Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
4 Engines In The Avro RJ- Question?  
User currently offlineElcapi1980 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 220 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

It is very rarely to see a regional jet with 4 engines nowadays ,therefore is it really economical to operate it or this plane was a mistake from the standpoint that has more engines to repair and maintain, any opinions,,,,


I love you barranquilla!!!!!
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5813 times:

The engine of choice was too weak just to use only 2


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4094 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5764 times:

The 146/ARJ's 4 engines enable it to operate out of remote airports such as Aspen, CO. It is the only jet that can meet the engine-out requirements of the departure due to the mountains. And, as EMBQA said, with only two of those engines, it would never get off the ground.

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5729 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR



Another possible benefit...the weather minimums for IFR departures are lower for 4-engined aircraft than for 2-engined aircraft. I don't know how beneficial this is in the real world, though, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself can enlighten us.


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5713 times:

Trivia: The engine cores are for the Avro engine actually started life as APUs for the 767.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineInvicta From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5551 times:

I seem to remember something about having four low power engines making it a very quiet plane.

User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

Yes, that is correct, as 4 engines don't have to work as hard as two.

The engines as well, have seen life as the cores for helicopter engines.



Delete this User
User currently offlineTnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5249 times:

The original 146 engines had a common core to the engines used in the Chinook helicopter I believe. The first version of the Challenger Biz Jet used this engine as well. To say the engine was a basket case in its early years would be an understatement. It almost destroyed both programs. That's one of the reasons the Challenger switched to the CF34.

You probably won't see a 4 engine regional airliner again. They are expensive to operate compared to a two engine aircraft of similar capability. I think that's one of the reasons the RJ-X program was cancelled, the new technology engines helped, but competing against similar sized aircraft like the ERJ-170/190 family the numbers just didn't work.

Yeah, the airplane has some operational capabilities that others can't match, like performance out of hot and high airfields, but that capability came at a price and hurt operating economics.



700 hours and counting...
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

I just think it's cool how it looks like a mini-C-17.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

> Trivia: The engine cores are for the Avro engine actually started life as
> APUs for the 767.

No they didn't - Tnsaf is correct. The core of the ALF502 is the old T55 from the CH-47 Chinook.

The ALF502 started life as the engine for the Northrop A-9A ground attack aircraft and was adopted for the Canadair CL600 Challenger and the HS-146, which became the BAe-146. The leftover engines from the A-9A program were used on the NASA QSRA aircraft. The engine has always had an awful reputation. This is why Canadair put the CF34 on the CL601 Challenger. The ALF502s were made in the factory in Stratford Connecticut where the LTS101, LTP101, T55 and AGT1500 were manufactured. The factory is the same one where Sikorsky built the flying boats and Vought built the F4Us. It is now a government owned facility, operated by Avco Lycoming. The AGT1500 is used in the M1 tank and Lycoming fell way behind in deliverys in the early 1980s. The government threatened to take over the plant to get their engines, so Lycoming ignored everything but the AGT1500 to save their necks. At one point, they delivered something like 20% of the engines that they were supposed to deliver to Canadair and then 90% of these were rejected on quality grounds. At the same time, Aerospatiale had over 100 AS350 helicopters in storage, lacking LTS101 engines. LTP101 and LTS101 production was eventually moved to Williamsport Pennsylvania.

I talked to some AirCal mechanics about the BAe-146 and they told me some real horror stories about the engines. They were having to change them very frequently.


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5118 times:

It is right that at least the original versions of the BAe146 engines, the ALF502, were not of the highest reliability to say the least, but the Avro RJ has ALF507F, which have an acceptable reliability nowadays.

It still is not what a CFM56 can offer, but the ALF507F engines don't cost as much as other jet engines either and if they are well pampered and embedded in a close maintenance program, the dispatch reliability of the RJs does not suffer from its engines.

Because the engines need to be overhauled more frequently then any other modern engine, BAe has developed a special leasing system to which most airlines operating the BAe146 or the Avro RJ have subscribed: no matter whether they own or lease the planes they operate, most of them simply rent and pay their engines per flight hour. The idea basically is: having some problems with an engine? No problem, just give us a call, take it of the wing and send it over, we'll send you another one in the mean time at no extra cost! Large operators of the RJ like SN, BA or LH even have some spare engines in stock and they are frequently being used....

You can see this for instance because SN has changed livery from dark blue engine nacelles (Sabena style) to light blue nacelles (SN Brussels Airlines) and you can easily see it when an engine has been retrofitted (if it is not of the same colour that is....).

Look at what a remarkably high number of planes flying with a differently coloured nacelle I could find after a brief look at the date base (all different planes BTW):


View Large View Medium

Photo © Darren Wilson




View Large View Medium

Photo © Praguepix




View Large View Medium

Photo © Ralf Meyermann




View Large View Medium

Photo © Alan Lebeda




View Large View Medium

Photo © Robin Zartos




View Large View Medium

Photo © Botterman Bram




View Large View Medium

Photo © Tommy Desmet - Brussels Aviation Photography




View Large View Medium

Photo © Tommy Desmet - Brussels Aviation Photography



There's even one in the database with 2 recently installed new engines:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Tomas Galla



All pictures are less than 3 months old...
Forunately for this and other airlines operating this type of plane, they do not have to cover the costs of this frequent preventive changing of engines! 



[Edited 2004-12-31 17:27:10]

User currently offlineTnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4999 times:

Sabena Pilot,
Great info. BAE must be taking a bath on this then just to keep the aircraft flying, or is it Honeywell? It has got to be hassle for the airline to schedule the engine changes too. It all costs money!



700 hours and counting...
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4936 times:

Tnsaf,

In don't know who is taking the bath, BAe or Honeywell, but it sure isn't the airline operating the Avro RJs...

In fact the system is very interesting for airlines, because it guarantees them fantastic technical support, immediate replacement whenever and wherever they need it and it eliminates any financial risk from operating the engines for a very reasonable fixed hourly leasing rate.

Obviously for smaller airlines, the rather frequent changing of engines can be a bit of a problem to their daily operations, but for airlines with an in-house technical department like SN, LH, BA or NW, there isn't much hassle in it, it is just some getting used to, that's all. Statistically, if you know you will permanently have one of your planes in the hangar for an unscheduled engine change, there isn't much 'surprise' about it, is there? And you can easily offset the cost of this by asking for adapted leasing terms, which is what the airlines did. Hence the fact that only last summer SN decided, despite the high maintenance costs and the much higher fuel consumption, it is still undoubtedly the cheapest 100 seater to operate, purely because of the low leasing rates on airframes and engines.

I don't think however that the BAe146 (or the more modern Avro RJ) will have any chance of a second carrier in South America or Africa once they will disappear from the European or American skies, simply because of their need for a very thorough and strict maintenance program.

[Edited 2004-12-31 20:46:57]

User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 791 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4869 times:

The ALF50X power by the hour deal is not unique, and not just in the civil market.

RR were the first to offer this option on the Spey in the 70's.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

>>>To say the engine was a basket case in its early years would be an understatement.

This was the genesis behind a couple of wisecracks about the 146 way back when...

1/ What does BAE stand for? Bring Another Engine...

2/ Why does the 146 have 4 engines? Two to get you there; two to get you back...

About the only benefit I could see with the 146 was being able to use a max 2-hour takeoff alternate versus a max 1-hour takeoff alternate that a twin entails. I'm sure that came in really handy for the PSA folks when everything in California was fogged in...


User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 791 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4789 times:

Plenty of jokes about these engines / planes, and many well deserved, but popular with airport residents (quiet, STOL, no reverse thrust), and pilots (little plane with 4x engines & STOL performance).

Lots of component upgrades to improve serviceability over the years, but always hard to lose a reputation. And crews keen to enjoy STOL performance, even when not necessary didn't help.

As raised recently in other threads, there were ways to extend engine life like resting inflight and taxiing on 2.

The 757 equivalent for it's size, so great for flight crew and passengers.


User currently offlineMtnmanmakalu From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 515 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

I fly this A/C quite a bit on my commute to base, and it is a nice, little A/C that feels like a much bigger jet...

It is very quiet (except for the landing gear retracting- sounds like the bottom of the A/C is coming apart!), and comfortable...

I heard a rumour that it was designed with 4 engines originally for the Queen of England to fly in for safety- Anybody else ever heard this???

Happy New Year....



I do, I don't, whatever.......
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4668 times:

1/ What does BAE stand for? Bring Another Engine...

2/ Why does the 146 have 4 engines? Two to get you there; two to get you back...


OPNLguy... Ah the memorys...!!! I have not heard those two since we turned back our Avro RJ70's years ago.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4659 times:

I had an uncle who used to work at the Lycoming plant there in the Williamsport/Montoursville PA area, and you should have heard the ones I -didn't- list...  Big grin

Have a Happy New Year...


User currently offlineBMED From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 860 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4646 times:

It just looks fab with four engines. Even better in NW new colours!!


Living the jetset life! No better way to be
User currently offlineGulfstreamGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 646 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4625 times:

I remember a Mesaba pilot told me one time that the British designed the BAe146 for the Queen. Stating that the Queen was forbidden to fly in any aircraft that did not have 4 engines! OK, I fell for it for awhile! Big grin

GulfstreamGuy



"If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane. " -Jimmy Buffett
User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4609 times:

The 146/RJ is a 1960's design which has worked extremely well. It is quiet, safe and fairly reliable. We use about 25 of them and they are in use constantly. A good aeroplane, unfortunately, as with any British aeroplane, over-engineered and labour intensive.
But, it is quiet, efficient and works, don't knock it.

Happy New Year



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4604 times:

Oh yes, and Queens Flight do use them for their 4-engined reliability. Even if Charlie boy does try and crash them now and then!


Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 23
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4478 times:

Slightly off-topic, but if you ever wondered what an 146/ARJ would look like
with two engines, look no further than this:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Karpezo
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Karpezo



I'm also a big fan of 146/ARJs, as long as they have a 2-3 seat config. I was
in a LH one a couple of days ago which had a 3-3 seat config and, I'm telling
you, it was pretty crammed.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13047 posts, RR: 78
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4371 times:

Same old misconceptions.....
HS-146, later BAe-146, was designed for the expected boom in city centre STOL ports, where a fairly short take off and very quiet operation were needed.
Think of it as a growth Dash-7, HS/BAe were not the only ones working towards this at the time.
So considering this market did not really emerge, I'd say the aircraft sold pretty well.

At the time, the engine chosen was the only fairly off the shelf powerplant available, then in 1983, PSA needed an aircraft to operate out of some very noise restricted airports in CA, so they ordered BAe-146s, this also gave the programme a much needed boost.

As to this notion that it was designed for the Queen's Flight with 4 engine safety in mind, please, how does this sound? Like something from a Hollywood scriptwriter's mind perhaps?
These aircraft were not even delivered to the RAF until 1986/7, several years after service entry, though a company BAe-146-100 was evaluated before that.

Had BAe built the upgraded BAC-1-11-700 instead, that would have replaced the HS-748's of this flight, in fact, if engine numbers were a consideration, why buy HS-748's in the first place? Why not Vickers Vanguards or just retain Viscounts?


25 Post contains links and images 2H4 : Funny how this photo was taken on the same day this thread was started... View Large View MediumPhoto © Stewart Andrew 2H4
26 Post contains images Bohica : IIRC the 146 was originally designed to be a twin engine A/C. However the CFM/IAE engines were not yet available so BAE had to settle for 4 engines an
27 GDB : I don't recall CFM-56 ever being considered for 146, that engine is far too big for a start. BAe did look at a more radically upgraded 146/RJ in the e
28 JayDavis : I worked for Aspen Air in Lubbock for a very short time during the end of my college career and I loved that aircraft. It was so cool driving the jetw
29 BMED : Isn't it just to keep the cost down from having to re design the whole a/c so that 146 operators can keep costs down and reduce training and maintance
30 PlaneSmart : GDB 'I don't recall CFM-56 ever being considered for 146, that engine is far too big for a start.' The 146 had a very long gestation period, although
31 GDB : You're right, the RR/Snecma M45, a version of an engine core originally designed for the abortive AFVG fighter project. But, on the VFW-614 this engin
32 Tnsaf : Sabenapilot, It sounds like BAe is taking the hit here. They recognize the airplane is expensive to operate, so they lower the lease rate on the aircr
33 OHLHD : A little off topic but....., I hope somebody can help with my question: Around 1991 a (U.K.)?? carrier operated LGW-VIE with a BAe 146. I have totally
34 Aviation : I like to think of it this way with the 4 engines if one goes you still have 3 more left and only loose a 1/4 of your power where as if you have only
35 Post contains links and images Capital146 : Around 1991 a (U.K.)?? carrier operated LGW-VIE with a BAe 146. I have totally forgotten who that was. Can anybody tell me which carrier that was. It
36 GDB : Aviation, already explained really, to re-cap, the engine was the only one available at the time that could deliver the very quiet operation for the t
37 Post contains images XFSUgimpLB41X : Anybody know why they put 4 engines on the Bae/ARJ?? Well..the wing wasn't big enough to hold 6. We always joke about outclimbing them out of DTW... n
38 Future757 : I'm sure there is many good thing about this plane, but I think it looks so undeserving, a little flying blimp with 4 engines and a tail and wings. I
39 Airways6max : I think that putting four engines on the Avro RJ was a mistake as it made the type expensive to operate and uneconomical. Probably one reason why it d
40 KaiGywer : BMED wrote: It just looks fab with four engines. Even better in NW new colours!! Does that mean that XJ finally painted one?
41 Azjubilee : No - XJ has not painted any of their planes yet. I've heard the program has been delayed AGAIN. XFSU - We climb like pigs when we're heavy - not to me
42 Post contains images KaiGywer : AZJ, thanks. I really miss working at XJ. But who knows, once I move to Mpls, I might start there again XJ must be the easiest airline to get a job wi
43 Azjubilee : Update on the paint - the first saab is in the paintshop right now in Greenville, MS. Ship 106 will be sporting the new NWA livery. It sounds like 1 m
44 GDB : A failure of socialism? Huh? That's odd considering it was originally launched (and cancelled) when the Conservatives were in power! That was the econ
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...
What's The Avro RJ Like? posted Wed Aug 6 2003 18:51:13 by Ssides
Are These The House Colors For The Avro Rj? posted Tue Feb 26 2002 01:10:57 by Mirrodie
Where Can I Find 3views Of The Avro RJ's? posted Tue Apr 17 2001 11:42:04 by Air Orange
Is Air Wisconsin Interested In The Avro Rjx? posted Sun Mar 4 2001 21:28:05 by BA
Your Opinions On The Avro RJ Family... posted Tue May 9 2000 00:06:56 by Avia_Arg
The BAe 146 And Avro RJ - Why 4 Engines, Not 2? posted Sun Jan 30 2000 20:09:04 by Boeing 777
Quick Question, How Many Airlines In The US? posted Mon May 15 2006 02:49:30 by Cadet57
Etops In The Caribbean, Question posted Sat May 6 2006 20:36:54 by A388
What If Boeing Went In The RJ Market? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 02:04:02 by 797
BAE 146/Avro RJ In Air Malta Colours? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 21:55:30 by DC10Tim