B.Ae 146 - you views
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: exiled Welshman
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B.Ae 146 - you views
Guys/Gals
As an enthusiast who has had a long interest in the 146 ( I worked at BAe for a number of years) I have read on a few occassions in the Aviation Press about the 146 being a dog of a plane and certainly not a favourite amongst the aircrew.
I guess my question to you all, particularly 146 crews - is :
What are your views of the 146 - is it as bad as some would make out, and if so why?
Cheers
JD
As an enthusiast who has had a long interest in the 146 ( I worked at BAe for a number of years) I have read on a few occassions in the Aviation Press about the 146 being a dog of a plane and certainly not a favourite amongst the aircrew.
I guess my question to you all, particularly 146 crews - is :
What are your views of the 146 - is it as bad as some would make out, and if so why?
Cheers
JD
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't comment from a pilots point of view, but as no one has so far I will add my two penneth from a passengers viewpoint.
I actually like the 146. I find it comfortable and despite its relatively small size not as cramped as some of the alternatives.
The size of the overhead lockers between rows 7 and 11 (due to the high wing configuration) can be a problem if the rest of the SLF brings the normal large quantities of hand luggage but generally this is not insurmountable.
I understand that it is a relatively expensive aircraft to operate/maintain but I guess that cannot be too much of a problem given the number of aircraft in service. It fulfills a niche roll very well, there are very few other (if any) aircraft with a similar passenger capacity with the same short field performance.
Ok, it's not a 1-11 but I guess I am unlikely to fly on one of those again!
I actually like the 146. I find it comfortable and despite its relatively small size not as cramped as some of the alternatives.
The size of the overhead lockers between rows 7 and 11 (due to the high wing configuration) can be a problem if the rest of the SLF brings the normal large quantities of hand luggage but generally this is not insurmountable.
I understand that it is a relatively expensive aircraft to operate/maintain but I guess that cannot be too much of a problem given the number of aircraft in service. It fulfills a niche roll very well, there are very few other (if any) aircraft with a similar passenger capacity with the same short field performance.
Ok, it's not a 1-11 but I guess I am unlikely to fly on one of those again!
So many engines, so few passengers!
Awful aerodynamic noise heard by SLF in rear seats when flaps extended/retracted. Sounded like the hounds of Hell had been let lose and were howling for food.
Awful aerodynamic noise heard by SLF in rear seats when flaps extended/retracted. Sounded like the hounds of Hell had been let lose and were howling for food.
BAe 146
I agree with the comments about rows 7 - 11. If you have to use a jet then it is a nice choise. In my country the choise is between ATR -72 B-732/3/4 or 146. It depends my mode and the reason I am flying for. If it is for business I definetely prefere teh 146. Pleasure B732 or ATR.
Bottums Up
criticalmass you don't have to be SLF to hear the terrible flap whine!
My point of view in answer to Jet Dragon:
One should also remember it started lifein the late 50's as the first multi jet engined, two crew transport. It's just a pitty that after mothballing the project in the 60's they didn't look at incorporating any technological changes when the project was removed from mothballs.
My point of view in answer to Jet Dragon:
One should also remember it started lifein the late 50's as the first multi jet engined, two crew transport. It's just a pitty that after mothballing the project in the 60's they didn't look at incorporating any technological changes when the project was removed from mothballs.
Last edited by Capt Claret; 31st May 2002 at 04:02.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that it is the done thing to damn the 146 with faint praise and there is certainly nothing like a bit of exaggeration to try to achieve this, so I offer the following comments in response to Capt Claret's-
Yes, it is a delight to fly and yes it does struggle a bit to make 290 when heavy and it's hot. As we now only go as far as 280 this is less of a problem
With a small effort you can grease it on every time even in the worst gusty cross-wind conditions
Ergonomic nightmare? Do me a favour. Pilot's light controls on their respective side panels, centre console controls on centre console, panel and overhead light controls on panel or overhead. What's difficult about that? Even a pilot should be able to cope with that.
Having flown Mr B's wonderjet and the 146, I have no problem with BAe's manuals. I've done two different courses at Hatfield and found their training and their manuals to be excellent.
What's difficult about switching off at 1000' three ant/de-ice switches and four engine air switches?
A final comment from a passenger's perspective. I have flown on all the UK low-cost carriers 737s as a pax. Our (low-cost) 146s have the most leg-room of all.
I'm enjoying it while I can; it won't be around for ever.
Yes, it is a delight to fly and yes it does struggle a bit to make 290 when heavy and it's hot. As we now only go as far as 280 this is less of a problem
With a small effort you can grease it on every time even in the worst gusty cross-wind conditions
Ergonomic nightmare? Do me a favour. Pilot's light controls on their respective side panels, centre console controls on centre console, panel and overhead light controls on panel or overhead. What's difficult about that? Even a pilot should be able to cope with that.
Having flown Mr B's wonderjet and the 146, I have no problem with BAe's manuals. I've done two different courses at Hatfield and found their training and their manuals to be excellent.
What's difficult about switching off at 1000' three ant/de-ice switches and four engine air switches?
A final comment from a passenger's perspective. I have flown on all the UK low-cost carriers 737s as a pax. Our (low-cost) 146s have the most leg-room of all.
I'm enjoying it while I can; it won't be around for ever.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: location, location
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would tend to agree with Olympus. The 146 is lovely to fly with very few vices. Yes it's slower than the rest overall but not by much on say a 300-500nm sector. The airbrake makes it more versatile than most other jets on approaches and the flightdeck is bigger and generally more pleasant than Boeing's baby. Pity about the air conditioning though..a waste of time in summer. It does look like its days are numbered now. I for one shall miss it.
"Ahh, Hatfield". Had a nosey round there a few weeks ago. Much of the airfield and runway was in the process of being bulldozed, but the hangar and control tower building was still standing. Looked rather incongruous surrounded by all the new development, especially with a very tatty and faded Trident parked outside !! 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: exiled Welshman
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks one and all for both the serious and humerous responses - much appreciated.
I guess what is evident is that (like most things) the 146 is a matter of personal taste. I quite enjoy the 146 from a passenger perspective - sure the whining of the flaps is noticeable - but hey -I've noticed that as far worse on older QF 737's and 767's.
Thanks again
JD
I guess what is evident is that (like most things) the 146 is a matter of personal taste. I quite enjoy the 146 from a passenger perspective - sure the whining of the flaps is noticeable - but hey -I've noticed that as far worse on older QF 737's and 767's.
Thanks again
JD
Bottums Up
Olympus,
Counted them t'other day. 43 rheostats/toggles/test buttons in 12 different clusters around the flight deck.
The overhead panel you suggested, has four differently located clusters of lighting controls. Even the cabin and flt deck emergency lights are removed from one another.
I agree with you the aeroplane is a pleasure to pole around.
It is however the only aircraft I know of that when flying an instrument approach in icing conditions the precedure is such that the closer one gets to the ground, the more one's attention is distracted from actualy flying and landing, as described below:
* 500' to 200' above MDA/DA
# tail ant ice off,
# outer wing ant ice off,
# inner wing de ice off,
# engine air x 4 off,
# APU air on.
That's 8 swithces to be moved. THEN if one has to execute a missed approach back into icing conditions, it's :
* at acceleration altitude
# engine air x 4 on,
# APU air off,
# tail ant ice on,
# outer wing ant ice on,
# inner wing de ice on
That's another 8 switches to throw. All this close to the ground, taking the PNF's attention away from monitoring the PF.
Then we can talk about desceding in icing conditions, where one needs 72% N2 plus 2% N2/5000' AMSL to keep the wing/tail ant iced. To achieve this one must use the air brake otherwise the power setting is too high to descend.
Counted them t'other day. 43 rheostats/toggles/test buttons in 12 different clusters around the flight deck.
The overhead panel you suggested, has four differently located clusters of lighting controls. Even the cabin and flt deck emergency lights are removed from one another.
I agree with you the aeroplane is a pleasure to pole around.
It is however the only aircraft I know of that when flying an instrument approach in icing conditions the precedure is such that the closer one gets to the ground, the more one's attention is distracted from actualy flying and landing, as described below:
* 500' to 200' above MDA/DA
# tail ant ice off,
# outer wing ant ice off,
# inner wing de ice off,
# engine air x 4 off,
# APU air on.
That's 8 swithces to be moved. THEN if one has to execute a missed approach back into icing conditions, it's :
* at acceleration altitude
# engine air x 4 on,
# APU air off,
# tail ant ice on,
# outer wing ant ice on,
# inner wing de ice on
That's another 8 switches to throw. All this close to the ground, taking the PNF's attention away from monitoring the PF.
Then we can talk about desceding in icing conditions, where one needs 72% N2 plus 2% N2/5000' AMSL to keep the wing/tail ant iced. To achieve this one must use the air brake otherwise the power setting is too high to descend.
Last edited by Capt Claret; 16th Jun 2002 at 02:42.
Grandpa Aerotart
Sometimes I think that people who defend the 146 do so because it's the only jet they've flown, thus having no point of comparison.
Certainly if you've only ever flown Dash 8s or piston twins the Bae 146 would seem like a flash piece of kit.
I flew the 146, with Clarry, after the F28 and now fly Falcons. Apart from the nice big comfortable cockpit the aircraft has few redeeming features...even the trailing link U/C is too soft thereby making crosswind landings and ground handling mushy.
The controls, with the exception of the rudder, are all 'powered' by servo tabs...thus heavy and also a little 'vague'.
The systems, particularly the anti ice as mentioned above by Clarry, are way more complicated than they should be.
The speed brake, so visually similar to the Fokker's causes a pitch up and mild vibration. The Fokkers just slows you down, and a lot more than the 146s too.
The aircon contamination issue is real...despite what companies terrified of the littigation issue say.
When you have a problem you have more things jangling and flashing at you than they had at the Charge of the Light Brigade.
Lets not even discuss the 'Rollback' issue.The engine is that which was built for the Chinook to drive a rotor via a gearbox! It's optimised for low altitudes!!
All in all it flys like a 44 tonne Cessna 404...not like a jet.
Hawker Siddely (sp?) designed it way way back and then shelved it...decades later when they wanted to compete in the early regional jet days they simply dusted off the old plans, changed nothing, and started building them. Fokker had in the meantime designed the fantastic F28 and later the F70/100 series.
That was what killed Fokker IMHO...they designed an aircraft that was so good that could not be beaten by the sorts of countries that ended up with Fokkers after noise rules drove them from the first world skies.
Is it an economical unit (ignoring the aircon problem)?
For short hauls in and out of small, noise sensitive airports it very probably is great value...due to it's very small residual capital value.
But the question that started this thread was 'is it popular with the pilots who fly it'
As I said at the beginning...Only 'till you've flown a real jet.
Chuck.
Certainly if you've only ever flown Dash 8s or piston twins the Bae 146 would seem like a flash piece of kit.
I flew the 146, with Clarry, after the F28 and now fly Falcons. Apart from the nice big comfortable cockpit the aircraft has few redeeming features...even the trailing link U/C is too soft thereby making crosswind landings and ground handling mushy.
The controls, with the exception of the rudder, are all 'powered' by servo tabs...thus heavy and also a little 'vague'.
The systems, particularly the anti ice as mentioned above by Clarry, are way more complicated than they should be.
The speed brake, so visually similar to the Fokker's causes a pitch up and mild vibration. The Fokkers just slows you down, and a lot more than the 146s too.
The aircon contamination issue is real...despite what companies terrified of the littigation issue say.
When you have a problem you have more things jangling and flashing at you than they had at the Charge of the Light Brigade.
Lets not even discuss the 'Rollback' issue.The engine is that which was built for the Chinook to drive a rotor via a gearbox! It's optimised for low altitudes!!
All in all it flys like a 44 tonne Cessna 404...not like a jet.
Hawker Siddely (sp?) designed it way way back and then shelved it...decades later when they wanted to compete in the early regional jet days they simply dusted off the old plans, changed nothing, and started building them. Fokker had in the meantime designed the fantastic F28 and later the F70/100 series.
That was what killed Fokker IMHO...they designed an aircraft that was so good that could not be beaten by the sorts of countries that ended up with Fokkers after noise rules drove them from the first world skies.
Is it an economical unit (ignoring the aircon problem)?
For short hauls in and out of small, noise sensitive airports it very probably is great value...due to it's very small residual capital value.
But the question that started this thread was 'is it popular with the pilots who fly it'
As I said at the beginning...Only 'till you've flown a real jet.
Chuck.
Bottums Up
G'day Chimbu,
I was told the other day, that the ALF502 actually started life as a tank engine.
You know, the ones that the army boys play with, with that big phallic gun thingy that swivels round and round!
I was told the other day, that the ALF502 actually started life as a tank engine.
You know, the ones that the army boys play with, with that big phallic gun thingy that swivels round and round!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a pax point of view, the 146/RJ are one of the most comfortable, and also least comfortable aircraft I've flown on.
Configured 3 x 2, there's loads of room. Problem is the Cityflyer/BaCitiExpress ones at Gatwick seem to be all 3 x 3, so there's very little room to spread yourself out on a full flight. Seats A and F leave you squashed against the side of the cabin with your neck bent to one side if you happen to be close to 6 feet tall. The overheads can't really cope either, with 120 people crammed into a space designed for 100 (hence the RJ100 designation!). Never again.
Is 3 x 2 the norm or are quite a few 3 x 3? The Gatwick RJ100's are the only ones I've been on at 3 x 3, anyway.
Configured 3 x 2, there's loads of room. Problem is the Cityflyer/BaCitiExpress ones at Gatwick seem to be all 3 x 3, so there's very little room to spread yourself out on a full flight. Seats A and F leave you squashed against the side of the cabin with your neck bent to one side if you happen to be close to 6 feet tall. The overheads can't really cope either, with 120 people crammed into a space designed for 100 (hence the RJ100 designation!). Never again.
Is 3 x 2 the norm or are quite a few 3 x 3? The Gatwick RJ100's are the only ones I've been on at 3 x 3, anyway.
Paxing All Over The World
As a frequent PAX on the 146 over the past 14 years - I like it very much. The aerodynamic noise of the flaps is OK because you know that 1) On departure, you have gained sufficient speed. 2) On arrival, that you will be landing shortly 
I realise that your average pax might not view it thus!
The air-con contamination is real, my mother has experienced this several times on Manx Air (as was) but she has not reported this for a while so they seem to have found a fix or changed procedures.
Seat pitch will vary but I did use DebonAir on one round trip LTN/MUC/LTN and found the machine fine on the distance but DebonAir not so fine! A friend of mine who used Debon extensively on that route over a three year period said that he was a member of Debon's Frequent Sufferrer Programme.
On a MUC/STN sector, a GO capt said that one of the problems for Debon was that, although the fuel flow for the 146 as against the 733 was similar, it was four engines to maintain. Of the factors causing Debon to fail, I think that the a/c were a lesser part of it but then, I was not on the inside.
I realise that your average pax might not view it thus!The air-con contamination is real, my mother has experienced this several times on Manx Air (as was) but she has not reported this for a while so they seem to have found a fix or changed procedures.
Seat pitch will vary but I did use DebonAir on one round trip LTN/MUC/LTN and found the machine fine on the distance but DebonAir not so fine! A friend of mine who used Debon extensively on that route over a three year period said that he was a member of Debon's Frequent Sufferrer Programme.
On a MUC/STN sector, a GO capt said that one of the problems for Debon was that, although the fuel flow for the 146 as against the 733 was similar, it was four engines to maintain. Of the factors causing Debon to fail, I think that the a/c were a lesser part of it but then, I was not on the inside.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The smell of an 146-100??
Are the air con probs the reason the one I boarded at CHC smelt like a toilet? The whole cabin had, for the first 30 mins, a real urine smell (NB the seats did appear to be dry!!)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of work done last year to try and tackle the APU/Cabin fumes problem.....we've certainly noticed an improvement (lots of aircon pack changes!!) - was it worse on aircraft with the Sundstrand APU? We have Allied-Signal (Garrett) on our fleet.
Toilet smells are a problem with the freighters, as they don't have a full flushing unit - dunno about pax A/C.
As to the age of its' technology - I was told on the course that Comet switches are used in certain locations!!!
It is relatively expensive to maintain (cost of spares and four donks) but when they're behaving themselves, a good little ship. I've a feeling that if the 20 year structural inspection programme (CPCP) is embodied as planned, it could prompt a few operators to ditch 'em....
Toilet smells are a problem with the freighters, as they don't have a full flushing unit - dunno about pax A/C.
As to the age of its' technology - I was told on the course that Comet switches are used in certain locations!!!
It is relatively expensive to maintain (cost of spares and four donks) but when they're behaving themselves, a good little ship. I've a feeling that if the 20 year structural inspection programme (CPCP) is embodied as planned, it could prompt a few operators to ditch 'em....
