New Aeromed Role for BAe 146 CC3
Thread Starter
New Aeromed Role for BAe 146 CC3
2 x aircraft modified - ZE707 and ZE708 - which now have no currently declared OSD.
https://www.key.aero/article/raf-ada...3s-medical-use
https://www.key.aero/article/raf-ada...3s-medical-use
2 x aircraft modified - ZE707 and ZE708 - which now have no currently declared OSD.
https://www.key.aero/article/raf-ada...3s-medical-use
https://www.key.aero/article/raf-ada...3s-medical-use
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sits nicely between tactical Critical Care Air Support Team (CCAST) and strategic CCAST requirements. It does mean in time critical cases they don't have to use a Voyager for instance from Gibralter in a C130J or A400M maybe 4 hours in an 146 2.5 hours. Also, has a greater ceiling compared to the C130J or the A400M giving a smoother ride for the patient in general. Doesn't sound a lot but it is also the kit is Voyager compatible.for the stretcher support arms etc. I suspect they will remain at Northolt rather than Brize Norton.
Un-sustainable when they are constantly grounded in pieces. So probably not good for an aeromed shout either.
knee jerk to the C-17 being on its last legs and unable to support / sustain CCAST tasks?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 145 Likes
on
28 Posts
air pig: the performance of the 146 is actually rather similar to that of the A400M: the former is cruise at M0.7, max ceiling 35,000ft, the latter M0.68 at a max 37,000ft, so hardly a substantial advantage and unlikely to shave 90 mins off the flight time from Gib - UK. Beats the C130J by a significant margin though.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
When I was flying the 146, admittedly many years ago, the max cruise level was 310. Has this been increased, and if so, by what means?
Awful serviceability rates though - hence why they got taken off the Kippion shuttles.
Un-sustainable when they are constantly grounded in pieces. So probably not good for an aeromed shout either.
knee jerk to the C-17 being on its last legs and unable to support / sustain CCAST tasks?
Un-sustainable when they are constantly grounded in pieces. So probably not good for an aeromed shout either.
knee jerk to the C-17 being on its last legs and unable to support / sustain CCAST tasks?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 145 Likes
on
28 Posts
When I was flying the 146, admittedly many years ago, the max cruise level was 310. Has this been increased, and if so, by what means?
Ceiling for A400M is actually 40,000ft but limited in use by cabin altitude, maybe it was a similar deal for the 146?
With regard to the HS146 conversion I am curious to know how it has been certified, are the changes embodied in the aircraft drawing set, is it referenced in all the other aircraft clearance documentation such as the safety case, and is it underwritten by the aircraft design authority, presumably now BAe Systems? Maybe I am unnecessarily concerned that someone might have decided its a quick easy option, the aircraft is soon going out of service, we don't need to document it with the full modification procedure etc.
I am always slightly nervous when something is adapted from another aircraft, in this case apparently some stanchions that attach to the floor on the Voyager. The cause of my nervousness goes back to the Buccaneer S Mk 2 cold weather trial in Fort Churchill in the early 70's. On the first trial the fuel flow proportioner hydraulic motor leaked from a garter seal after the aircraft had been cold soaked. Dowty, who made the motor, said we have an easy fix, use a carbon face seal as used on the Viggen proportioner motor. We don't need to test it, its already cleared down to -40 or some such figure. The mod was done on a couple of units and the following winter the aircraft went for a further cold weather trial. I can still remember my fellow systems engineer Graham Armitt, who was one of the HSA reps on the trial, ringing me up and ranting that the Effing proportioners leaking far worse than before, the effing floor is covered in effing hydraulic oil and everyone here is really pissed off. It turned out the Buccaneer proportioner motor had more end float and the static O ring held the carbon seal away from its mating face as the system started up, resulting in a massive hydraulic leak. The problem was subsequently fixed by a stronger spring and different seal material but we made sure Dowty cold chamber tested it before we fitted it to an aircraft. I learned about clearing things by analogy from the experience.
Walbut
I am always slightly nervous when something is adapted from another aircraft, in this case apparently some stanchions that attach to the floor on the Voyager. The cause of my nervousness goes back to the Buccaneer S Mk 2 cold weather trial in Fort Churchill in the early 70's. On the first trial the fuel flow proportioner hydraulic motor leaked from a garter seal after the aircraft had been cold soaked. Dowty, who made the motor, said we have an easy fix, use a carbon face seal as used on the Viggen proportioner motor. We don't need to test it, its already cleared down to -40 or some such figure. The mod was done on a couple of units and the following winter the aircraft went for a further cold weather trial. I can still remember my fellow systems engineer Graham Armitt, who was one of the HSA reps on the trial, ringing me up and ranting that the Effing proportioners leaking far worse than before, the effing floor is covered in effing hydraulic oil and everyone here is really pissed off. It turned out the Buccaneer proportioner motor had more end float and the static O ring held the carbon seal away from its mating face as the system started up, resulting in a massive hydraulic leak. The problem was subsequently fixed by a stronger spring and different seal material but we made sure Dowty cold chamber tested it before we fitted it to an aircraft. I learned about clearing things by analogy from the experience.
Walbut
walbut, based on a few public photographs, the modification appears to be similar to the existing 'Combi' or 'Quick Change' versions of the civilian 146.
The cargo door, and freighter roller-floor, enable customised pallets to be loaded. For Commercial operations the pallets would either have rows of seats, or a quick change to pure freight. Seats off-loaded remaining fixed to pallets; then freight pallets / bins loaded as required (there was a horse-box version). There was as I recall, one aircraft with a fixed configuration of mixed 'fish tank' and seats.
For medical, passenger cabin services probably use existing fold-down overhead 'baggage racks', but these could be converted for specialist equipment and fixed in place.
The pallet option would enable a range of medical / passenger configurations.
For certification, medical pallets might be treated as 'cargo', plus local approval for any special fit, e.g oxygen tent, but the seat pallets, services, and door, would be as the existing certificated 'QC' aircraft.
The cargo door, and freighter roller-floor, enable customised pallets to be loaded. For Commercial operations the pallets would either have rows of seats, or a quick change to pure freight. Seats off-loaded remaining fixed to pallets; then freight pallets / bins loaded as required (there was a horse-box version). There was as I recall, one aircraft with a fixed configuration of mixed 'fish tank' and seats.
For medical, passenger cabin services probably use existing fold-down overhead 'baggage racks', but these could be converted for specialist equipment and fixed in place.
The pallet option would enable a range of medical / passenger configurations.
For certification, medical pallets might be treated as 'cargo', plus local approval for any special fit, e.g oxygen tent, but the seat pallets, services, and door, would be as the existing certificated 'QC' aircraft.
2 x aircraft modified - ZE707 and ZE708 - which now have no currently declared OSD.
https://www.key.aero/article/raf-ada...3s-medical-use
https://www.key.aero/article/raf-ada...3s-medical-use
They also need a better solution than a Roller Flat Floor, unless the medics have strong ankles...
146 is probably good for domestic & near Europe (or its deployed equivalent), but much beyond that & it’s very much diminishing returns.
146 is probably good for domestic & near Europe (or its deployed equivalent), but much beyond that & it’s very much diminishing returns.
Try loading a LJ35A with a stretcher sometime, now that is interesting.
Last edited by air pig; 23rd Jun 2020 at 00:07.
The RJ ceiling was initially 310, then 330 and finally 350 with the upgraded pressurisation system. Early RJ's were still using a fair bit of 146 kit, which over the course of a few years was replaced as development occurred.