Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why 4 Engines On A Regional Jet?  
User currently offlineReuschAir From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 36 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19956 times:

I remember the AVRO Regional Jet with 4 engines. Gives a visually impressive yet misleading notion of power in today's two-engine aircraft majority. Why was that configuration used? Why has it been phased out and isn't there a circumstance where a similar 4-engine configuration on a smaller aircraft could be used? Wouldn't there be some sort of fuel advantage to selectively use 2 vs 4 engines or all engines with different levels of power in each according to circumstance? What about simple aesthetics? Four-engine aircraft can simply look nicer than two.

Thanks,
Reusch

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAquariusHKG From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2010, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19957 times:

From what I know, the 4 engine design is because when the Avro predecessor, the BAe146, is designed, there isn't a suitable engine that can power the plane as a twin, thus the plane ended up with 4 engines

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19949 times:



Quoting AquariusHKG (Reply 1):
From what I know, the 4 engine design is because when the Avro predecessor, the BAe146, is designed, there isn't a suitable engine that can power the plane as a twin, thus the plane ended up with 4 engines

The primary reason I believe was to make the BAe 146 quiet. The engines on the BAe 146 are actually derived from the engines that power the Chinook helicopter.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19893 times:



Quoting ReuschAir (Thread starter):
I remember the AVRO Regional Jet with 4 engines

There have been almost as much AVRO RJs built as there have been MD-11s built, so it's not such an odd bird really, especially not if you also add the 200+ copies of the visually identical BAe146....

Quoting ReuschAir (Thread starter):
Why has it been phased out?

What are you talking about?

Notably at STAR alliance's European airlines, the AVRO is still in full operational use, with
SN, LX, LH all operating fairly large fleets of them.

Quoting ReuschAir (Thread starter):
Why was that configuration used?

Because the AVRO RJ is based on the BAe146, which needed to be capable of operating at LCY and had thus to comply with very strict noise restrictions; back then when the BAe146 was built, it was not possible to comply with those with a twin-engined design. Even today, you can produce a same amount of thrust quieter with 4 iso 2 engines, it's just that twins have become sufficiently quiet not to bother about it any longer....


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19777 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Max Bryansky - Russian AviaPhoto Team



ANTONOV AN-148


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Urs Zimmermann



BAe AVRO RJ

Copying being the best form of flattery in this case. Makes you wonder if there could be a successful re-engining program, eh?

But, BAe wasn't the only recent 4 engined regional... here's a couple aircraft from the same manufacturer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Vincent



DeHavilland Canada DHC-7 (Dash 7)



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Lee - Contrails Aviation Photography



...and a more modern two engined version, a bit more common:
DeHavilland Canada DHC-8 (Dash 8)



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineAstockla From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19759 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
What are you talking about?

I think what the Original poster meant was that why don't they make them anymore (although I could well be wrong) and you yourself gave the answer.

Shame though, I loved the BAe 146 and all of the variations of the 'avroliner'. Seeing one land at LCY is quite a sight, flying of Canary wharf at what appears to be a stupidly steep angle only to kiss the tarmac.

One thing I find interesting is the lack of reverse thrust. Was this done for the same reason (i.e. noise reduction)?

Alex



above us is only sky
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19705 times:



Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 4):
DeHavilland Canada DHC-7 (Dash 7)

I think that noise had less to do with the DHC-7's configuration than field performance. I think that the Dash 7 was a little on the expensive side to operate unless you really needed the short field performance, which was part of why it was superseded by the Dash 8.

Quoting Astockla (Reply 5):
One thing I find interesting is the lack of reverse thrust. Was this done for the same reason (i.e. noise reduction)?

That is probably part of it, but judging by the field performance (which does not account for reverse thrust in certification by the way) the BAe 146 didn't need them anyway. They do add weight that needs to be hauled around.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineOV735 From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 909 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19561 times:



Quoting Astockla (Reply 5):
One thing I find interesting is the lack of reverse thrust. Was this done for the same reason (i.e. noise reduction)?

The BAe 146/Avro RJ had very efficient aerodynamic brakes, both in the form of flaps/slats, as well as the airbrake built in the tailcone. These, and wheelbrakes, were probably enough to give a good deceleration. As BMI727 said, there's no point in carrying around the extra weight of the reversers, if there is no use for them.

The Yak-42 is another example of a 100-seat regional jet without reversers.

Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 4):
ANTONOV AN-148

BAe AVRO RJ

Copying being the best form of flattery in this case.

I wouldn't call it copying, really. The An-148 evolved from a completely different kind of aircraft:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum



User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19487 times:

The AN148 indeed looks more like a Do 328-300 to me.

Yes, when the BAe146 came out there was no twin engine available, and the low noise and excellent short field performance still make it a valid aircraft, especially for countries that have dense

British Aerospace gave up the business in the time when all the others left too,Fokker, Saab, Dornier, I assume to avoid the faith of those in time.

By the way, does anybody know if Saab has anything to do still with the car maker Saab that is starved now after GM has suck all money out of them?


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1300 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19407 times:

The engines originally intended for the BAe-146 failed to materialise, and so BAe had to make do with what was available, which turned out to tbe the ALF-500s (a derivative from a prop-shaft engine). It was far from the ideal solution, mainteneance and fuel-burn wise, but it did provide the aircraft with sufficient umph to perform short-field missions (Lugano and London City springs to mind).

The main reason for choosing not to fit reversers was actually not weight, but the associated development and maintenance costs. And as flight tests later showed, they weren't necessary.

I read somewhere, belive it was in the LX inflight magazine, that the Quadra-Puff burns around 7.5 liters of Jet-A1 per passenger kilometer vs. something like 3l/pkm for the A320 series.

The Q-Puff is on its last leg as far as passenger service is concerned; the last two big operators in Europe (LX and LH) will replace them with E-jets and C-Series.

There might, however, be a future for them as box haulers, but as a box hauler it's also very far from being an ideal solution. Unless you can get them very, very cheap it doesn't make much sense buying a Q-Puff over a Classic Guppy (B737-300/400) that's been P2F'd.

The Q-Puff is being marketed towards armed forces various, promising to deliver a short-field capable tactical transport. Whether or not they can pull it off remains to be seen, but on paper it does tick a couple of neat boxes, and if it does work as per spec this might very well be where the future lies for what Crossair called the Jumbolino.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2373 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19383 times:



Quoting OV735 (Reply 7):
These, and wheelbrakes, were probably enough to give a good deceleration.

But don't the wheelbrakes get worn pretty fast then?


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6761 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19321 times:

Quadrapuffs... love it hate it... it did serve it's purpose and did so well!

The QPuffs (also known as the PentAPUs) will end up in niche operators operating in remote regions and/or where terrain issues render a twin useless/unviable.

Someone was daring/crazy enough to send the 146s down to Wamena/WAJW... and someone else wanted to send it to a place called Oksibil... no place for a jet twin, but the props just can't carry enough... send the 146s rightly or wrongly...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19167 times:



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
By the way, does anybody know if Saab has anything to do still with the car maker Saab that is starved now after GM has suck all money out of them?

No, they sold off their car division to GM. Scania the truck maker is controlled by VW now.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 11):
The QPuffs (also known as the PentAPUs) will end up in niche operators operating in remote regions and/or where terrain issues render a twin useless/unviable.

I'm sure the BAe 146 was originally designed for 3rd world operators anyway, it's relative simplicity and decent short field performance being benefits for this market. That it got decent sales (for a while) in the US due to it's quietness was a bonus! As to why a twin version was never introduced (once the Fokker 100 with it's Tays was launched) only BAe can answer that, i think they were too busy buying car makers and property companies...

Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 4):

Photo © Gary Vincent



DeHavilland Canada DHC-7 (Dash 7)

Is the Dash7 one of those planes that will patched up and kept in service forever by the operators that rely on them, as there are no obvious replacements for it?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 19086 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 4):
Copying being the best form of flattery in this case. Makes you wonder if there could be a successful re-engining program, eh?

Er, assuming you have eyes, then surely you can see that aside from having a similar size of wing and fuselage, there is no way in hell that is a copy. In any case....

Quoting OV735 (Reply 7):
I wouldn't call it copying, really. The An-148 evolved from a completely different kind of aircraft:


 checkmark  Nothing to do with the BAe146 at all.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineLamedianaranja From Venezuela, joined Nov 2004, 1246 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18930 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
What are you talking about?

Notably at STAR alliance's European airlines, the AVRO is still in full operational use, with
SN, LX, LH all operating fairly large fleets of them.

Here in AMS we get a lot of the CityJet ones seeing they're operating some VG and AF regional routes.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joachim Eichner




I wish that all skies were orange and blue!!
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 18171 times:



Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 4):
But, BAe wasn't the only recent 4 engined regional... here's a couple aircraft from the same manufacturer

DeHavialland Canada is/was not part of BAe! They were once owned by Boeing for a short time, IIRC, and now part of Bombardier. Other than that, they were independent, until you go way back in history.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 12):
As to why a twin version was never introduced (once the Fokker 100 with it's Tays was launched) only BAe can answer that, i think they were too busy buying car makers and property companies...

I'm pretty sure a re-engined derivative was actually considered by BAe, and recently. Others more in the know can fill in.

-Rampart


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 18004 times:



Quoting OV735 (Reply 7):
The BAe 146/Avro RJ had very efficient aerodynamic brakes, both in the form of flaps/slats,

There are no slats or any type of leading edge high device on these aircraft.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17292 times:



Quoting OV735 (Reply 7):
The BAe 146/Avro RJ had very efficient aerodynamic brakes, both in the form of flaps/slats, as well as the airbrake built in the tailcone. These, and wheelbrakes, were probably enough to give a good deceleration.

 checkmark 

Quoting OV735 (Reply 7):
there's no point in carrying around the extra weight of the reversers, if there is no use for them.

A 146 mechanic told me that having reversers would have required another hydraulic system which would have added even more weight.


User currently offlineYellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6039 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17135 times:

I once flew an Ansett Australia one CNS- Alice Springs.....was a really nice flight..


When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineFlyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17093 times:



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 12):
Is the Dash7 one of those planes that will patched up and kept in service forever by the operators that rely on them, as there are no obvious replacements for it?

I sure hope so. Nowadays, they are a niche airplane, but there are still a lot of niches in this world. If nothing comes along, and they start gettting to old to maintain, I can see Viking Air, the owner of the type certificates for all the old DHC planes from the beaver to the Dash7 making a new run of them. They have already started makeing brand new Twin otters, and there is the possibility that they could start making DHC-5 Buffalos to replace the very aged models still in use by the canadian coast gaurd. I think that they are also trying to get the Australians on board to reaplace their Cariboos. That would make my day. I love the sound of the buffalo and it has such amazing STOL preformance.....But, I digress....



As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16488 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
What are you talking about?

Notably at STAR alliance's European airlines, the AVRO is still in full operational use, with
SN, LX, LH all operating fairly large fleets of them.

Considering the poster is American, I would imagine he/she means phased out in America


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11611 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15650 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 15):

DeHavialland Canada is/was not part of BAe! They were once owned by Boeing for a short time, IIRC, and now part of Bombardier. Other than that, they were independent, until you go way back in history.

Perhaps getting confused between DeHavilland who originally had a hand in developing the prototype BAe-146 and DeHavilland Canada who designed the Dash 7 and 8.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 12):

I'm sure the BAe 146 was originally designed for 3rd world operators anyway, it's relative simplicity and decent short field performance being benefits for this market

Although it has good rough field performance, it was primarily designed for quiet operation at airports close to city centers.


Dan  Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15608 times:

Quoting Astockla (Reply 5):
Shame though, I loved the BAe 146 and all of the variations of the 'avroliner'.



Quoting B777LRF (Reply 9):
the last two big operators in Europe (LX and LH)

If not mistaken, Brussels Airlines and AF CityJet are the largest operators with 26 and 23 respectively, more than LX (20) and LH (18). Fleet totals from Airfleets.net.

I frequently fly on LX Avro RJ100s and they're one of my preferred types, especially with LX's spacious 5-abreast seating. SN's are also 5-abreast. However I go out of my way to avoid 6-abreast 146s/RJs like those operated by LH and CityJet which are very cramped.

[Edited 2010-01-08 11:37:20]

[Edited 2010-01-08 12:18:50]

User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15461 times:



Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 21):
Although it has good rough field performance, it was primarily designed for quiet operation at airports close to city centers.

It hasn't been anwered yet, or least sufficiently, that while quiet operations and short field performance, plus lack of other powerplant, are the reasons for 4 engines, the most correct answer, I believe, had to do with the contingency for loss of an engine on takeoff. Back then, losing an engine (1 of 2) might allow for takeoff, but not on a short field, nor (less importantly) quietly. Losing 1 of 4 engines still allowed for a safe takeoff on short field. Not that important at mose places, but would be important at LCY, ASE, and LUG. "4 engines 4 short takeoff". That's what I've read, at any rate.

-Rampart


User currently offlineRB211LTN From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14923 times:

I used to work for Dan-Air and we had quite a decent fleet of the BAe146, which led to the Avro RJ. I never worked on the 146 but we often positioned on it and it was a dreadful, noisy cramped machine. We used to fly LGW-RMI on the 727 and there was a parallel service on the 146. Flying time on the 727 was 1hr 50, the 146 was 2hrs 20. It was known as the cockroach. and because it never flew at night it was crewed by the housewives and became known as the Knitting Fleet. It may have been quiet outside but it was certainly not quiet inside. BTW it didn't have thrust reversers because the engines were never engineered for them and the development costs would have been prohibitive, plus the carbon wheel brakes and tail-mounted air brakes made them unnecessary. Was it the first aircraft with carbon brakes?


The customer is always right.....unless he is a passenger!
User currently offlineDan-air From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14449 times:



Quoting RB211LTN (Reply 24):
I used to work for Dan-Air and we had quite a decent fleet of the BAe146

I worked for Dan also, although I left right before the 146 arrived. Dan were the first airline customer for the 146, and remembering management's mindset, I'm sure they got a sweet deal on them. Any idea why they didn't fly at night? I hadn't heard that before- and who are "the housewives"? You mean lady pilots? Dan was a pioneer in that area too.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11611 posts, RR: 60
Reply 26, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13523 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 23):
t hasn't been anwered yet, or least sufficiently, that while quiet operations and short field performance, plus lack of other powerplant, are the reasons for 4 engines, the most correct answer, I believe, had to do with the contingency for loss of an engine on takeoff. Back then, losing an engine (1 of 2) might allow for takeoff, but not on a short field, nor (less importantly) quietly. Losing 1 of 4 engines still allowed for a safe takeoff on short field. Not that important at mose places, but would be important at LCY, ASE, and LUG. "4 engines 4 short takeoff". That's what I've read, at any rate.

The answer is essentially a combination of everything. Engine choices were limited for an airliner which needed to be quiet, but needing four of them wasn't so much of an issue as it was being designed as a STOL aircraft, so four would give it greater redundancy (25% loss of power compared to 50%) in an engine out event. Ground clearance may also have been an issue when considering unpaved runways.


Dan  Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12839 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 10):
But don't the wheelbrakes get worn pretty fast then?

Even for aircraft with reversers, the wheels provide the vast majority of the stopping force. While using the reversers (if you have them) will reduce wear on the brakes on bit, many people don't use them unless the runway is slippery or particularly short. The cost of the wear on the engines and reversers far outweighs the extra wear on the (relatively) dirt cheap brake pads...


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12563 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
I think that noise had less to do with the DHC-7's configuration than field performance. I think that the Dash 7 was a little on the expensive side to operate unless you really needed the short field performance, which was part of why it was superseded by the Dash 8.

I wasn't really focusing on anything more than four engines on a smaller regional airplane. The airline I pictured (now part of AC Jazz), successfully used the Dash 7 throughout their route system....none of which really required STOL. Noise was also not a factor. Capacity was what Time Air was looking for, and Stubb Ross (the founder) strongly believed in buying Canadian. Time Air was launch customer of the Dash 8-300...and previously (though not a Canadian product), the Shorts SD-330.

I had always hoped to see an BAe AVRO in Canadi>n partner / Canadi>n Regional colours out west, but only Air Atlantic operated the type in those colours.

Most (if not all) of the BAE 146 fleet from Air BC / AC Jazz now sits midfield in YYC. I always liked the plane..I found it "cute" and asthetically pleasing. Supposedly the aircraft was quite comfortable when in 5 abreast configuration. I have read though, that the original (converted helicopter engine core) engines on early models were quite troublesome...



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 29, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12445 times:



Quoting B777LRF (Reply 9):
I read somewhere, belive it was in the LX inflight magazine, that the Quadra-Puff burns around 7.5 liters of Jet-A1 per passenger kilometer vs. something like 3l/pkm for the A320 series.

I read almost the same. But instead of "per pax/km" I read "per 100 pax/km".

But these figures are LX figures in LX everyday use. Since the A320 average sector length on the LX route network is probably four times longer than the average ARJ sector length, then those figures are in no way comparable fuel efficiency figures of the two planes.

Every sector includes taxi, climb and probably holding, so the milage comes out very differently when the sector length is 150nm vs. 600nm.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineACW367 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12065 times:

Online production lists give that 394 BAe146/Avro RJ were built of which 265 remain in airline service.

The top users are:
Brussels Airlines - 26
CityJet - 24
Swiss - 20
Lufthansa Cityline - 18
TNT - 17
Malmo Aviation - 10


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10346 posts, RR: 14
Reply 31, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11955 times:

The way I heard it, BAE stood for "bring another engine". Perhaps those extra engines are spares???  Wink


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineReuschAir From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11139 times:



Quoting ACW367 (Reply 30):
Online production lists give that 394 BAe146/Avro RJ were built of which 265 remain in airline service.

The top users are:
Brussels Airlines - 26
CityJet - 24
Swiss - 20
Lufthansa Cityline - 18
TNT - 17
Malmo Aviation - 10

Thanks for the interesting replies to my original question! Does anyone recall the history of the BAe146/AvroRJ in the US? United used them a great deal before going to the CRJ200, but I can't think of other US carriers who did. If they are so prevalent in Europe, why not use them in the USA? They are infinitely more comfortable than any CRJ Series except the largest perhaps, as well as the ERJ Series except for the 190+ from what I hear. Where did all of those United BAe146 aircraft end up?

Thanks again,
Reusch


User currently offlineRampkontroler From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 859 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11098 times:

Mesaba operated them for quite a while, and I believe that is where most of CityJet's RJ-85's came from.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 34, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10990 times:



Quoting ReuschAir (Reply 32):
If they are so prevalent in Europe, why not use them in the USA?

Those operated in the U.S. were mainly flown by UA and NW regional partners, not by mainline carriers. They were inefficient due to the pilot scope clauses that restricted the number of seats on aircraft flown by regional carriers for the mainline carrier. I believe that's why those operated by NW's partner Mesaba had very spacious layouts with a first class cabin, in order to keep total seating below the scope clause maximum. In Europe, the same aircraft has far more seats, especially those with 6-abreast seating, and can thus operate more profitably. Virtually all used in the U.S.had 5-abreast seating.

Quoting ReuschAir (Reply 32):
They are infinitely more comfortable than any CRJ

With 5-abreast seating, I agree. At 6-abreast, I would choose the CRJ. There's nothing worse than a middle seat on a full 6-abrest BAe146/Avro RJ.


User currently offlineRailker From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10816 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 15):
They were once owned by Boeing for a short time, IIRC, and now part of Bombardier

Rights to the DHC-1 Chipmunk through to the Dash 7 are currently held by Viking Air Ltd. in Victoria, BC, Canada. (And they're starting prodution of a new DHC-6 series).


User currently offlineArcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We flew in Blue 1 or something (connecting to SAS) from Helsinki to
Copenhagen in September 2008.
Cramped. High wing (+ engines) messes up the view.


User currently offlineDashman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10769 times:

The Avro(BAE 146 series) and Dash 7 are old technology aircraft. The number of engines is more a function of availability of larger horespower (thrust) powerplants when the aircraft was designed. For example the Dash7 and Dash8-300 are of similar pax capacity(50). The Dash7 powerplants are PT6-1100 around 1200shp vs the Dash8-300 PW123 at around 2300shp. Had the PW120 series been available when the Dash 7 was designed it would have been a twin. The Dash8-400 (70-80 pax) got a major power bump with PW150 at 5000 shp. It also got a major speed push at 350 kts vs the Dash8-300 270 kts. Both airfames are the same except for length and wingspan.
The basic principle applies in the Avro example. Each engine on the Avro (BAE 146-100)are around 6500 lb thrust vs a modern CRJ 700 13000 lb thrust.
In the instance of the 707 and 747 the four engine concept was similar with the addition of added regulations for the number of engines required for overwater flights. The advent of ETOPS modified that thinking a number of years ago.


User currently offlineJlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ReuschAir (Reply 32):
I can't think of other US carriers who did

I flew on the BAE-146 several times with US Air on the west coast, I believe US Air acquired them in the PSA merger.

A little off topic, but was the BAE-146 cabin pressure set at a higher internal altitude then other jets? Every time I flew in one I got chest pain and shortness of breath. I always wondered if it was due to the cabin pressure. (No, I never told anyone, or caused an unscheduled landing!)  Wink

Thanks, John B.



JLB54061
User currently offlineDashman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10516 times:

The Fokker F28-1000 thru 4000 series had a speed brake like the Avro and very excellent wheel brakes. I agree why carry around the weight of the thrust reverser's and pay to maintain them if you don't have to. Thrust reverser's can be a high maintenance item. Interestingly enough during aircraft certification thrust reverse is not used for calculating basic runway take off and landing data. The manufacturer still computes the data but generally cannot be used by air carriers in computing runway lengths required for take off and landing. I'm guessing, thrust reverser's probably cut down on wear and tear on aircraft brake systems.

User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10346 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9144 times:



Quoting ReuschAir (Reply 32):
Does anyone recall the history of the BAe146/AvroRJ in the US? United used them a great deal before going to the CRJ200, but I can't think of other US carriers who did. If they are so prevalent in Europe, why not use them in the USA?

DL connection carrier Business Express used BAE146-200s and Avro RJ-70s in the mid 90s



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6867 posts, RR: 63
Reply 41, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9153 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
Because the AVRO RJ is based on the BAe146, which needed to be capable of operating at LCY

No. The 146 (as the HS146) was conceived long before LCY was thought of. The design and engine choice were settled as long ago as 1971. See this link:

http://www.mikefoxtrot.org.uk/

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
I frequently fly on LX Avro RJ100s and they're one of my preferred types

 checkmark 

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
I go out of my way to avoid 6-abreast 146s/RJs like those operated by LH and CityJet

 checkmark 

Quoting RB211LTN (Reply 24):
I used to work for Dan-Air and we had quite a decent fleet of the BAe146 [...] it was a dreadful, noisy cramped machine

It was cramped because you guys put 6-abreast seating on it.

Quoting RB211LTN (Reply 24):
it never flew at night

Nonsense. My first 146 flight (a 146-100, G-SCHH, ZRH-LGW) was on Dan-Air in 1988 and the whole flight was in the dark.

Quoting RB211LTN (Reply 24):
it was certainly not quiet inside

Well, I've done 20 flights on 146s (-100, -200, -300) and another 58 on various ARJs and I have to disagree with you.

Quoting ReuschAir (Reply 32):
I can't think of other US carriers who did

Several did. I well recall the fanfare when PSA ordered a couple of dozen of them.

http://www.psa-history.org/hangar/smiliner.php


PSA---Pacific/British-Aerospace-BAe-146-200/1170015/L/" target="_blank">View Large PSA---Pacific/British-Aerospace-BAe-146-200/1170015/M/" target="_blank">View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



Presidential Airways also flew them in the 1980s and air Wisconsin flew them in both UA colours and their own.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Pope



AirCal had them and they even flew in AA colours.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



Then Mesaba bought a load of ARJ85s to operate on behalf of Northwest.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Cheung - FlyingShutters



I have some vague memories that there were other US operators of the type too. Anyone remember?

Anyway, I love 'em! I've done 78 flights on the 146/ARJ between October 1988 and October 2009 on them (21 years) and I hope to do a few more before I'm done.

Anyway, to answer the original question, there was an old joke a few years back.

"Why did BAe put four engines on the 146?" "Because six wouldn't fit..."


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6867 posts, RR: 63
Reply 42, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9119 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 41):
I have some vague memories that there were other US operators of the type too. Anyone remember?



Quoting Mayor (Reply 40):
DL connection carrier Business Express

Ah, yes. I knew there were others! Thanks!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Hough



User currently offlineERJ From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8675 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 41):
I have some vague memories that there were other US operators of the type too. Anyone remember?

Well, US inherited them from PSA... so if it counts:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6867 posts, RR: 63
Reply 44, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8130 times:



Quoting ERJ (Reply 43):
so if it counts

Certainly does. Looks good, too!


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 45, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8040 times:

As stated, the Avro came from the BAe-146, but the BAe-146 was originally the HS-146, from the early 70's.
Back then, it was felt that there would be a new market in city center fields served by short take off aircraft.
Hawkers had a particular interest here, even proposing vertical take off airliners with banks of lift jets in under fuselage fairings.

But noise would be a major issue too, so a more practical solution was found with the familiar design that emerged, as others had said, for noise considerations there were no off the shelf engine choices back then, so the engine was developed that we are familiar with.

The oil crisis of the early 70's put paid to the city center airport idea and the HS-146.
By 1978 though, with Hawkers now subsumed into BAe, the project was relaunched.
Now it was seen as more of a regular commuter jet with that low noise and economy.

As it turned out, only London City, opened in 1987, initially for props like the Dash 7, emerged as a city center airport (and the Dash 7, another four engined type was conceived with the same idea as the HS-146 of serving these sorts of airfields).

For a time, it looked like the BAe-146, the UK's last all British jetliner, would be another poor seller.
Then in 1983, Pacific Southwest Airlines, ordered 25 of the type, to in some cases replace types as large as 727's on their West Coast routes.
It was all about noise, in California there were very effective campaigns by residents against noise pollution.
The BAe-146 was then, the only jet that could operate from many fields in their route network.
This wasn't the first US order for the BAe-146, but it was a breakthrough both in the numbers ordered and in how it was employed.

The rest we know, sadly BAe scrapped a proposed version in the early 90's, to refresh the aircraft including fitting two newer engines, this could have entered service in 1996/7 right in a boom of regional aircraft.
They were satisfied with a less radical update, the Avro, at the end of that decade the RJX was developed and one flew, still with four engines but with all new Honeywell power-plants.
But the now BAE Systems were not really committed to it, after the events of Sept 11th 2001 they used the sudden uncertainty in civil aviation as an excuse to scrap the program.

But for a project that was designed for the niche idea that never really took off, the BAe-146/Avro sold decently and had a respectable production life.


User currently offlineSpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7874 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 41):
Quoting RB211LTN (Reply 24):
it was certainly not quiet inside

Well, I've done 20 flights on 146s (-100, -200, -300) and another 58 on various ARJs and I have to disagree with you.

I've only flown it once, AMS-LCY, and from my seat just behind the wing, it was very loud, especially with extended flaps.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2373 posts, RR: 21
Reply 47, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7712 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 27):
Even for aircraft with reversers, the wheels provide the vast majority of the stopping force. While using the reversers (if you have them) will reduce wear on the brakes on bit, many people don't use them unless the runway is slippery or particularly short.

Plus, landing distances must never be calculated with the use of reverse thrust, to put in an extra safety margin.


User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3427 posts, RR: 50
Reply 48, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7680 times:



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 47):
Plus, landing distances must never be calculated with the use of reverse thrust, to put in an extra safety margin.

That's only true for dry runways, for wet or contaminated runways, reversers are included in the landing distance calculations.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6525 posts, RR: 9
Reply 49, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7463 times:

Another European airport where the plane is needed is Florence, Italy. I have family near there so I hope to take one someday.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 50, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7210 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 41):

No. The 146 (as the HS146) was conceived long before LCY was thought of. The design and engine choice were settled as long ago as 1971. See this link:

http://www.mikefoxtrot.org.uk/

Cool website, thanks.
I disagree about the LCY timing, however. True, the 146 was not built for LCY specifically. But, city center airports were studied in the 1960s onward, London included. I believe that the supposition that some sort of city center airport (even a VTOLport) was, as pointed out in your web page reference, central to the purpose, including an obvious market for London, when and if an airport could be built.

Quoting ReuschAir (Reply 32):
United used them a great deal before going to the CRJ200, but I can't think of other US carriers who did.

United used them in part because they inherited Aspen Airways' 4 146s, on top of those used by Air Wisconsin. Aspen ordered them just prior to becoming a UA Express affiliate, and they flew in Aspen livery for a number of years. Aspen was later bought by Air Wisconsin, also a UAX carrier, adding to their flock of 146s, but I think by then they were painted in UAX colors.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Burger Collection
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eduard Marmet



-Rampart


User currently offlineFutureFO From Ireland, joined Oct 2001, 3132 posts, RR: 21
Reply 51, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6731 times:

The Bae146 was designed with 4 engines as the queen mum would not go on anything with less than that even across the channel.


I Don't know where I am anymore
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...
Incentive To Fly First Class On A Regional Jet posted Sat Jul 19 2008 19:44:26 by Soxfan
Why Engines On This 330 Seem Off Size? (Pic) posted Thu Jan 5 2006 23:32:43 by TK787
Meal Service On A Regional Jet posted Mon May 3 2004 21:42:42 by Ftrguy
Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 07:13:29 by AirCanada014
Regional Jet On Long Flight... posted Tue Dec 14 2004 22:39:35 by 7E72004
Why Is SQ Using Their B772 On Regional Routes? posted Sun Sep 26 2004 16:18:07 by Fluorine
Wonder Why No GE Engines On 757's.. posted Thu Aug 14 2003 03:39:24 by Boeing nut
Why IAE Engines On LH A321's? posted Tue May 21 2002 20:15:22 by CV990
News On US Airways Regional Jet Debacle? posted Thu Feb 14 2002 05:34:59 by Ryefly
What's Your Opinon On The Regional Jet Craze? posted Sun Oct 22 2000 23:23:53 by N408BN
Regional Jet On Long Flight... posted Tue Dec 14 2004 22:39:35 by 7E72004
Why Is SQ Using Their B772 On Regional Routes? posted Sun Sep 26 2004 16:18:07 by Fluorine
Wonder Why No GE Engines On 757's.. posted Thu Aug 14 2003 03:39:24 by Boeing nut
Why IAE Engines On LH A321's? posted Tue May 21 2002 20:15:22 by CV990
News On US Airways Regional Jet Debacle? posted Thu Feb 14 2002 05:34:59 by Ryefly
What's Your Opinon On The Regional Jet Craze? posted Sun Oct 22 2000 23:23:53 by N408BN