for the price of the outstanding parking fees..........................
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Midlands,UK
Age: 58
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you lot considered popping in to Coventy and having a chat with Air Atlantic. I do believe they do a rather nice line in Electra's,DC-6's and DC-3's. They are reputable and I do believe they reconditioned the BBMF Lancaster so you should get a good reference from them.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought that I would point out that this coming Wednesday (16th Sep 2009) will be the 26th Anniversary of my collecting the RAF's 2nd BAe 146 (ZD 695) from BAe Chester.
If the RAF now buys 2nd hand 146's, has to convert them for Military use and train Crews; then it will be at least another 18 months before they "enter the fray". Better, surely, to buy or lease new C130's (or at least newer than current RAF C130's) where there is at least a solid foundation of type experience to call on and expansion can readily be absorbed.
If the RAF now buys 2nd hand 146's, has to convert them for Military use and train Crews; then it will be at least another 18 months before they "enter the fray". Better, surely, to buy or lease new C130's (or at least newer than current RAF C130's) where there is at least a solid foundation of type experience to call on and expansion can readily be absorbed.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I'm sure if BAe was given a contract to operate them "as is" in pax and freight roles, they'd find enough qualified crews willing to sign up as sponsored reserve aircrew to get them into grow bags as and when required.
When the 146 Development Flight at Brize were working out whether the 146 had much to offer, one of the fighter detachments at the Deci ACMI came back on one.
I asked them what they thought - "It was pretty and slow. But at least it wasn't a sodding Hercules" was the answer.
Living in the OM at the time, the purr of the 146 was rather more welcome than the noise of the Vickers WhisperJet....
Particularly at oh-dark-hundred!!
I asked them what they thought - "It was pretty and slow. But at least it wasn't a sodding Hercules" was the answer.
Living in the OM at the time, the purr of the 146 was rather more welcome than the noise of the Vickers WhisperJet....
Particularly at oh-dark-hundred!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 146M is hardly a practical solution when it has CO2 emissions 56% more than an E195, particularly when emissions are such a hot potato at the moment."
Given the amount of fuel we're buring and ordnance we're lobbing around in the 'stan, I'm not sure political correctness on CO2 emissions is a major concern.
Maybe this is an opportunity for some of the 'less-keen-to-fight' members of the alliance to pitch in. Perhaps we'll forgive them for not sending brigades of squaddies into the front line if they'll send us squadrons of Alberts to support our front line troops instead?
Meanwhile we can concentrate on getting our own long term med/heavy lift decisionmaking right. We have problems enough not screwing up long term decisions - so God only knows what sort of shambles we'd make of a short term stop-gap decision like 'find me an instant Albert substitute we can announce ahead of the next embarrassing PMQs'.
Given the amount of fuel we're buring and ordnance we're lobbing around in the 'stan, I'm not sure political correctness on CO2 emissions is a major concern.
Maybe this is an opportunity for some of the 'less-keen-to-fight' members of the alliance to pitch in. Perhaps we'll forgive them for not sending brigades of squaddies into the front line if they'll send us squadrons of Alberts to support our front line troops instead?
Meanwhile we can concentrate on getting our own long term med/heavy lift decisionmaking right. We have problems enough not screwing up long term decisions - so God only knows what sort of shambles we'd make of a short term stop-gap decision like 'find me an instant Albert substitute we can announce ahead of the next embarrassing PMQs'.
MGD said:
From info I have seen, the think the 146 burns around 2t per hour in the cruise, and can uplift about 10t max fuel. So, fuel burn is a bit less than the Vickers Funbus!
In -300 guise (the longest fuselaged version) it can carry about 110 pax.
Yes, it is a bit slow compared to most pure jet airliners, but that is because the wing needed to be a compromise that would also allow the short-field performance that the aircraft is known for, without the complexity of a moving leading-edge, for example.
Many have also asked over the years why the 146 doesn't have thrust reversers? Answer = because it doesn't need them.
Here is a bit of footage I found of a certain privately-operated one operating off 1200m of runway at a GA airfield in Southern England.
YouTube - BAe 146 @ EGLK FEB'07
Seem to remember from some work I did recently that the Avro RJ is quite a thirsty beast
In -300 guise (the longest fuselaged version) it can carry about 110 pax.
Yes, it is a bit slow compared to most pure jet airliners, but that is because the wing needed to be a compromise that would also allow the short-field performance that the aircraft is known for, without the complexity of a moving leading-edge, for example.
Many have also asked over the years why the 146 doesn't have thrust reversers? Answer = because it doesn't need them.
Here is a bit of footage I found of a certain privately-operated one operating off 1200m of runway at a GA airfield in Southern England.
YouTube - BAe 146 @ EGLK FEB'07
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
146
Range and engine reliability might well be an issue, but the STOL capability sounds jolly handy.
There was even a 1960's paper design for a similar job, ( NATO requirement ) VSTOL, with 4 Pegasus !
In the days when the Harrier wasn't even sorted, and fly by wire was but a twinkle in John Farleys' eye, I think it would have been a case of " you try it first ... "
However the 146 sounds a good idea to me, maybe cancel the A400 and eventually get some more C-17's ?
There was even a 1960's paper design for a similar job, ( NATO requirement ) VSTOL, with 4 Pegasus !
In the days when the Harrier wasn't even sorted, and fly by wire was but a twinkle in John Farleys' eye, I think it would have been a case of " you try it first ... "
However the 146 sounds a good idea to me, maybe cancel the A400 and eventually get some more C-17's ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it can meet the requirements both operationally and fiscally WHY NOT? 
Hello boys
YouTube - Aerolineas Star Peru BAe 146-100
gr
Hello boys
YouTube - Aerolineas Star Peru BAe 146-100
gr
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can be bought or leased for as little as $2 million (£1.2 million) each, which is an attractive proposition for defence chiefs facing future possible budget cuts.
Fuel burns are typically 2 tonnes per hr on a 2hr sector for a 70 and 2.2 tonnes per hr for a 100.
Fuel ( at 2006 prices) and maintenance run to around US$2800 per block hour.
You can't make money with them in airline operation: maybe that is why they have been offered to the military!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the 146 / Avro RJ. Like all aeroplanes it has its down sides. I flew them for a couple of years. I don't know enough about the role they would needing to fill though. What sort of legs would be needed? As an approximation of capability, we used to the the Balearics / Sardinia / Rome from LGW without too much difficulty. Is that enough to do anything useful?
Although there are probably not a lot of current RAF pilots that know much about them, the 146/RJ community has had a lot of ex service pilots at one time or another. (not necessarily ex service pilots, but ex servicemen that are ATPLs. My mob had a varied mix of ex RAF pilots of all roles, ex Navs, ex engineers, ex Navy folks and even some ex army). With airlines going bust and other making redundancies, you might be surprised how rapidly you could crew an initial batch of them. (Pure speculation I admit)
I don't fancy the idea of major mods though. That does sound like a recipe for wasting money and not getting any capability in a decent timescale. They need to be used as closed to 'as is' as possible.
If there's a need to move 100 or so folks 900 miles or so, with perhaps some awkward terrain / short field at the end of it, the RJ could be the right machine for the job.
Although there are probably not a lot of current RAF pilots that know much about them, the 146/RJ community has had a lot of ex service pilots at one time or another. (not necessarily ex service pilots, but ex servicemen that are ATPLs. My mob had a varied mix of ex RAF pilots of all roles, ex Navs, ex engineers, ex Navy folks and even some ex army). With airlines going bust and other making redundancies, you might be surprised how rapidly you could crew an initial batch of them. (Pure speculation I admit)
I don't fancy the idea of major mods though. That does sound like a recipe for wasting money and not getting any capability in a decent timescale. They need to be used as closed to 'as is' as possible.
If there's a need to move 100 or so folks 900 miles or so, with perhaps some awkward terrain / short field at the end of it, the RJ could be the right machine for the job.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wing has little to do with it: the Fokker 100 / 70 has a fixed LE and has similar, if not better short field performance and cruises higher and faster.
The aircraft has to have mods to allow it above FL280: RVSM is one but I recall there are others. Cruising lower down affects the burns, TAS and hence sector ties. The increased sector times increase the maintenance frequency and the aircraft simply becomes uneconomic to operate at a profit.
I would be uncharitable and comment that only a fool would want these as a supplement for C130s in theatre: but desperate times need desperate measures and we sure as hell are desperate for airlift capability across the board.
The aircraft has to have mods to allow it above FL280: RVSM is one but I recall there are others. Cruising lower down affects the burns, TAS and hence sector ties. The increased sector times increase the maintenance frequency and the aircraft simply becomes uneconomic to operate at a profit.
I would be uncharitable and comment that only a fool would want these as a supplement for C130s in theatre: but desperate times need desperate measures and we sure as hell are desperate for airlift capability across the board.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft has to have mods to allow it above FL280: RVSM is one but I recall there are others.
Most 146s do not have RVSM capability - a few do but as the maximum 146 altitude is 30 or 31000ft then the RVSM mod has not been taken up by many operators.
The Fokker might cruise higher than a 146 but not an RJ. I suspect the Fokker short field performance is lacking in some areas compared to the 146/RJ otherwise they would operate into LCY - and they can't.
If they cannot be operated at profit, I wonder why Lufthansa, Brussels, Swiss and TNT have operated such large fleets for as long?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimmy, the Fokker can operate in to LCY.
The RJ operators either subsidise the operation from their long haul operation or they need the "special " performance and set their fares accordingly.
The aircraft BAe had at Kemble, RJs included, could not operate in RVSM airspace. The mod was not simple, otherwise it would have been carried out before they were offered to the market.
It does not make sense to throw taxpayer's money at 20 year old aircraft clearly not capable of meeting the military need ( not the MoD ), without enormous modification, purely as a stopgap.
The RJ operators either subsidise the operation from their long haul operation or they need the "special " performance and set their fares accordingly.
The aircraft BAe had at Kemble, RJs included, could not operate in RVSM airspace. The mod was not simple, otherwise it would have been carried out before they were offered to the market.
It does not make sense to throw taxpayer's money at 20 year old aircraft clearly not capable of meeting the military need ( not the MoD ), without enormous modification, purely as a stopgap.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Although there are probably not a lot of current RAF pilots that know much about them, the 146/RJ community has had a lot of ex service pilots at one time or another. (not necessarily ex service pilots, but ex servicemen that are ATPLs. My mob had a varied mix of ex RAF pilots of all roles, ex Navs, ex engineers, ex Navy folks and even some ex army). With airlines going bust and other making redundancies, you might be surprised how rapidly you could crew an initial batch of them. (Pure speculation I admit)'
Not speculation, I suggest. The introduction of the 146/RJ could be the prime candidate for the RAF's first flying reserve unit that could be manned without affecting the front-line manpower. There are many - I repeat - many ex service types from all backgrounds in the 146/RJ world. For in-theatre ops, lugging troops around arid environs, in and out of short strips, you'll find little better at the price. Several of the large civilian operators will be retiring RJs and that is a quantum leap over the 146. Great aeroplane in the main and you can do anything with it that a turboprop can do.
Not speculation, I suggest. The introduction of the 146/RJ could be the prime candidate for the RAF's first flying reserve unit that could be manned without affecting the front-line manpower. There are many - I repeat - many ex service types from all backgrounds in the 146/RJ world. For in-theatre ops, lugging troops around arid environs, in and out of short strips, you'll find little better at the price. Several of the large civilian operators will be retiring RJs and that is a quantum leap over the 146. Great aeroplane in the main and you can do anything with it that a turboprop can do.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimmy, the Fokker can operate in to LCY.
The aircraft BAe had at Kemble, RJs included, could not operate in RVSM airspace. The mod was not simple, otherwise it would have been carried out before they were offered to the market.