BAE 146-200 - UOR for Two

[Moose Loadie]

Which Sqn are going to be operating them?

[haltonapp]

Being a pax in a 146 freighter is not luxury flying I can assure you, I jump seated from Liege to Stansted in a TNT one some eleven or twelve years ago, and I don't think they will have got any better in the meantime!

[Stratofreighter]

As the photos at Scramble Messageboard • Information
show she is now off to Chester.

[Chicken Leg]

Proone,

The implicit point is that had things not been so mismanaged in the first place, the requirement would already have been satisfied using in-service resources. In this case, either a shedload more C130 or A400M already in service.

Not acknowledging this is similar to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The Palestinians were "done out of" their land. When the Israelis acknowledge the wrongs done to the Palestinians in the 1940s to create their state, then things might improve.

You haven't considered a career in Politics, have you?

It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Proone, but I certainly do on this point!

'A shedload more C130's' might cost a little more than the several million being spent on these two aircraft.

Everybody seems to ignore the state of our public finances (thanks to Gordon and his mate Tony) and complains when fleets are retired or deteriorate, but then also complain when the problem is addressed. If the UK is to pull out of Afghan in 2014, then why would we want to address that specific operational requirement by spending billions on an entire fleet?

Yes, you can argue that we need to spend billions on our AT fleet for our longer term requirement, but the 146's are a cheap, specific, short term solution, to a specific, short term operational requirement.

And for the poster who suggested that these aircraft are for VIP transport, I think you might have misread the brief! Why do you think the C130's are all falling over??

[Wycombe]

Haltoapp said:

Being a pax in a 146 freighter is not luxury flying I can assure you

I sit to be corrected, but these aircraft are QC's and not pure freighters, so will have a pax-friendly interior, but with seats on pallets so they can be quickly role-changed for freight.

Lufthansa used to do this with quite a few 737's, ie, fly pax during the day then roll the seat pallets out through the side door (which is at the rear on these 146's) and fly freight at night.

I also notice from the pics that the area where some additional equipment might be fitted has been left unpainted at the rear of the fuselage.

These also must be fairly late-model a/c, as they appear to be EFIS flight-decked (like the later Avro's).

[StopStart]

The C130s are falling over because the RAF has not allocated sufficient engineering resources to maintain them in a suitable state. That's all. As things stand it probably is cheaper to buy a couple of -146s than it is put right the pitiful state of the C130 fleet.

Oh and by the way, C130s are regularly wasted doing VIP nonsense.

[Roadster280]

My point isn't that the money should have been spent on more C130. It is that (more) money should have been spent on a shedload more C130 years ago, so that the current requirement would have been met with in-service resources.

Not entirely the MOD's fault, since A400M should have been in service a while back too, as an alternative to more C130. Although part of that delay might be down to the MOD... Nevertheless, once A400M is delayed, why not go to Lockheed there and then and get more C130, even if only leased, to offset the delay. Send the bill to Airbus, if the govt has the balls.

Given the current **** sandwich, some pocket change on a Band-Aid is not a bad thing to do, I agree. But this is treating the symptom, not the cause.

[Rigga]

R280,

I think you and most people on here are in "violent agreement".

With no plan tangible plan for the short-term future, there is no tangible funding. So accounting for the short-term develops into a NHS sticking plaster - treating the symptom and waiting for the real problem to cure itself.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Code:

why not go to Lockheed there and then and get more C130,

Why not simply stop winding down the ones we have got, and put the withdrawn ones back into service? Or are they beyond repair?

[SteveMRobson]

XV 277 quote The 2 CC1s were only ever on loan from BAe to evaluate them for the Andover replacement.

The two 146's used for evaluation (c 1983) to replace the Andover were not on loan - they were purchased from BAe following their international sales tour so were not even new and despite a refurb prior to the delivery had a number of problems such as engine change in the first week. After teething problems they performed well and completed the evaluation of test flights and scheduled flights ahead of schedule before being sold to Dan-Air.

The 146 was built for rough work but can suffer from 'margin' problems in hot and high conditions but are used in Australia in rugged conditions. The QCs have a flexible operational capability.

[barnstormer1968]

I know virtually nothing about these aircraft, but do like the way that Royal Air Force has been painted on the sides. It looks better than the new corporate style, even if it has been over painted in red.

[Sook]

Originally Posted by Milo Mindbender

Code:
why not go to Lockheed there and then and get more C130,
Why not simply stop winding down the ones we have got, and put the withdrawn ones back into service? Or are they beyond repair?

I would suggest that most of them are beyond repair.

[XV277]

Originally Posted by SteveMRobson

XV 277 quote The 2 CC1s were only ever on loan from BAe to evaluate them for the Andover replacement.

The two 146's used for evaluation (c 1983) to replace the Andover were not on loan - they were purchased from BAe following their international sales tour so were not even new and despite a refurb prior to the delivery had a number of problems such as engine change in the first week. After teething problems they performed well and completed the evaluation of test flights and scheduled flights ahead of schedule before being sold to Dan-Air.

Interesting, all the published material refers to them as being 'leased' and returned to manufacturer - ZD695/G-OBAF was certainly only ever chartered by Dan Air from BAE

GINFO Registration History | Aircraft Register | Operations and Safety


whilst G-SCHH/ZD696 was returned to BAE whilst with the RAF, and at the end of the period before going to Dan Air

GINFO Registration History | Aircraft Register | Operations and Safety

I'm sure there is also an interesting story as to how BAE managed to register two separate aircraft as G-SCHH!!!

[Ken Scott]

Why not simply stop winding down the ones we have got, and put the withdrawn ones back into service? Or are they beyond repair?

The C130Ks that have been withdrawn from service are beyond returning, but they are all over 40 years old anyway. The real scandal is the state of the C130Js, a little over one quarter of that age but in a pretty shocking condition due to lack of engineering support & spares added to the high number of flying cycles/ hours that they have done in recent ops.

It might have been better to spend some of the cash on engineering backup but as Stoppers pointed out it's probably too late for that now particularly as the aircraft are due for disposal by 2020.....but as the C130Ks have ably demonstrated the requirement for a capable aircraft sometimes pushes it beyond its OSD & if the A400 doesn't achieve its Tac clearances in time....

So the C130J might also be forced to soldier on beyond 2020 having had the bare minimum spent on it for more than the past decade. Meanwhile, when does the shiny new £200 million C17 arrive?

[A2QFI]

We must hope that the health problems re toxic engine fumes in the aircraft have been addressed

More efforts to combat fumes in BAe 146

[ScottWilliam]

BAe 146

here are a few of the photos. I've also provide a link to a time-lapse video of the new livery being applied.


Enjoy!

for more details Vincent Aviation's "new" BAe 146!