BAE 146 , was an unsuccessful a/c ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Good Old Europe
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE 146 , was an unsuccessful a/c ?
I am not a pilot, just an aviation enthusiast but I would like to ask why the production of Avroliner stopped. Was it that bad? Or it was a burden for an airline to have Avroliners, in terms of operating cost. Personally I believe it was an excellent aircraft with unique characteristics and many airlines utilized it successfully but maybe there are and things I don’t know.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say yes it was a success. It sold well and most of them are still flying today. However it is a niche aircraft, which killed it in the end.
It has many pro's and con's.
Pros:
Designed, as it was, to operate into short fields with good payload and range, it is excellent. No other aircraft can lift 90 pax out of a 1300m runway and then fly a good distance.
The leases are very cheap (for the 146 anyway, maybe less so for the RJ).
Biggest cabin of the regional jets
Strongly built aircraft
Cons:
Not many airports that can only handle a 146/RJ, so a limited market.
Very fuel-inefficient (same burn per hour as an A320/B738, but half the capacity).
Maintenance heavy, very prone to tech probs due to the age
4 engines, which were historically unreliable though ok now
Systems complicated and fault prone
For passengers, noisy and not very comfortable in 6-abreast
It has many pro's and con's.
Pros:
Designed, as it was, to operate into short fields with good payload and range, it is excellent. No other aircraft can lift 90 pax out of a 1300m runway and then fly a good distance.
The leases are very cheap (for the 146 anyway, maybe less so for the RJ).
Biggest cabin of the regional jets
Strongly built aircraft
Cons:
Not many airports that can only handle a 146/RJ, so a limited market.
Very fuel-inefficient (same burn per hour as an A320/B738, but half the capacity).
Maintenance heavy, very prone to tech probs due to the age
4 engines, which were historically unreliable though ok now
Systems complicated and fault prone
For passengers, noisy and not very comfortable in 6-abreast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: A Paddy in Paris
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ElNino
For passengers, noisy and not very comfortable in 6-abreast
In any case, the RJs, which were an improvement of the 146s, were to become even more improved as the RJX programme launched in 1999, with increased fuel efficiency, range and even better noise levels. First flights of the -85 and -100 were in 2001. However, after September 11th, fear of poor sales forced the closure of the project.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are they not the quietest inside the cabin too?
I don't know if any airlines ever took up the 6 abreast version, which (I think) should have been the RJ-115.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As 'just a passenger' I don't like 'em
1. Six abreast in a regional jet? You've got to be kidding. Some airlines have had them in five abreast which is more civilised.
2. Cannot see out of the windows - stupid design means that unless you're right at the front or right at the back all you get to see are engines, wings and flaps.
3. The same stupid design means that the wing stubs and presumably the fuel tanks encroach on the cabin. The result is a long section of 'letter box' overhead lockers - slits that you might just get your coat in. Means that passengers sitting here move up and down the cabin looking for somewhere to put their bags - means an awful boarding and off loading process.
4. Quiet on the outside but really noisy inside.
5. Scary flight operations - lowering the u/c sounds like the pilot has inadvertantly hit reverse thrust in mid air. Operating the flaps sounds like a Stuka on a death dive. Many an infrequent and nervous fellow passenger has grabbed my arm in terror during said operations.
Good riddance I say.
1. Six abreast in a regional jet? You've got to be kidding. Some airlines have had them in five abreast which is more civilised.
2. Cannot see out of the windows - stupid design means that unless you're right at the front or right at the back all you get to see are engines, wings and flaps.
3. The same stupid design means that the wing stubs and presumably the fuel tanks encroach on the cabin. The result is a long section of 'letter box' overhead lockers - slits that you might just get your coat in. Means that passengers sitting here move up and down the cabin looking for somewhere to put their bags - means an awful boarding and off loading process.
4. Quiet on the outside but really noisy inside.
5. Scary flight operations - lowering the u/c sounds like the pilot has inadvertantly hit reverse thrust in mid air. Operating the flaps sounds like a Stuka on a death dive. Many an infrequent and nervous fellow passenger has grabbed my arm in terror during said operations.
Good riddance I say.
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than a few waiting in ScrapMans' corner down at Kemble, if anyone has a tenner in their pocket.
Can't help thinking that they look like Bonsai C-17s...
Conan
Can't help thinking that they look like Bonsai C-17s...
Conan
How about some figures for some British built jet airlineres:
VC-10/Super VC-10 54 built
Trident 1/2/3 117 built
BAC 111 235 built + 9 in Romania
BAe 146 221 built
Avro RJ 170 built
146/RJ total 391 built + 3 RJX
Therefore most successful British built airliner - if that means much!
VC-10/Super VC-10 54 built
Trident 1/2/3 117 built
BAC 111 235 built + 9 in Romania
BAe 146 221 built
Avro RJ 170 built
146/RJ total 391 built + 3 RJX
Therefore most successful British built airliner - if that means much!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: EGBG & LPPR
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa and its off-shoots seem to like them. For example aren't they aquiring some ex BA CitiExpress for Swiss? Would have thought if it were all bad the 'efficient' Germans wouldn't have gave it a second glance... 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most successful British built airliner
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Trindade
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke to the CEO of a low cost airline a while back. Quite disappointed that BAe did not go ahead with the RJX. He believed it would be a winner !
The RJX was a victim of the politics of aircraft manufacture.
The RJX was a victim of the politics of aircraft manufacture.
Buzz off with BAF!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Essex England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Air UK first received their 146's in the mid 80's they found them to be
very prone to tech. problems, especially the powerplants.
Whether this was due to inexperience in operating a new type or an inherent
problem with the aircraft I am not sure, but we used to call them the 14 (sick)!!
very prone to tech. problems, especially the powerplants.
Whether this was due to inexperience in operating a new type or an inherent
problem with the aircraft I am not sure, but we used to call them the 14 (sick)!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pass?
Age: 49
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RJ's and the 146's still have the same problems that they have had since the day and hour they started flying.
Like most of BAE systems work, it was built like a tank and as complicated as a woman with PMT to maintain!!.
Give me a sleek Brazilian any day!.
Like most of BAE systems work, it was built like a tank and as complicated as a woman with PMT to maintain!!.
Give me a sleek Brazilian any day!.