Differences between RJ100 and BAE 146
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8000 feet of cabin altitude
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Differences between RJ100 and BAE 146
Hi,
can anyone tell me what the differences are between the two? Performance, avionics, anything? Thanks.
Cheers.
can anyone tell me what the differences are between the two? Performance, avionics, anything? Thanks.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 85
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE-146/RJ100
There are several versions of the 146. They range from 85 seat versions to 115 seats. Some have all round gauges and others have a semi-glass cockpit. The semi glass versions are mainly in the -300 series. Some have been modified with side cargo doors.
The RJ-100 has different engines (slightly) from the same manufacturer and an all glass cockpit. There are no cargo versions so far!
The 146's were made at Hatfield and the RJ-100 is certified as the Avro RJ-100 and was made at Woodford, Manchester.
Same thing different badge, although there are two type ratings, BAE-146 or AVR-146. Separated by a differences course.
Some genius will come up with a more detailed explanation but that is it in a nutshell.
SPEEDBIRD 48.
The RJ-100 has different engines (slightly) from the same manufacturer and an all glass cockpit. There are no cargo versions so far!
The 146's were made at Hatfield and the RJ-100 is certified as the Avro RJ-100 and was made at Woodford, Manchester.
Same thing different badge, although there are two type ratings, BAE-146 or AVR-146. Separated by a differences course.
Some genius will come up with a more detailed explanation but that is it in a nutshell.
SPEEDBIRD 48.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not that genius but...
RJ 100 has LF507 engines and BAe146 has LF501 (chinook engines basically). RJ100 also has FADECs to control them and auto throttle.
Avionics are improved too on the RJ. It has partial EFIS - PFD on top of a ND. The RJ100 can fly an autoland and many have been cleared for CAT3b (50`RA and 150m.... with an engine out too!)
I think the BAe 146 can only do auto coupled approaches to a manual CAT 2 landing.
So basically, engines, avionics and some of the related systems are improved.
Avionics are improved too on the RJ. It has partial EFIS - PFD on top of a ND. The RJ100 can fly an autoland and many have been cleared for CAT3b (50`RA and 150m.... with an engine out too!)
I think the BAe 146 can only do auto coupled approaches to a manual CAT 2 landing.
So basically, engines, avionics and some of the related systems are improved.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 146 has ALF502-R5 engines, producing 6970 lbs thrust, flat rated to 15C. The RJ's 507 engines also produce 6970 lbs but are flat rated to a higher temperature. As the RJ has a higher DOW than the 146, it will perform worse under similar payloads and temperatures (well lower temps anyway).
As mentioned the 146 can only do coupled approaches to Cat 2 (with all hair-dryers only). AP disconnect is by 50' minimum.
The type rating gets one rated on the AVRO RJ/BAe 146. A differences course then required to fly whichever one the initial rating was not done on. The same sim covers both, the front panels being interchangeable and everything else in the FD is the same.
Apart from avionics and AP, all other systems are the same (i.e. antiquated).
The 146 is non-RVSM approved so can not operate above FL280 in Europe.
As mentioned the 146 can only do coupled approaches to Cat 2 (with all hair-dryers only). AP disconnect is by 50' minimum.
The type rating gets one rated on the AVRO RJ/BAe 146. A differences course then required to fly whichever one the initial rating was not done on. The same sim covers both, the front panels being interchangeable and everything else in the FD is the same.
Apart from avionics and AP, all other systems are the same (i.e. antiquated).
The 146 is non-RVSM approved so can not operate above FL280 in Europe.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 75
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
(with all hair-dryers only).
I was asked to approve a non-standard position into wind for an engine run of a 146. I let the engineers position the a/c where they wanted it, then stood on the other side of the road it was blasting across. I quickly wound up sheltering behind my Discovery, which was bucking about all over the place. The anemometer I was holding shot off the end of the scale and one of the cups blew off, never to be seen again. Some oxygen bottles secured a hundred metres or so away were also being tossed around; if one of them had its neck broken off, the bottle would have wound up all the way over the other side of the airfield. Lesson learned!!
Blast is very dangerous. There has, sadly, also been a fatality in the past (not at our airport) with an engineer being ingested by a 146 engine. They are proper grown-up jst engines, to be treated with the same respect as any other...
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice topic. 
Flew on BA RJ-100 G-BZAX last December from CDG. Had a quick look at the flightdeck and it appeared quite strangely to me that the flightdeck didn't have any "Glass" instrumentation whatsoever. I have never seen an RJ-100 with no "Glass" PFD and ND before. Is this the same for BA's other RJ-100s? Any reason why they took this option?
Regards
BAe 146
Flew on BA RJ-100 G-BZAX last December from CDG. Had a quick look at the flightdeck and it appeared quite strangely to me that the flightdeck didn't have any "Glass" instrumentation whatsoever. I have never seen an RJ-100 with no "Glass" PFD and ND before. Is this the same for BA's other RJ-100s? Any reason why they took this option?
Regards
BAe 146
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don`t quite understand your term "no glass instrumentation". Surely a glass cockpit is EFIS or partial EFIS?
Last time I flew G-BZAX it was a normal RJ100.
Please explain.
Last time I flew G-BZAX it was a normal RJ100.
Please explain.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JackOffallTrades,
Interesting.
I'm positively sure that when I looked into the flightdeck of G-BZAX it resembled a traditional BAe 146 flightdeck:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/574133/M/
Rather than the normal RJ-100 flightdeck setup shown below:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/429069/M/
Thanks
BAe 146
Interesting.
I'm positively sure that when I looked into the flightdeck of G-BZAX it resembled a traditional BAe 146 flightdeck:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/574133/M/
Rather than the normal RJ-100 flightdeck setup shown below:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/429069/M/
Thanks
BAe 146
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
maybe it was a 146-300? Although the later versions of those had a semi-efis flightdeck. Otherwise, did any of the early RJ's have a non-efis option??
Probably talking a load of old rollocks but these are the only things i can think of!
maybe it was a 146-300? Although the later versions of those had a semi-efis flightdeck. Otherwise, did any of the early RJ's have a non-efis option??
Probably talking a load of old rollocks but these are the only things i can think of!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trislander,
G-BZAX is a RJ-100, serial number E3356. BA only currently operate one 146-300 G-OINV.
This might be why.
Regards
BAe 146
G-BZAX is a RJ-100, serial number E3356. BA only currently operate one 146-300 G-OINV.
Otherwise, did any of the early RJ's have a non-efis option?
Regards
BAe 146
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, AZ is in my logbook, it is an ex chippyfryer aircraft, supplied new to them with the standard RJ-100 glass fit.
The EFIS screens are pretty small, and the symbology not that advanced. At a quick glance you may not have clocked that you were looking at a tv picture rather than physical instrument.
Either that or it has been retrofitted, which I would have thought to be vanishingly unlikely.
CPB
The EFIS screens are pretty small, and the symbology not that advanced. At a quick glance you may not have clocked that you were looking at a tv picture rather than physical instrument.
Either that or it has been retrofitted, which I would have thought to be vanishingly unlikely.
CPB
All BACX RJs are standard fit as previously reported.
Perhaps (and I'm just guessing) you saw BZAX on the apron ready to operate the service, but you were actually flying on one of our 146-100 or -200 aircraft. We regularly get 'scrambled' on airport standby duty to recover a service for a sick RJ.
Our fleet consist of 146-100 (wind up clockwork!), 146-200 (battery operated clockwork!) and 146-300 (super-duper clockwork!), and the RJ fleet is the all-singing and dancing digital type!
rm
Perhaps (and I'm just guessing) you saw BZAX on the apron ready to operate the service, but you were actually flying on one of our 146-100 or -200 aircraft. We regularly get 'scrambled' on airport standby duty to recover a service for a sick RJ.
Our fleet consist of 146-100 (wind up clockwork!), 146-200 (battery operated clockwork!) and 146-300 (super-duper clockwork!), and the RJ fleet is the all-singing and dancing digital type!
rm
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was definitely on G-BZAX, saw "AX" above the flightdeck windows on boarding.
I must have seen the standby instruments as CPB said.
Thanks for clearing that up guys!
Kind Regards
BAe 146
I must have seen the standby instruments as CPB said.
Thanks for clearing that up guys!
Kind Regards
BAe 146
Last time I flew G-BZAX, and I flew it a fair old bit, it was EFIS
J31 MAN - I'd have to go dig out my UK licence, but I'm sure my type rating is Avro RJ/BAe 146. Having done the rating initially on the RJ100, all it would take to fly the bog standard 146 would be a differences CBT, followed by a sim or two
J31 MAN - I'd have to go dig out my UK licence, but I'm sure my type rating is Avro RJ/BAe 146. Having done the rating initially on the RJ100, all it would take to fly the bog standard 146 would be a differences CBT, followed by a sim or two
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe 146-100
You seem quite knowledgeable. Unfortunately, the link you supplied, when zoomed in shows the reg- G-BPNT!
Egg face in maybe ? :-)
I was definitely on G-BZAX, saw "AX" above the flightdeck windows on boarding
Egg face in maybe ? :-)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: MAN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies dudes and dudesses,
It is common type rating but you MUST do a differences course. I consulted my RJ/146 Instructor friends.
However, the 146 sim at BAE can only be EFIS fit 146 or analogue fit 146. You can't do RJ training on a 146 sim.
J31
It is common type rating but you MUST do a differences course. I consulted my RJ/146 Instructor friends.
However, the 146 sim at BAE can only be EFIS fit 146 or analogue fit 146. You can't do RJ training on a 146 sim.
J31
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
expedite_climb
Thanks for your compliment!
That G-BPNT 146-300 pic that I linked was only meant to be a reference to what I thought G-BZAX's flightdeck setup was like. It wasn't meant to show "AX's" flightdeck!
Sorry for the confusion.
Kind Regards
BAe 146
expedite_climb
You seem quite knowledgeable. Unfortunately, the link you supplied, when zoomed in shows the reg- G-BPNT!
That G-BPNT 146-300 pic that I linked was only meant to be a reference to what I thought G-BZAX's flightdeck setup was like. It wasn't meant to show "AX's" flightdeck!
Sorry for the confusion.
Kind Regards
BAe 146