Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Didn't Avro/BAerospace Make A Two Engined RJ?  
User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3179 posts, RR: 9
Posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

I've always thought the BA146 was a great craft - comfortable for passengers, good STOL & rough field capabilities for its day - and that it would have had more longevity in the market if a twin version had been developed. Did British Aerospace look at this? If so, what's the story? Why was it not commercially viable etc?

Interested in your thoughts, opinions etc
Regards
MH


come visit the south pacific
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

i think the 4 engines allowed the A/C to be very quiet and probably helped its takeoff performance too.

Either that or it was to avoid heavy Etops restrictions on those ultra long-range, trans-pacific flights, which the Avro 100 was specifically designed for. Big grin


User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3179 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Thanks Bob

Ticketyboo
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Yes there was a proposal for a 2-engined version. It had winglets. Have seen a model in Northwest livery.


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineAV757 From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 660 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It is not so simple to convert a four engine airplane to a two engine airplane, even though they did offer a two engine version; it requires a lot of expensive redesigning of the aircraft systems to make it operational; and not to many airlines showed interest in the model.

Also here at MM in Colombia we had nine Avro RJ100´s,
the major set back was its Allied Signal LF507-IF engines which are extremely delicate; to the point that in three years we had 188 engine removals caused by many inflight shutdowns and failures due to a desing flaw of the main bearing seals. To the point that the airplanes had to be grounded and returned to their owner after a long lawsuit for which compensation was awarded to MM.

The airplane had a good feel with the flying public and were liked by crew and passengers who had a chance to ride on them here at MM.

But I think the four portable hand held hair dryers installed under the wing really sent their goodwill down the drain, even though they changed the name from the original BAE146 to RJ100. Even with two good turbofans installed it could be a great airplane but the damage to its fame here in Latin America is already done.


Also let me remind you the acronym for BAE in this specific case is:

B bring
A another
E engine




User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

The 146 was designed as a 'regional jet' along time before the canadair or Embraer or Dornier had thought of it.

A four engined aircraft allowed a steeper engine out climb which was a major plus when operating from remote airfields surrounded by high ground. Other benefits included the ability to shorten routes by flying over high ground that a twin could not (in case of engine failure) also the ability to fly the aircraft (empty) with an engine out to reduce the chances of having a stranded aeroplane at a remote field.

Two engines would have had to be bigger and therefore heavier than the four hair dryers and would in turn make the aircraft heavier. At one point BAE offered some sort of guarantee that the four engines would not cost more in terms of maintenance and fuel, than two comparable power units.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Didn't Montreal Mirabel Make It? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 04:49:59 by Vincent32
Why Didn't Boeing Make 7e7 Engines Exclusive? posted Wed Oct 20 2004 17:47:46 by Dayflyer
Why Didn't NW Order More RJ-85's? posted Mon Jul 28 2003 04:45:27 by NWAA330
Why Didn't Boeing Build A 4 Engined 777? posted Sat May 11 2002 06:53:31 by Dennys
Why Didn't NWA Buy RJ-70's? posted Tue Jun 12 2001 21:12:56 by Tupolev154B2
Why Didn't AA Hedge Fuel? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 07:02:35 by N844AA
Why Didn't DL Order More T7's In The Good Old Days posted Tue Mar 28 2006 10:27:20 by Gokmengs
Why Didn't FedEx Buy The 737-900F? posted Sun Jan 8 2006 19:48:52 by OyKIE
Why Didn't The A380 Wear LH Decals? posted Thu Nov 17 2005 01:01:51 by TheSonntag
Why I Didn't Get Hired With SkyWest posted Wed Aug 17 2005 21:24:57 by Flyboy80