Q400 V BAE 146
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400 V BAE 146
Hi there,
I know that the Q400 has been introduced now down under and I'm presuming that it may be replacing some BAe 146 a/c that have operated in OZ for many years.
I'm just wondering if there are any guys out there that have experienced flying both types and can give me their views as to how these a/c compare with eachother in terms of airfield performance, despatch relaibility, fuel burn, and pax comfort etc.
Many thanks
GT
I know that the Q400 has been introduced now down under and I'm presuming that it may be replacing some BAe 146 a/c that have operated in OZ for many years.
I'm just wondering if there are any guys out there that have experienced flying both types and can give me their views as to how these a/c compare with eachother in terms of airfield performance, despatch relaibility, fuel burn, and pax comfort etc.
Many thanks
GT
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly.
The Q400 gets off the ground quicker and climbs better, but is a little slower in the cruise.
The Q400 in Europe has been a reliability nightmare. In our company, we were forever scrambling the reserve 146 to cover for dead Q400s. It is very lightly built, stuff breaks, and the electronics seem very fragile. Some systems are not thought out very well, for example we found that if you are on battery and you put the lights on for a walk-round, by the time you get back to the flight deck, the tiny battery will be flat. In addition, I lost count of the number of times turning the gennys on fritzed the computers and required a complete power-down to get them back. There are lots of other issues. One that amazed me was a generator that died after delivery miles (about 27 hours on the airframe).
The 146 has older systems, not too many computers, but tends to be a lot more reliable. When something does break, it doesn't usually ground the aircraft (like a dead TMS for example).
The Q400 flight deck is much better from an avionics point of view, but is small and cramped compared to the 146.
Fuel burn - no contest, the Q400 wins that one (though not by much).
Comfort - personally I find the Q400 vibey and noisy (when the NVS isn't working, which tends to be most of the time). The props are extremely sensitive to balance, and can require a re-balance on a weekly basis. Other than that, it is a bright and airy cabin with decent toilets.
The 146 tends to be a bit darker, but is of course much wider and in our cabin fit, had much wider and more comfortable seats. It is certainly quieter and there is no discernable vibration.
Personally I prefer the 146, it is strongly built, reliable, and great fun to fly. It also lands really smoothly with that training beam undercarriage, and is much easier to load/unload than the Q400. The Q400 is a typical modern aircraft, built to a price and correspondingly fragile, and with an appalling reliability record.
Sadly, the Q400 is the future, don't think there will be many 146/RJs flying in ten years...
The Q400 gets off the ground quicker and climbs better, but is a little slower in the cruise.
The Q400 in Europe has been a reliability nightmare. In our company, we were forever scrambling the reserve 146 to cover for dead Q400s. It is very lightly built, stuff breaks, and the electronics seem very fragile. Some systems are not thought out very well, for example we found that if you are on battery and you put the lights on for a walk-round, by the time you get back to the flight deck, the tiny battery will be flat. In addition, I lost count of the number of times turning the gennys on fritzed the computers and required a complete power-down to get them back. There are lots of other issues. One that amazed me was a generator that died after delivery miles (about 27 hours on the airframe).
The 146 has older systems, not too many computers, but tends to be a lot more reliable. When something does break, it doesn't usually ground the aircraft (like a dead TMS for example).
The Q400 flight deck is much better from an avionics point of view, but is small and cramped compared to the 146.
Fuel burn - no contest, the Q400 wins that one (though not by much).
Comfort - personally I find the Q400 vibey and noisy (when the NVS isn't working, which tends to be most of the time). The props are extremely sensitive to balance, and can require a re-balance on a weekly basis. Other than that, it is a bright and airy cabin with decent toilets.
The 146 tends to be a bit darker, but is of course much wider and in our cabin fit, had much wider and more comfortable seats. It is certainly quieter and there is no discernable vibration.
Personally I prefer the 146, it is strongly built, reliable, and great fun to fly. It also lands really smoothly with that training beam undercarriage, and is much easier to load/unload than the Q400. The Q400 is a typical modern aircraft, built to a price and correspondingly fragile, and with an appalling reliability record.
Sadly, the Q400 is the future, don't think there will be many 146/RJs flying in ten years...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno. I have flown the type for five years and 17 different airframes, and have never had an oil leak. In fact, I have never known a 146 engine to require oil during the day, and not even very often during dailies.
Had a few electrical probs, but nothing serious. On the other hand, the Q400 had endless electrical problems.
Never had my roof fly off (737), the side of my fuselage disappear (747), my thrust reversers deploy in flight (767), or the aircraft head off in an unexplained direction (insert any Airbus here)...
Oh, and did I mention numerous rudder hardovers (737)...
Had a few electrical probs, but nothing serious. On the other hand, the Q400 had endless electrical problems.
Never had my roof fly off (737), the side of my fuselage disappear (747), my thrust reversers deploy in flight (767), or the aircraft head off in an unexplained direction (insert any Airbus here)...
Oh, and did I mention numerous rudder hardovers (737)...
Originally Posted by MOR
Dunno. I have flown the type for five years and 17 different airframes, and have never had an oil leak. In fact, I have never known a 146 engine to require oil during the day, and not even very often during dailies.
.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AerocatS2A
That's why we never used the recirc fan... 
At least one Q400 has had a fumes incident, it can happen on any aircraft equipped with turbine engines.
That's right MOR, the bleed air system on the 146s includes a filter downstream of the recirc fan, this collects the oil after it's been run through the air-conditioning and the cabin and then returns it to the engines via the low pressure bleed return line. The amount that is retained in the passenger's lungs is insignificant .
At least one Q400 has had a fumes incident, it can happen on any aircraft equipped with turbine engines.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: OZ
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 146 is a good bus. It is relatively simple to maintain and does have a number of quirky faults, but usually these faults do not ground aircraft. I guess having 4 of everything helps. Even a dead engine can still be locked out and aircraft ferried to major maintenance facility.
I am also aware of oil smells in cabin from DHC-8-200 series being a problem for a large DHC-8 OZ operator, needing a few unscheduled engine changes.
It would appear at this stage 146 is more reliable than 717 operated by &^$
But it is early days yet
I am also aware of oil smells in cabin from DHC-8-200 series being a problem for a large DHC-8 OZ operator, needing a few unscheduled engine changes.
It would appear at this stage 146 is more reliable than 717 operated by &^$
But it is early days yet
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown both types mentioned it is quite hard to choose a favourite as both have problems. I started out on the Dash 400 and as stated above spent the first few months pulling circuit breakers and scratching my head. Once the aircraft had been on line with the airline for a good amount of time though the reliability improved alot. The Q400 has a lovely flight deck and a great avionics package, hands down better than the 146 which still had all the old bells and whistles. The 146 is certainly built like a brick sh*t house and is very reliable. It is a lovely aircraft to fly, handle and land unlike the Q400 which is a horrible aircraft to hand fly and the landings are more luck than judgement with a very firm landing gear. Performance wise the Q400 wins hands down, it would get off the runway quickly and maintain a respectable climb rate all the way up, you could easily outclimb the early morning 146 services. Still remember many tech stops in the 146 on warm (not hot) days out of southampton to upload more fuel as the thing wouldn't of got off the ground if you uploaded flight plan fuel. Some of the older 146's had such poor performance on all 4 engines off the runway it did make me wonder some days whether I would stand a chance in hell if one of the donkeys gave up. Generally on sectors of less than 1 hours the Q400 was quicker from take off to touchdown, once longer than 1 hours the 146 would be quicker as it went fast in the cruise (just took and age to get there). My personal favourite was the Q400.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd agree with all that apart from the performance bit. We used to leave Scotland at virtually the same time as the southbound Q400, and normally passed it just before or just after the POL. Of course the engines were all glowing a nice, cherry-red colour...
It is worth pointing out that the RJ is really the aircraft in the 146 family to have, EFIS flight deck, FADEC, autothrottles and of course Cat III autoland... making it somewhat more capable than the Q400.
And the 146 has an avionics bay...
It is worth pointing out that the RJ is really the aircraft in the 146 family to have, EFIS flight deck, FADEC, autothrottles and of course Cat III autoland... making it somewhat more capable than the Q400.
And the 146 has an avionics bay...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Then of course if the route would warrant it......a 757 would be far better.....
NO thrust reversers deploying......ceilings coming off...or rudder hard overs, oh and did I mention FL400 in 17 minutes?
NO thrust reversers deploying......ceilings coming off...or rudder hard overs, oh and did I mention FL400 in 17 minutes?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah right!
Let's see you get your 757 into London City...
FL400 in 17 mins... that would be with no pax, no catering, a very cold day and 20 minutes of fuel?
Looks nice, though. Not sure about those doggy old rattlers you guys have, they always looked a bit tired to me...
Let's see you get your 757 into London City...
FL400 in 17 mins... that would be with no pax, no catering, a very cold day and 20 minutes of fuel?
Looks nice, though. Not sure about those doggy old rattlers you guys have, they always looked a bit tired to me...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR...the part about "scrambling" the 146,s into action.....anything similar to when they scramble F-16,s?????...because if thats the case,then I,m a believer.....
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
FL400 in 17 mins... that would be with no pax, no catering, a very cold day and 20 minutes of fuel?
And I reckon I could stop it at LCY...empty
VREF30 115kts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys for the first hand views. Interesting to hear the Q400 is a better a/c regarding take-off performance. I know the 146/RJ is supposed to have STOL as it's trump card.
MOL,
Fancy a job at BAE Systems marketing dpeartment
Not having first hand experience of Australia did the 146 operate on any hot and high sectors. I know OZ is hot but unlike SA most f the population is at the coast where we have our main cities 5000'+AMSL.
Rgds
GT
MOL,
Fancy a job at BAE Systems marketing dpeartment
Not having first hand experience of Australia did the 146 operate on any hot and high sectors. I know OZ is hot but unlike SA most f the population is at the coast where we have our main cities 5000'+AMSL.
Rgds
GT
George, the 146s in Aus go hot but not very high (Australia doesn't really have anything particularly high.) They go in to Ayers Rock which gets up over 40° but is only 1600' ASL.
Depends which variant of the 146 you speak of. 100,200 or 300 with 502's or 507's.
Alice Springs is 1800+ ft and regularly over 40 c.
The 100 and 300's with the 507's have no problems at all. Alice - Perth close to 1100nm with 100kt headwinds during winter. 89 pax and baggage.
The 200's were hopeless when the temp got above 30.
It may not be high, BUT it is hot, being the reason Boeing bring their aircraft to Alice for Hot and High testing!
Regarding the " smells " in the 146, I personally never smelt them, now flying the 717 and whether the smells are toxic in any form I know not, however the 717 stinks. Apart from the regular "why won't it do.............." the next most common phrase is "was that you.........."
Alice Springs is 1800+ ft and regularly over 40 c.
The 100 and 300's with the 507's have no problems at all. Alice - Perth close to 1100nm with 100kt headwinds during winter. 89 pax and baggage.
The 200's were hopeless when the temp got above 30.
It may not be high, BUT it is hot, being the reason Boeing bring their aircraft to Alice for Hot and High testing!
Regarding the " smells " in the 146, I personally never smelt them, now flying the 717 and whether the smells are toxic in any form I know not, however the 717 stinks. Apart from the regular "why won't it do.............." the next most common phrase is "was that you.........."
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOL,
Fancy a job at BAE Systems marketing dpeartment
Fancy a job at BAE Systems marketing dpeartment
Just a quick point, STOL isn't the same thing as climb performance. The 146 has very long flaps and a fairly blunt wing, so it will get off the ground quickly. However, it doesn't climb all that rapidly, it was always underpowered with the ALF502s.
Managed to get a ride on the RJX when it was in flight test at Woodford, and that thing climbed like a bat out of hell. It would have been a really good aircraft, all the best qualities of the 146/RJ bit with more power and a lower fuel burn. It had a nice flight deck too.
Regarding engines, I think you will find that ALL 146 variants have 502s and ALL RJ variants have 507s.
As far as hot and high goes, I'll see if I can find any 146 performance info amongst my pile of tech manuals...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? How do they integrate the 507 FADEC engine into the 146, which doesn't have any of the FADEC avionics? If they have used the 507 engine and added all the kit necessary to run the FADEC, then it is to all intents and purposes an RJ, isn't it? You also have to throw out the TMS and all the other 146 kit...
Bottums Up
MOR,
It was a different variant of the FADEC LF507. Still had TMS but with climb mode rather than descent mode, 6990lb thrust to 23C (if I remember correctly). The 507 powered 146s went much better than the 502s but were still an ergonomic nightmare.
Though in fairness, they did what they did well.
It was a different variant of the FADEC LF507. Still had TMS but with climb mode rather than descent mode, 6990lb thrust to 23C (if I remember correctly). The 507 powered 146s went much better than the 502s but were still an ergonomic nightmare.
Though in fairness, they did what they did well.