BAe146 - Why not a twin?
Moderator
Head scratching time ...
There was a quite lengthy paper on the 146's history in the RAeS Journal some years ago and, if I can locate my file copy, I will post the specific issue details for those who might be interested in chasing a copy down for review.
If memory serves me correctly, that paper indicated that the original design was, indeed, for two motors but the particular design engine never saw the light of day and the project, as a consequence, was shelved. Some years later, with the introduction of the smaller US engine, the project was resurrected as a four motor exercise.
There was a quite lengthy paper on the 146's history in the RAeS Journal some years ago and, if I can locate my file copy, I will post the specific issue details for those who might be interested in chasing a copy down for review.
If memory serves me correctly, that paper indicated that the original design was, indeed, for two motors but the particular design engine never saw the light of day and the project, as a consequence, was shelved. Some years later, with the introduction of the smaller US engine, the project was resurrected as a four motor exercise.
Paxing All Over The World
Thanks for a most interesting discussion and one of the first wholly positive ones on the 146.
Having always liked the machine (from pax perspective) I have never understood it's detractors, save for the concerns about the air intakes and the cooling(?) fluid smell.
One of the things that struck me about the a/c when I first saw it (both in pictures and in real life) - it looks 'right'. Sure it is way off beam from any other design but it looked like it would work?
This is not the place to have another thread of 'most beautiful a/c' but the 146 just looks like it will do what it says on the tin! I realise, of course, that appearance is not the way to buy a/c but the 146 has always had my vote. For the short haul / high load / restricted field, it seems to have it all.
In the newer twins from Bombardier and Embraer and Dornier, is there anything else that can pick up that pax load, get them in and out of LCY (+ similar) and stay as quiet?
Having always liked the machine (from pax perspective) I have never understood it's detractors, save for the concerns about the air intakes and the cooling(?) fluid smell.
One of the things that struck me about the a/c when I first saw it (both in pictures and in real life) - it looks 'right'. Sure it is way off beam from any other design but it looked like it would work?
This is not the place to have another thread of 'most beautiful a/c' but the 146 just looks like it will do what it says on the tin! I realise, of course, that appearance is not the way to buy a/c but the 146 has always had my vote. For the short haul / high load / restricted field, it seems to have it all.
In the newer twins from Bombardier and Embraer and Dornier, is there anything else that can pick up that pax load, get them in and out of LCY (+ similar) and stay as quiet?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jobs
Yes it's a nice aeroplane that 146, but it's even better to fly in it than to talk about it.
I have a type rating for the A/C, but no job!
Does anyone have some good tips for me to find one?
Thanks.
I have a type rating for the A/C, but no job!
Does anyone have some good tips for me to find one?
Thanks.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone talks about the low powered engines. How low powered were/are they? 5000lb?
Also when you talk about the flicky thing to get the spoilers out , can you get them back in again or are they out for good?
Very interesting thread.
Also when you talk about the flicky thing to get the spoilers out , can you get them back in again or are they out for good?
Very interesting thread.
And what other civil jet would take off from Rraamjet's gravelly short strip, shut down a donk, and then fly over the Alps - pity British Wasteofspace aren't making any more RJs (the last British designed airliner..)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MAN/Wherever
Age: 62
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The really really sad thing though is that Bae didnt have the foresight to carry on with the RJX and now we have a constant reminder up at MANchester airport on the viewing park, an almost brand new RJX sat there, complete with the new Honeywell engines goint to rot...........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 84
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a proposed twin engine version and that was around at the time BAE were trying to sell the project to Taiwan. There is a two engine model in the Avro museum at Woodford.
I just did my annual sim' ride and that involved a three engine take off with the second engine on the same side failing at just after V1. No big deal, just a lot of rudder. I did not get time to try it flapless but will have a go next time and let you know??
There was one ferried back from a defunct Mexican carrier with the #3 engine removed. The engine fan section was taken off and the engine was in the hold. I have seen pictures of it taking off out of Mexico and over the approach lights at Hagerstown, MD. with the pylon decidedly bare!!
I just did my annual sim' ride and that involved a three engine take off with the second engine on the same side failing at just after V1. No big deal, just a lot of rudder. I did not get time to try it flapless but will have a go next time and let you know??
There was one ferried back from a defunct Mexican carrier with the #3 engine removed. The engine fan section was taken off and the engine was in the hold. I have seen pictures of it taking off out of Mexico and over the approach lights at Hagerstown, MD. with the pylon decidedly bare!!
Paxing All Over The World
I realise, of course, that there will be numerous factors in the decision to stop R&D on the RJX.
However, is it the case that Avro's were innovators in this niche and then got overtaken by the others? They went for the broader market that did not have the approach/climb limits of LCY and similar fields and, consequently, were able to sell more machines with a 'simpler' design spec.?
By the time Avro were ready to make the two-engined version - there were just too many other's in the market?
However, is it the case that Avro's were innovators in this niche and then got overtaken by the others? They went for the broader market that did not have the approach/climb limits of LCY and similar fields and, consequently, were able to sell more machines with a 'simpler' design spec.?
By the time Avro were ready to make the two-engined version - there were just too many other's in the market?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 greens - the RJ100's engines were rated at 7,300 lb's. And yes, with a yellow hydraulic failure once the roll spoilers were fully out after actioning the QRH, they stayed out until the engineers fixed the hydraulic system after landing. Just made the aeroplane a little bit less sensitive in roll but that was all.
GREAT machine. Built like a brick ****house. Flies beautifully. And looks good.
GREAT machine. Built like a brick ****house. Flies beautifully. And looks good.
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been on a lot of 146's as a passenger and always found them pretty cramped, but then on a short trip to Amsterdam, that wasnt really a problem. I remember a few times seeing a weird fog appearing inside when the engines (I guess) started up. It passed in a few seconds. I have often wondered why and could only come up with warm damp air being cooled by air conditioning (however the air conditioning seemed on before start up because it was much colder inside). I have never seen it in any other aircraft. Can anyone point me at the reason ?
