Elcapi1980 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 220 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4635 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,,,,
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4003 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4562 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.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4527 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.
Tnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4047 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.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3966 times:
> 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.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, RR: 49 Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3916 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):
Tnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
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!
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, RR: 49 Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3734 times:
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.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3634 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...
GulfstreamGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 626 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3423 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!
Skidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 60 Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3407 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3169 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?