EI133 From Ireland, joined Jan 2000, 307 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2020 times:
I like the 146 Aer Lingus operate 200s and 300s.I regularly fly on them.They are so quiet the noisiest thing about them is the landing gear coming down.Anytime I fly on them I always have a great landing.The cabin is quite roomy aswell.The first 146 I ever saw was in the learly 1980s whaen Dan Air used to operate them on the Dub Lgw route.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
The BAe146/Avro RJ is a fantastic aircraft. It has opened up airports like London City, Florence and Belfast Habour to jet services. It has fantastic passenger appeal with 5/6 abreast seating as opposed to some RJ's 3 abreast. It is a regional jet with the appeal of a mainline airliner. Although it is a bit maintenance heavy, the new RJX should be more efficient with better engines. I'm looking forward to it. Some have said the new Embraer, Dornier and Canadair 70-90 seaters are better, but as far as I know none of these will have short field performance. I know neither the CRJ-200 or ERJ-145 can operate from London City or other restricted airports so the RJX definately has a future!
Boeing 777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
I have flown on BAe 146-200s several times under AirBC, and once with Air Nova. I'd usually take them on YEG-YYJ(Victoria, BC) flights. The Air Nova flight was from YUL to YQM(Moncton, NB).
Personally, I like these planes. They're quiet and smooth. The seating isn't half bad, either. It's 5-abreast like inside a DC-9-30. So it's like being inside a DC-9, except that the cabin is shorter lengthwise and the interior is a bit more modern. And quieter.
AC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
I have flown the 146-200 aircraft with AirBC and AirNova (Air Canada Connectors) and have generally liked the aircraft. They're reasonably modern, are quiet, and with 5 abreast seating are quite roomy (impressively so). They also can be operated off of loading bridges, just like a bigger jet. And they can accomodate a business class. They do, however, have some downsides. The 4 engines aren't as efficient on smaller aircraft, and I am told they are somewhat harder on maintenance, although I've heard ramping them isn't bad. From a passenger view, they didn't have audio or video entertainment, and the overhead bins are a bit small. They are, however, an older design. My books show them as being thought up originally in the '70's with most design work undertaken after go-ahead in '78. I have to wonder whether between the competition from new RJ's, the extra 2 engines, and the generally older design whether the BAe RJ line has a future of more than just a few years. I think it would take something more drastic than the RJ-X concept to really rejuvenate the aircraft. Maybe modifying it into a twin would work, but even there it lacks family of other aircraft in the 50 seat category.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4210 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2002 times:
It flies nicely, but it looks plain silly. Just like a bus where they have attached wings and a tail on. I can't consider it a real airplane, because it is missing the sort of style most other aircraft (even most RJs) have.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Boeing 777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
C'mon, it's a real plane! You're right it looks strange compared to other passenger jet a/c. Looks a bit like a miniature C-5A Galaxy or a C-141 Starlifter with windows, doesn't it? That's one of the things I like about the BAe 146 and the Avro RJ.
I've seen even weirder concepts of jet airliners which never got off the drawing board - including a concept for the 747 to look like a C-5A, with high wings, T-tail, and four engines and designed to seat at least 400 pax. Not very many airlines liked this idea, because it looked too much like a military jet. (the C-141 was first flown around that time)This was a 747 concept, among many others, drawn up in the mid-1960s, before the current(and familiar) design for the 747 was picked and launched.
The C-141 lookalike concept was brought up once again once again by Boeing in designing a 600-800 seater only a couple of years ago. It was rejected, mainly because ground maintenance crews would have a hell of a problem working with an a/c like that. The engines would be higher off the ground, that's why.
Now if they had turned the Avro RJ into a twinjet...
TWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
I've flown the 146 once. From CID to DEN on Air Wisconsin. I found the plane to be quite enjoyable. Quiet, comfortable, and smooth.
I sat behind the wing and decided that flaps are quite extraordinary...extremely complex and practically a work of art.
I did notice that the number 3 engine would occasionally belch what I would describe as carbon. I didn't feel or hear anything so it wasn't enough to alarm me. On a TWA flight from STL to PHX, I sat next to a propulsion engineer from Allied-Signal (the engine manufacturer). After that, I became even more confident in the aircraft.
As for sex appeal, I would have to agree with Boeing 777 and strongly disagree with MEA-707. I too find it to look like a miniature C-5 or C-17. With a high wing, four engines slung under, and a T-Tail, I think it looks quite buff.
Boeing 777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
To answer your question on the RJX and whether it'll be launched, it's kind of hard to say, considering the stiff competition against the CRJ-700, the Embraer EMB RJs, and those JET RJs launched by Dornier Fairchild(is this name in the right order?).
I think the Avro RJX might be able to pull it off if they can get orders even before it's launched, or if the fuel economics work in their favour. I know the RJX is supposed to be built lighter with newer composite materials and better engines. But it makes no sense to me whatsoever that the RJX would still have four engines! That might be a bit of a hard sell compared to other RJs. As I said before, there is stiff competition right now.
Shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1515 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
I flew on the 146's of Contiflug from London City to Berlin a few years ago. I think part of the appreciation of this jet is when you fly it out of such a airport as City, where it's performance is really used, especially landing.
Whilst mailing, does anybody know if Contiflug still flies??
BH346 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3265 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
I think the Avro RJ is a great and comfortable plane. I was sitting in a row that was right behind the engine, but it was very quiet. I enjoy the Avro RJ a lot. I would love to go on it again. I've been on the Avro RJ-85 twice with Northwest Airlink/Mesaba, absoulutely a great flight on both of them. I also like it because the 4 engines makes the plane go a lot faster. On the route I flew in, the Avro RJ was 20 min. faster than the the plane the Avro RJ repaced, the DC-9. I notice that the seats are wider, too.
-BH346, known as BlueSkiesKansai777 in the chat room.
Northwest Airlines - Some People Just Know How to Fly