Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The BAE 146/Avro 85/100  
User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1428 posts, RR: 6
Posted (14 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

For those of you have flown on the Avro/146 what do you think of them? I actually like them they are quite roomy and large considering its a regional jet the cabin seemed to be nearly as wide as a 737's, wider than the Md-80/DC-9. To me no other regional jet competes wit these on comfort, what do you guys think that have flown on it Vs. other regional or small jetliners.

Treat others as you expect to be treated!
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineSJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4800 times:

I was actually quite surprised by the 146. It was very comfortable and had a smooth ride. But its still more fun to fly on a CRJ or a even a J41 to tell you the truth... its comfortable but nothing special with the avro.

User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (14 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

What do I think of them?

Well, I know that they have overhead wings, which makes it a somewhat unique configuration for a civillian jetliner.

I also happen to know it has 4 engines and funny shaped landing gear doors.

I think they look like miniature/baby C-5's and C-141's.

Just my $.02

User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (14 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4796 times:

The 146s are great. We used them as freighters and they were realy reliable. We had times to times problem with smoke in the cockpit requiring emergency landing with oxygen masks on. This is due to smoke coming from the climatisation system, a problem well known for nearly every 146 operator. As a passenger point of view, the cabin is wide and very silent.

Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (14 years 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4787 times:

I've flown the LH RJ85; fairly quiet, nice initial climb, smooth landing (trailing arm landing gear system is good) and a comfortable cabin, with 777 width seats (if not wider).

It's clearly a class above the CRJ/ERJ aircraft, never mind that it's slower, because on short regional routes, it's not significant enough to make a notable difference.



User currently offlineJohnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (14 years 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 4764 times:

hey, skystar,
perhaps you´ve been on a flight with my dad, he´s a pilot on LH´s RJ85  Wink/being sarcastic
actually, he likes the plane very much because it offers so much room. he flew the CRJ prior to the ARJ and although the CRJ is a flying computer and it´s a rocket, the ARJ is much more comfortable.


If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8213 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (14 years 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 4763 times:

One of the reasons why the BAe 146 had success was the fact because of its wing design the plane could fly in and out of airports with runways as short as 3,500' in length. That's why the plane became pretty popular at London City Airport (LCY).

That's why I said Air Canada (AC) should seriously look at buying 50-75 BAe/Avro RJX's to replace their aging DC-9/F28 fleet; the RJX's are well-suited for the many smaller airports found in northern Canada.

User currently offlineAirlineguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 4741 times:

Is this aircraft still being made? If so how much do they run...are they compairable to a 717, or other reginal jets/

User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (14 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 4736 times:

I think that it's a nice aircraft, but is it echinomical with four engines?


Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
User currently offlineTito From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 125 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (14 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

It's a very friendly airplane to fly, and the trailing link gear will almost guarantee compliments on the landing from passengers ,you almost have to work on getting a hard landing... but trust me, it is possible to pound it on  Big grin

I would say that the most unusual thing about riding in this plane is the sound that the flaps make when extending or retracting (as they pass between 6 - 18 degrees). For those who haven't heard it, it's a very loud howl, a cross between a wolf and a freight train... very disconcerting to passengers who've never been on a 146/Avro before. I like to think of it as engaging/disengaging the warp drive. The noise is aerodynamic in nature, and is louder the faster we're going. Apparantly it can be heard quite well on the ground below.

At cruise we usually burn about 5200 lbs. per hour, and cruise at .70 mach (.73 on the 300), which is not alot less than what a 737 or A319 burns, and they are going faster. If it weren't for the short field performance, I don't think this airplane would have sold as many as it has (about 400?)

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6886 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (14 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 4709 times:

The 146/ARJ is a niche plane for short field and low external noise operation. Airlines, which don't need these qualities, should probably look for more conventional airliners which are faster and cheaper.
Several posts praise the comfort and wide seats. They obviously flew on a five abreast configured plane. Some airlines configure their 146/ARJs with six abreast seating, which makes it probably the most cramped airliner in the world.
Being 6'3" I hate the wing main spar passing through the ceiling. I tested it. It IS stronger stan my forehead!. Apart from that it's a great plane.
It is fun to watch it when on a large airport there is a long take-off queue. All other planes roll to the end of the runway in short bursts as the queue advances. The 146/ARJ rolls to the middle of the runway and waits for its turn. And still it takes off with plenty of runway to spare.
Best regards, Preben Norholm

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
User currently offlineAb.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

I flew on the BAe146 a couple times with BUZZ and I like it alot. The flights were smooth, the cabin is pretty quiet and I like the view on the engines.

I think the design of this plane with it's wings mounted on top, four engines and low landing gear comes from a military background.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Barry Rauck

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6886 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (14 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 4688 times:

Ab.400 wrote:
I think the design of this plane with it's wings mounted on top, four engines and low landing gear comes from a military background.
I wonder if that can be the case.
The number "146" indicates for me that its original brains came off the Hawker stable. Hawker never made high wing four engined military transport. The only British plane with that configuration, which come to my mind, is the Short Belfast. But the 146 was definitely not born in the Short stable. It's closest cousin must in fact be the HS-121, better known as the Trident.

The design goals were obviously low noise level and exceptional runway performance. It also requires light weight.

Four engines with low exhoust velocity gives low noise.
Four engines also gives a good weight distribution along the wing span = light wing structure.
Four engines automatically gives shorter take-off runway since only 25% power is lost at engine out at V1 speed.

The high wing allows short landing gear legs and still good engine / ground clearance. Short landing gear legs are both light and strong. Look how far Boeing went to make th 737 landing gear short - strangely shaped engine intakes, nacelles so high on the wing that they obviously disturb wing airflow. (Larger planes need the long legs anyway for tail / ground clearance).

The most widely used alternative on small airliners is low wing, short landing gear and tail mounted engines. It has many advantages, but they are paid with a heavy airframe weight penalty. It would be even worse on a plane with four tail mounted engines.

I think that the 146 designers knew exactly what they wanted, and they started on a completely white sheet of paper.

Best regards, Preben Norholm

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
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...
BAe 146 & RJ-100.. Whats The Difference posted Fri Sep 19 2003 22:41:30 by Ukair
Does Anyone Like The Bae 146 And/or Avro RJ? posted Sun Feb 6 2000 23:14:59 by Avro RJX
The BAe 146 And Avro RJ - Why 4 Engines, Not 2? posted Sun Jan 30 2000 20:09:04 by Boeing 777
What Airlines Has Operated BAe 146/ Avro RJ & 737? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 04:33:29 by 747400sp
What Type Of Plane To Replace BAE 146, Avro? posted Tue May 23 2006 13:01:38 by Nijltje
Are The BAE-146's Still At United? posted Mon Dec 19 2005 04:38:41 by ERAUgrad02
British Caledonian And The Bae 146 posted Fri Nov 18 2005 09:49:36 by Cornish
BAE 146/Avro RJ In Air Malta Colours? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 21:55:30 by DC10Tim
Air Wisconsin, New Colors, And The BAE-146 posted Thu Jul 14 2005 06:41:37 by PiedmontINT
BAE 146 (Avro) And Dornier 328 Jet posted Sun Nov 28 2004 15:19:38 by Airline7322