Diesel1 From UK - Wales, joined Mar 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4707 times:
If you have passenger growth, then A319 or 737-700 are fine as replacements, although they are larger.
Alternatively, the Emb190 is a good fit where capacity requirements need something similar in size.
CRJs and other Embraers are an alternative, especially as they may give the opportunity of adding frequency to routes.
Finally, the DHC-8-400 and ATR72 shouldn't be discounted either.
Britannia191A From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4683 times:
I think an important factor with the BAE146 is on of the things that make this aircraft unique and that is its STOL performance. For instance London City airport and other airports whereby it makes other aircraft difficult to perform.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4640 times:
It is sad that the 146 is gone. Many years ago I remember seeing a proposal by BAE at the Farnbrough air show for a 146 that was powered by twin Turboprops.This would clearly have worked well with the high lift high wing design.At the time I believe there was no suitable engine.It is perverse that now production has halted the perfect engine is about to arrive.The engine under development for the A400 Transport plane. So I believe that this would have been the perfect replacement!
Nijltje From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4582 times:
mmm so Embraer do have all the cards in their hand, in the next 10 years I suppose to see a massive replacement of all Avro, BEA. Most of those planes are 10 years old, no? This will be an expensive exercise as they have to train their pilots for a new plane like E170/190.
BBJII From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 850 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4219 times:
Quoting DHHornet (Reply 8): Scrapping the 146/RJ/RJX was a mistake. The type still had legs in it. Did the A318 (& 19) hit a nerve with BAE and Airbus, and the overlap of a product?
I think BAE could of sold the production to China, or Russia etc as an option. FlyBE, and Bhutan, wanted the RJX versions of it. Who else maybe today would be ordering SNB,LH,Swiss,Cityjet
The issue was the orders: Bhutan ordered 2, FlyBE ordered 11 with 4 options.
Then Sept 11 happended and FlyBE delayed the order. Crossair (at the time), opted for the Embraer, Cityjet weren't interested, they were having issues at the time, Delta Air Transport (SN RJ operator) were going down hill.
Within 3 months interest was zero....except Bhutan and FlyBE.
The prototypes were built, but the walls were whitewashed and the marker pens were being handed out.
Financially it made say sense to say Bye Bye BAE RJX programme.
Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
Hindsight is 20/20, for at the time of the cancellation of the project, the segment looked to be overcrowded. In addition to the Embraer E-Jets, you had the Fairchild-Dornier 728JET and 928JET programs on the drawing board, Bombardier had the CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 and the BRJ-X idea was being floated as well. Only the E-Jets and the CRJ-700/900 make it into production (Bombardier ditched the BRJ-X idea, later revived it as the C-Series, which has been shelved yet again.). The E-Jets are the new leader of this niche, as they are a clean sheet design, unlike the CRJ-700/900, which are stretches of the CRJ-200 with some improvements. Add to this the fact that the RRJ is beginning to pick up steam (and potentially Western customers), the segment is pretty much saturated. Bombardier may potentially become the minor player in this market if they don't develop a new clean sheet 70-100 seater to compete.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4771 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4051 times:
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 11): Bombardier may potentially become the minor player in this market if they don't develop a new clean sheet 70-100 seater to compete.
Although not a clean sheet design, it is hinted in another thread that the 900X is close to launch. Meanwhile, Bombardier is focused on the 850 business version and a similar variant of the 900, and also working on a Q400X.
With regards to field performance, has Embraer pursued further its efforts to have the E-170 and the others certified for LCY?
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4051 times:
Just like you can never replace with a new plane what the DC3 has ever done except with another DC3 or the same with the 727, you will never be able to replace the BAe146/Avro with anything that will completely copy its performance capabilities...These planes were built with a specific mission in mind, and unfortunately some of them do require more than the cookie cutter twin high bypass turbofan concept....
We all have to face it, some aircraft are just irreplaceable. Try as we might, some concepts even tho antiquated or horribly inefficient by todays standards can never be duplicated.
Thats just the way I see it...
Dont get me started on how the Barbie Jets have litterally killed Regional/Commuter Turboprops!!!!
Irobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4023 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13): With regards to field performance, has Embraer pursued further its efforts to have the E-170 and the others certified for LCY?
From what I understand and recall from reading the Embraer website info regarding the E70, it is capable under most/all conditions of taking off from a 4000 foot runway. The larger variants are not. Apparently, under good weather conditions, the 737-200 can take off and land in about as many feet (probably why Aloha loves them). I think there is something to be said about STOL regional jets and their ability to efficiently move people from modest regional centers without the need for 6-10,000 feet of runway. With land costs and space at a premium in Europe, North America, Japan, and places in southern Asia, some foresight needs to be used and a replacement for the Avro RJ should be seriously researched by someone.
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3974 times:
Quoting DHHornet (Reply 8): And... I know it is sentimental, it was the last British airliner built. But give me a reason (I am sure someone will) why the plug was pulled on it?
It was more than likely because it was powered by FOUR engines....The 146 is an awesome plane and I am happy to have flown on all three models. the 100 200 and 300....All with Air Wisconsin.
Im sorry, the 2x2 questionably roomy interior of the EMB 170/190 series doesnt seem to be a spacious as the 146. I never felt crampt in the 146 even in the 100 series that sat 3x3.....I think my favourite of the three models is the short 100 series....Its cute and I dunno I just love it...
Sphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3918 times:
> At the time I believe there was no suitable engine.
> It is perverse that now production has halted the
> perfect engine is about to arrive.The engine under
> development for the A400 Transport plane.
Um, I think a pair of those would make the 146 a VERTICAL-takeoff-and-landing airplane!