Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future  
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6948 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10665 times:

I ran a search, out of curiosity (again) and found these two threads from a while ago:
BAE 146 And US Carriers
Why Wasn't The Avro RJ A Big Hit with US Carriers
Both threads bring up a number of points, including the hot-and-high aspect,

But I want to know how the aircraft has done in terms of the world....how popular was it, how nice is it to fly on, is there any chance of seeing a resurrection of some sort (AvroNEO or something), What could this plane have been, in terms of successes, if certain things were changed, etc etc.

   Z


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24109 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10656 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
how nice is it to fly on

It's very nice to fly on, one of my favourite shorthaul aircraft, as long as the seating is 5-abreast like those operated by LX and SN. It's horrible to fly on, even worse than a 10-abreast 777, if it's 6-abreast like those still operated by LH (not for much longer I don't believe), AF CityJet, and most other European carriers that have operated the type.

Unfortunately, with current fuel prices they won't be around much longer as newer twin-engine types burn about 1/3 less fuel for the same number of passengers.


User currently offlinehuxrules From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10508 times:

I flew on one from Sofia to Varna Bulgaria last year. I remember thinking the takeoff wasn't all that short but it did seem to climb like a rocket. I was sitting in the way back. It was very cramped and wasn't a very enjoyable flight. It's a cool looking plane however.

User currently offlineBreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10468 times:

I flew on one from Johannesburg to Maun (return) in September last year. Both airports are high, and hot. JNB was reasonable (10 AM departure) -- MUN was like an oven (1 PM departure).

The flights themselves were comfortable enough for an hour -- I think the Air Botswana BAe146 is 6-abreast -- and certainly felt very stable.

However, as I mentioned over in Tech Ops, the first time I was on one, I thought we were heading for an emergency landing when the flaps were retracted. The noise was very unexpected and sounded like the pilot had fire-walled the throttles.

SlamClick (when he pops in) has some great anecdotes about flying the 146 ...



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10424 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
is there any chance of seeing a resurrection of some sort (AvroNEO or something),

The simple answer is no. BAE Systems publicly announced in 2006 when it sold its 20 per cent holding in Airbus that it would focus in future purely on the defence sector.

In 2010 according to the Stockholm International Peace Reseach Institute BAE Systems was, when measured in terms of revenues, the world's (excluding China) second largest arms manufacturing and military services company behind Lokheed Martin:

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/Top100


User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2127 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10333 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
What could this plane have been, in terms of successes, if certain things were changed, etc etc.

Well it's becoming very popular among the operators of aerial firefighting aircraft. Two US-based companies have converted the BAe146 for use as a 3000 US gallon airtanker (one converted in PEI and has been used operationally on a handful of fires; the other in Nevada has yet to be flown in anger). It has been demonstrated to be a solid platform suitable for the mission involved, but the structural design necessitates an internal pressure-assisted delivery system through a nozzle mounted on the ventral portion of the fuselage. Fine in theory, but in reality it delivers a very poor product pattern on the ground.
A Canadian airtanker company has purchased and is developing an RJ-85 for the same purpose, but is designing a gravity tank mounted fore and aft of the main landing gear (no pressurization required). We will have to wait to see how effective this design will be, but it promises to be a far better solution that the aerosol approach.

The US Forest Service is tendering for a number of "next generation airtankers" to replace aging piston and turbine powered aircraft. We can expect to see a fleet of BAe/Avro aircraft in new roles within a few years.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlinewhiteguy From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 763 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10293 times:

A BAE146 has also just started operating out of YYC for North Cariboo Air! Operating to northern Alberta and BC. RJ85s and 100s are coming soon.

User currently offlineThrottleHold From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 651 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10112 times:

Quoting huxrules (Reply 2):
I remember thinking the takeoff wasn't all that short but it did seem to climb like a rocket.

You've got that the wrong way round....the take-off run was always short, but it's climb performance was akin to a large brick!.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9949 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 5):
Well it's becoming very popular among the operators of aerial firefighting aircraft. Two US-based companies have converted the BAe146 for use as a 3000 US gallon airtanker (one converted in PEI and has been used operationally on a handful of fires; the other in Nevada has yet to be flown in anger). It has been demonstrated to be a solid platform suitable for the mission involved, but the structural design necessitates an internal pressure-assisted delivery system through a nozzle mounted on the ventral portion of the fuselage. Fine in theory, but in reality it delivers a very poor product pattern on the ground.
A Canadian airtanker company has purchased and is developing an RJ-85 for the same purpose, but is designing a gravity tank mounted fore and aft of the main landing gear (no pressurization required). We will have to wait to see how effective this design will be, but it promises to be a far better solution that the aerosol approach.

The US Forest Service is tendering for a number of "next generation airtankers" to replace aging piston and turbine powered aircraft. We can expect to see a fleet of BAe/Avro aircraft in new roles within a few years.

As an aerial firefighting specialist, I will easily tell you that the Avro RJ and BAe146 is a lousy aerial firefighting platform. The first reason being its limited payload capabiity. 12 tons maximum, dropped every 30-45 minutes.
That's good enough to extinguish very small starting fires, utterly useless for large fires.

The next problem is its operating cost. Nobody wants them and there's a reason for it. They are expensive to operate fuel and maintenance-wise.
This would mean that you won't be tempted to dispatch it for a small fire.

So there you have it, too expensive for small starting fires and too small for large fires.

Add the shallow maneuverability, the heavy controls, the temperature sensitive engines and you have a useless aerial firefighting platform that is cheap to park but useless for all the rest.


The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.
It has brakes as robust as the A319/B737's, an over-engineered landing gear that is a marvelous piece of engineering but also results in a lot of useless dead-weight.
Its engines overheat very very easily, so actually you can't push them to the limit unless it's very cold outside.
That burries the HOT performance myth.
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance.

It's a useless airplane, the only useful mission I can see for it is as a flying hospital.
Its cabin is just the right size to hold beds or stretchers across and leave enough space for a corridor and it's cheap to park, which is a requirement for a flying hospital used only for larger emergencies.


User currently offlineBananaboy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1570 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9799 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
It's a useless airplane,

There was an article written by a 146 pilot (as far as I recall) in an old edition of Airways magazine that stated almost the exact opposite opinion to yours. I remember that some "niggles" were noted but that the author talked very highly about the machine.

It's clearly not a useless airplane. It did apparently have some major limitations, but also filled a niche for certain operators rather well which explains why it was in use for several years. It's just that now there are lighter, more efficient aircraft available that can perform similar missions.

Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9631 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
It's very nice to fly on, one of my favourite shorthaul aircraft, as long as the seating is 5-abreast like those operated by LX and SN. It's horrible to fly on, even worse than a 10-abreast 777, if it's 6-abreast like those still operated by LH (not for much longer I don't believe), AF CityJet, and most other European carriers that have operated the type.

6Y on the 146 may be very unpleasant, but a typical 1.5 hour hop is a lot shorter than the 10 hour long haul routes operated by the 777!



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9625 times:

It seems to have suffered from the same disease as a previous British offering the VC10, optimised for short field performance, when short fields are disappearing fast. In the early days of LCY the 146 was the only jet aircraft whiich could meet the required glideslope angle and operate from the short runway, now of course E190's and even A318's can operate out of LCY due to a combination of slightly more runway and better aircraft performance.

The 146 will continue to be in demand for quite some time, as its undercarriage allows it to operate from unpaved strips, and despite what Wisdom claims it does perform well off short runways. I can remember my 1st sighting of a 146 at a Duxford airshow, (Ansett colours) it almost seemed to hover on the approach compared to anything else that day, and the departure was a short take off followed by a steep climb.

Of course this demand is limited, and the operators who utilise it will probably depend on well used examples for many years.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11573 posts, RR: 61
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9480 times:

Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 9):
There was an article written by a 146 pilot (as far as I recall) in an old edition of Airways magazine that stated almost the exact opposite opinion to yours.

Indeed, an acquantance operated a large fleet of these in a STOL location and his reports cannot corroborate what Wisdom is saying.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

I have to disagree there, especially on the latter. You do realise it's been used out of strips as short as 800/900m on sectors of an hour? If that does not epitomise STOL, I don't know what does...


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinemcr From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

It most definitely is a STOL plane! It was that capability (and the fact that for a jet it's relatively quiet) that lead to it being the majority type at London City Airport for many years, operated by Lufthansa, Cityjet, Air France, Swiss, VLM, and several others. I loved departing LCY on them, it always seemed to be airborne using a small part of an already short runway, with a really powerful take-off roll. Never tired of that, much more fun than bigger jets on longer runways.


User currently offlineLX138 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9390 times:

In answer to the OP question, the type has been modestly popular. When combining all variants, 146 and the Avro's the aircraft was a sales success. The aircraft has been operated by several blue chip airlines globally and some in significant numbers. The capacity of the larger models is close to what you can get in a 737, hence they have had lasting appeal instead of just being seen as an out and out regional jet.

In terms of how nice it is to fly, opinion has been divided, and a lot of discussion talks about the noise the flaps make. The configuration setup an airline chooses seems to make a big difference on comfort too. But again gives flexibility to airlines who want operate them at high capacity.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
nor a STOL airplane.

The aircraft clearly IS a STOL airplane. That was/and is one of its key features.

There won't be a NEO version, the ARJX was the last design penned and that was discontinued before launch. It's easy to forget that the original design dates back to the 60's - yet they are still around competing with ERJ's and CRJ's today. If BAe ever produce something else - and it might be in generations to come, then this will be a new design.



StarWorld Team - The ultimate airline alliance
User currently offlineBAeRJ100 From Australia, joined Nov 2011, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9146 times:

I'm fortunate enough to be a cabin crew member of the only airline in Australia that still operates the 146/Avro RJ. As we utilise a fleet of 146-100, -200 and -300 aircraft (the only Avro RJ's we have are the 100s), I can say that all of them perform very well in regards to taking off from small airstrips in conditions that probably weren't considered during its' design (the Australian desert, where temperatures are regularly over 50C in summer). You can definitely tell the type is dated, but it's still a very comfortable aircraft as both a passenger and a crew member - something little that I like which I wouldn't have expected from such old aircraft are touch-sensitive controls for passenger lights and crew call buttons. The RJ is definitely a step up from the 146 in terms of comfort, but overall both of them hold a special place in my heart and I feel privileged being able to fly on a type such as this every day in a world that is primarily over-filled with Airbus and Boeing.

As for the noise the flaps make when they're retracted/extended - one of our pre-flight PAs is to inform pax that "an airflow noise will be heard after take-off/prior to landing" and that it's completely normal. There's still the odd passenger from time to time that has a little bit of a freak out in their seat though, as it really is unexpected.

It would've been nice to see how the RJX project turned out, but obviously we'll never know. Like the original Avro RJ brought the 146 from the 80's to the 90's, no doubt the RJX would've pushed it further into the new millenium - it's just a shame we'll never know how it would've ended up.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9113 times:

Quoting LX138 (Reply 14):
There won't be a NEO version, the ARJX was the last design penned and that was discontinued before launch. It's easy to forget that the original design dates back to the 60's - yet they are still around competing with ERJ's and CRJ's today. If BAe ever produce something else - and it might be in generations to come, then this will be a new design.

The ARJX was discountinued after launch, as prototypes had already been made and FlyBe had placed an order. It was still more of the same (i.e. 4 engined), if BAE had coughed up a bit more money and launched a twin engined version, surely this would have had more success?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9039 times:

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 3):
The noise was very unexpected and sounded like the pilot had fire-walled the throttles.
Quoting BAeRJ100 (Reply 15):
As for the noise the flaps make when they're retracted/extended - one of our pre-flight PAs is to inform pax that "an airflow noise will be heard after take-off/prior to landing" and that it's completely normal.

Correct. I clearly remember that from an AYQ-CNS trip with Qantas Airlink in 1996 on a -200 (I think). However, I was pretty much used to the noise from flying the 146/Avro both on LX (Crossair back then, which called them Jumbolinos) BSL-BCN and occasionally GVA-BCN, and on Air Wisconsin on a number of DEN-ASE trips. I have to say I love the type. I believe all those trips were with 5-abreast configurations. And I'm positive that the announcement about the noise was only made in Qantas Airlink.

[Edited 2012-05-02 06:47:45]


AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinetreebeard787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8620 times:

Last time I flew on an Avro, I was flying DFW-MSP on Northwest (XJ) on an Avro RJ-85. The only other time I've flown on the type I was flying DEN-MSO-DEN on a United Express (Air Wisconsin) BAe-146-200. Both of those flights were years ago now. It's definitely a unique type of aircraft to fly on, Certainly better than all the CRJ's that are used in their place today. I do miss the variety of airlines and aircraft types that we had around, even just ten years ago.


Allons-y!
User currently onlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8580 times:

Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 9):

The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

Don't know where you are getting this from. It has better field performance than a turboprop.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance.

What has this go to do with performance out of high altitude airports?

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its engines overheat very very easily, so actually you can't push them to the limit unless it's very cold outside.
That burries the HOT performance myth.

Which variant are you talking about because there is a huge difference between the original 146 and Avro RJ in this regard.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7982 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 19):

Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 9):

The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

Don't know where you are getting this from. It has better field performance than a turboprop.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance.

What has this go to do with performance out of high altitude airports?

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its engines overheat very very easily, so actually you can't push them to the limit unless it's very cold outside.
That burries the HOT performance myth.

Which variant are you talking about because there is a huge difference between the original 146 and Avro RJ in this regard.

Better field performance than a comparable turboprop?
What's a comparable turboprop, the ATR72, Q400, C130? The Avro can't compete in STOL performance.

Lower ceiling is a EAS limitation on the engines. This EAS limitation also affects field performance at high altitude.

All the BAe's and avro RJ's have temperature sensitive engines.
They have the same core design, most of the differences between the ALF502 and LF507 are in the accessories and the additional stage in the low pressure compressor.
The LF507's turbine proves challenged by the increased pressure ratio and higher TIT, it only made the problem worse.

During the summer, these engines get dropped routinely for a turbine stage replacement.
For a full summer season's operations, you can expect at least 2 engine changes per aircraft.

Quoting mcr (Reply 13):
It most definitely is a STOL plane! It was that capability (and the fact that for a jet it's relatively quiet) that lead to it being the majority type at London City Airport for many years, operated by Lufthansa, Cityjet, Air France, Swiss, VLM, and several others. I loved departing LCY on them, it always seemed to be airborne using a small part of an already short runway, with a really powerful take-off roll. Never tired of that, much more fun than bigger jets on longer runways.

Then we could say the same of all Embraer, Gulfstreams, Bombardier, heck why not even Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies capable of landing and taking off from LCY. They're all STOL?

The 4 engines make it look like a STOL airplane, but the thing is so heavy and such a drag factory that even with one engine out, it has nowhere the performance of a twin.
That's why even the military don't even look at it.

For landing or accelerate stop performance, it may have strong carbon brakes and huge spoilers but it doesn't have reverse thrust.

You can push the airplane to make it do a short take-off, but it would require a borescope inpection and probable shop visit of all engines after each such take-off. The brakes also tend to overheat very fast due to their higher heat absorbtion rate and take a lot of time to cool down.

It's a STOL airplane by 1980's standard, nowadays even a B738 SFP can fly out of 1300m runways.

It' a useless plane, no matter whatever myths or pre-conceived idea's you have about it. I know the plane, changed plenty of engines, done plenty of engine runs and flights. All it is is a fuel hog and maintenance lemon airplane.


User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2127 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7847 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
As an aerial firefighting specialist,

Sir, I can assure you that your lack of aerial firefighting "Wisdom" has been betrayed by your comments. Allow me to deconstruct some of your mythical arguments. Note that I'm not sure about the depth of experience you have gained from the vast amount of aerial firefighting conducted in the Netherlands, but here in North America, I believe am I significantly well-versed to address your points. If your profile is accurate, I have been working in aerial firefighting for longer than you have been alive.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
The first reason being its limited payload capabiity

It will carry 3000 US gallons (11, 365 litres) of retardant. Actually scratch that, it DOES carry that amount of retardant.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
dropped every 30-45 minutes

On a gravity-evacuated tank, there is no minimum time between drops. Perhaps you assume we use just one airtanker at a time. We do not. Certain incidents have had enough airplanes to have consecutive drops every 2-4 minutes for an entire afternoon.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
That's good enough to extinguish very small starting fires, utterly useless for large fires.

Extinguishing very small starting fires is precisely the point. No aircraft or fleet of aircraft can "extinguish" a fire of any size. But they can certainly be used to achieve various objectives that assist the ground firefighters and they do so successfully every year.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
The next problem is its operating cost. Nobody wants them and there's a reason for it. They are expensive to operate fuel and maintenance-wise.
This would mean that you won't be tempted to dispatch it for a small fire.

Nobody wants them except for the three operators that are building them you mean? Or the numerous government agencies interested in evaluating them? I have also worked with a much larger, more expensive airtanker (DC-10). It actually becomes MORE cost-effective when you dispatch it to small fires. Waiting for fires to "grow large enough to action by aircraft" is a folly identified decades ago. One can spend a few thousand on up-front aircraft costs at the incipient stage of a fire, or up to millions in extended suppression costs once the fire grows to approximate the size of your country. Being accountable to the taxpayers and political masters, most wildfire managers opt for the intelligent choice.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Add the shallow maneuverability, the heavy controls,

Ah, you have flown it? The BAe146 I observed over a fire could maintain a tight circuit at 125 KIAS drop speed and had no vertical or lateral manoeverability problems within the fire area. Perhaps that pilot had bettter skills than your own.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
you have a useless aerial firefighting platform that is cheap to park but useless for all the rest

Any airplane is NOT cheap when they are parked. That's when they become very expensive.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
It has brakes as robust as the A319/B737's, an over-engineered landing gear that is a marvelous piece of engineering but also results in a lot of useless dead-weight.

Except when operating from a 4500' narrow strip, then that "dead weight" becomes very handy indeed.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance

The trick is to position your airtankers as close to the anticipated fire activity as possible. Where I work, that a radius of about 100km. How high do you need to climb when flying such short stage lengths? Anything above 12,500' or FL180 in Canada is controlled or IFR airspace anyway,and airtankers generally transit to fires under day VFR rules.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
It's a useless airplane, the only useful mission I can see for it is as a flying hospital.

I'd prefer a DC-10, MD-11 or L-1011 for a flying hospital. Indeed, somebody thought of that long before I did and made it happen. I'm certain you will not be successful in lending these critical analysis skills to anybody actually engaged within the industry.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlinemcr From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 20):

Then we could say the same of all Embraer, Gulfstreams, Bombardier, heck why not even Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies capable of landing and taking off from LCY. They're all STOL?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are any Boeing aircraft certified for LCY.

The 146 was in use at LCY before the runway was extended, when it was definitely a short field.

How would you define STOL?


User currently offlineHELFAN From Finland, joined Aug 2011, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6875 times:

Used to love to fly on those planes which according to one SN F/A "Looked like a chicken but flew like an eagle" I had the privilege to fly on one to Berlin Tempelhof a few years ago when it still was open. A truly unique experience. Don't know if there were any other airlines flying regularly there with jets except SN with their ARJ85/100.

User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6800 times:

Quoting mcr (Reply 22):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are any Boeing aircraft certified for LCY.

The 146 was in use at LCY before the runway was extended, when it was definitely a short field.

How would you define STOL?

STOL is a relative term. What was STOL 30 years ago has become the norm now.
The misconception about STOL is that small 4-engined aircraft are all STOL and have better hot and high performance. If you look purely at absolute performance, a twin will outclimb a quad, simply because it's a certification requirement. The twin has to be able to reach a higher climb gradient with 50% of engines operating than a quad with 75% engines operating.

The big limiter on the Avro are its engines.
They're too small, heavy and create a huge amount of drag due to thekr setup, while being temperature limited on the thrust side and requiring a huge fuel flow.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 21):
Sir, I can assure you that your lack of aerial firefighting "Wisdom" has been betrayed by your comments. Allow me to deconstruct some of your mythical arguments. Note that I'm not sure about the depth of experience you have gained from the vast amount of aerial firefighting conducted in the Netherlands, but here in North America, I believe am I significantly well-versed to address your points. If your profile is accurate, I have been working in aerial firefighting for longer than you have been alive.
Quoting threepoint (Reply 21):
Sir, I can assure you that your lack of aerial firefighting "Wisdom" has been betrayed by your comments. Allow me to deconstruct some of your mythical arguments. Note that I'm not sure about the depth of experience you have gained from the vast amount of aerial firefighting conducted in the Netherlands, but here in North America, I believe am I significantly well-versed to address your points. If your profile is accurate, I have been working in aerial firefighting for longer than you have been alive.

I have a good depth of experience.
The experience I gathered summarizes everything in one simple sentence.
The only effective aerial firefighting platforms currently in existence or development that can do any relevant firefighting work are the Martin Mars and the Mi-26 with twin bambi, and that's supposing that there is a water source nearby.

Forget the CL415, the AT802 and the expected AT1002, the C130 MAFFS, all the ex-military fuel guzzlers, the 10 tanker, the Evergreen Supertankers, the midget helicopters, the Be-200.
The Supertankers are never dispatched to small fires, due to their cost. They are usually only dispatched once the fires are large enough to hit the media.

In America, you use many aircraft at the same time with 2 minute intervals to attack small fires?
You wish. The Evergreen Supertanker circles 15 minutes before it drops its load.

Also, retardants are a myth. They don't retard anything in close vegetation. In high winds, the only existing way to stop a fire is through ground work.

Early attack is important, obviously, but if they did send MAFFS in 2-minute intervals to extinguish an acre big fires, then we wouldn't have all those huge fires.
Most of the water evaporates before it hits the ground and retardant never reaches the ground.

If you think that they know what they're doing, I beg to differ. Those are tax-payer sponsored airshows that are supposed to show that the politicians are taking care of their manipulated people.
I have once received a missed CL415 drop from 200 feet above me as the wind and the rising hot air carried it away from the source of the fire. I was standing below a tree and I didn't get a drop on me, even though next to the tree you saw the water dropping. I touched the ground 2 minutes later to feel if it was still wet where the water dropped, forget it, it was 42 degrees nd very dry and the dropped water droplets evaporated in less than a minute.

Stop manipulating the public.


25 Post contains links and images lightsaber : I wouldn't call it the norm now. However, an E170 with the short field kit is a far more economical airframe. Against the CS100? The 146 has zero cha
26 Viscount724 : Yes, but even on a 1-hour flight, almost every other type, jet or prop, is more comfortable than a cramped 6-abreast BAe146/Avro RJ. Why not be comfo
27 Post contains images PHX787 : I believe you may have misquoted me. I never said that in the thread starter I agree, it is a STOL plane, by a long shot. When I saw the NW ARJ take
28 threepoint : Let's retreat back to the subject at hand. You can start a new thread on this subject and please PM me so that I'm sure to participate. On aerial fir
29 Post contains links and images YVRLTN : How does it go, 4 APU's connected by an electrical fault? This aircraft is on my bucket list, my grandad used to take me to Hatfield before I was real
30 PHX787 : So what kept it from being really successful here in the US? Does the FAA have that kind of restriction?
31 ScottishDavie : I still have happy memories of taking off from LCY in a BA Avro RJ-100 with only 20 pax on board. After taxying out very briskly the pilot ran up the
32 bongodog1964 : Mainly operating from longer strips which could operate more efficient aircraft carrying the passengers in greater comfort. In its heyday the smalles
33 clydenairways : Well you clearly are going to stick to you own opinion so we will leave the discussion at that.
34 StickShaker : I can remember when the 146 was introduced in Australia in 1985 by Ansett doing the milk run up the west coast from PER through to KNX and DRW. It cau
35 lightsaber : I admit to knowing little on this subject, but I do know a few ex-waterbomber pilots who flew the aircraft I described (or they're really good at cre
36 Post contains images N14AZ : About two years ago BAE Systems and UK design consultancy Design Q unveiled their ideas of an "Explorer version of the Avro Business Jet". Seems as if
37 trinxat : I have a special hatred for the type (only comparable to the Fokkers 70/100 but for other reasons) as it is the most cramped plane I have flown in (in
38 bellancacf : I remember watching one climb out as I was walking around "Silicon Valley" (no sidewalks ...). Fairly level attitude, but looked as though it was on a
39 Post contains images ScottishDavie : What a splendid epitaph for an aircraft I genuinely miss
40 Viscount724 : The only overhead bins that are very shallow are those under the wing. I always choose a seat as close to the front as possible and never have a prob
41 BAeRJ100 : That's where we store pillows for distribution to the passengers, to stop people from getting their carry on stuck in the mid overhead compartments!
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...
The A319 - The Natural BAe 146/Avro RJ Successor? posted Sat Mar 29 2008 07:29:59 by Vfw614
Manchester On BAe 146 / Avro RJ posted Tue Mar 18 2008 06:09:48 by Spud757
BAE 146/Avro RJ In Air Malta Colours? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 21:55:30 by DC10Tim
Ryanair BAe-146/Avro-RJ Routes posted Mon Nov 10 2003 15:45:22 by Aviationfreak
BAe-146/Avro RJ...a Success Or Failure? posted Tue Oct 28 2003 20:57:15 by IslandHopper
BAe 146/ Avro RJ Air Stair Question posted Mon Sep 15 2003 03:24:37 by Flyboy80
BAe-146/Avro RJ posted Sun Sep 2 2001 17:18:09 by Airplanelover
BAe 146/Avro RJ/Avro RJX: Are They Really RJs? posted Mon Mar 26 2001 21:06:01 by BA
Buying A BAe 146/Avro RJ* ... posted Mon Jun 5 2000 13:45:51 by Heffer
What Type Of Plane To Replace BAE 146, Avro? posted Tue May 23 2006 13:01:38 by Nijltje
BAe 146/ Avro RJ Air Stair Question posted Mon Sep 15 2003 03:24:37 by Flyboy80
BAe-146/Avro RJ posted Sun Sep 2 2001 17:18:09 by Airplanelover
BAe 146/Avro RJ/Avro RJX: Are They Really RJs? posted Mon Mar 26 2001 21:06:01 by BA
Buying A BAe 146/Avro RJ* ... posted Mon Jun 5 2000 13:45:51 by Heffer