RJ-70, safety record
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ivan,
Spacecowboy is correct. The origin of the 146 was the HS681 - a VSTOL transport with twin Pegasus intended to support the P1154 force. It was axed along with the P1154 and subsequently redesigned to delete the aft ramp and re-engined with the four Allisons.
Another aircraft that can fly into LCV? - the Dash 8-400 - and much lower seat mile costs too!
Spacecowboy is correct. The origin of the 146 was the HS681 - a VSTOL transport with twin Pegasus intended to support the P1154 force. It was axed along with the P1154 and subsequently redesigned to delete the aft ramp and re-engined with the four Allisons.
Another aircraft that can fly into LCV? - the Dash 8-400 - and much lower seat mile costs too!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South of the River
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the thread started talking about reliability, It is quite apt to bring the Dash 8-400 into it
As well as this they need to be pushed onto stand with the aid of a tug, can't 180 on the runway (apart from the very end) and as far as I was aware, still has spinny things attached to the turbine.
Any one who saw some of the 146s land this morning (especially the Swiss RJ100 at around 11:00) would never say another word against this marvelous piece of British (over)engineering.
As well as this they need to be pushed onto stand with the aid of a tug, can't 180 on the runway (apart from the very end) and as far as I was aware, still has spinny things attached to the turbine.
Any one who saw some of the 146s land this morning (especially the Swiss RJ100 at around 11:00) would never say another word against this marvelous piece of British (over)engineering.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: the gem of south devon
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the THY RJ's that ended up in ditches in remote parts of Turkey where badly damaged and would have required major repairs. Both where declared write-offs because it was considered to dangerous and difficult to repair at the site. The cost of temporary repairs and ferry flights pushed the cost of repair higher and became uneconomic. The damage caused was very similar to the TQF 146 that hit a wall in the Sottish Islands but UK tax payers footed the bill for that and Charlie, who was flying it, spent several weeks in the sim at Woodford being re-trained.
The HS681 was a four engined STOL freighter similar in looks to the 146 but much larger with a rear loading ramp. The 146 STA ( the only 146-100QT built) actually served with the Austrian Air Force for a while, it's with National Jet in Australia now.
The HS681 was a four engined STOL freighter similar in looks to the 146 but much larger with a rear loading ramp. The 146 STA ( the only 146-100QT built) actually served with the Austrian Air Force for a while, it's with National Jet in Australia now.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to LCY I did understand that an Irish operator gets an ERJ145 in there.
Also read that Embraer were trying to get the 170 certified for LCY by adding a lift dumper similar to the 146's. Although that may be complete fiction.
Always had good rides on the Avro's when I've been on them.
Also read that Embraer were trying to get the 170 certified for LCY by adding a lift dumper similar to the 146's. Although that may be complete fiction.
Always had good rides on the Avro's when I've been on them.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've taken the 146 into a 4500' (really) dirt strip in Ethiopia (7000'msl) and into a 13 000' msl field in Bolivia....try doing that in a Dash-8 400....I don't think so. I've crossed the Atlantic in it many times (with a stop), the Indian Ocean, the Sahara, the Soviet Union's horrendous runways, and flown into some truly crummy weather in Sondrestrom and Churchill - all without a snag.
Also been to several war zones in it, "phasers on stun", as it were, and it never let me down. Even had fun against F-4's doing fighter-affil in the S. Atlantic...
Flew it in the airlines, had more fun...
Great jet
Also been to several war zones in it, "phasers on stun", as it were, and it never let me down. Even had fun against F-4's doing fighter-affil in the S. Atlantic...
Flew it in the airlines, had more fun...
Great jet
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: KMIA-KJFK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CL-65 is the type designator for the CRJ-200 and 700. In the US, we refer to the 700 as the CRJ-70, and the Avro as the ARJ-70. That's why I was a bit confused at the beginning of this thread when the mention was only RJ-70.
Seeing that I don't have a clue about the Avro (except I love riding in it as a passenger), I'll butt-out.
Now, if you want to know about the Canadair Reset Jet (CRJ), I have expertise on that subject.
Seeing that I don't have a clue about the Avro (except I love riding in it as a passenger), I'll butt-out.
Now, if you want to know about the Canadair Reset Jet (CRJ), I have expertise on that subject.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadair RJ
Tex-
That might not be a bad idea. I have an engineer friend at Air Canada who has told me a few things about them so it would interesting to compare notes, so to speak. But you might want to start a new topic as it could be a bit confusing if you continued in this thread.
Now, if you want to know about the Canadair Reset Jet (CRJ), I have expertise on that subject.
