Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4922 times:
No, the reason is indeed noise abatement. 4 low-power ultrahigh-bypass turbofans make a lot less noise than 2 higher power high-bypass turbofans (remember this was 20 years ago, it is now possible to make a twin with about the same noiselevel in that class).
Climb performance was also an important factor. In normal service, the aircraft does not need full power to climb, but the 4 engines give it power for steep climbs from short runways (London City comes to mind, but this was originally intended for military use from unprepared strips in combat zones. The 146 was envisioned as a light tactical transport for the RAF).
Broke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4793 times:
The reason for 4 engines was a combination of required power and the desire to have as quiet an airplane as possible. Early in its career, engine failures were a real problem; which resulted in the statement that it had 4 engines so it would always have a spare handy. The engines were originally developed by Lycoming in Bridgeport, CT before they were swallowed up in the merger craze.
Parra From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4709 times:
I once heard that the UK Government wanted something that could take off from the gardens of Buckingham Palace in case they needed to evacuate the royal famly. Probably a load of BS though? They could just use a helicopter or a harrier.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4753 times:
The genesis of the 146 was not military, or related to carrying V.I.P.s.
In the early 70's, it was thought they'd be a boom in city centre airports, or more correctly 'STOLports'. To operate quiet, short take-off aircraft, the Dash 7 was also inspired by this idea.
In the early 70's, about the only possible powerplant was a fan adaptation of the powerplant fitted to CH-47 Chinook military helicopters.
The original HS-146 was axed in early 1974, due to the oil-crisis and big slump in civil aviation it caused.
As the BAe-146, the project was restarted in 1978.
Ironically the STOLport market never emerged, and the 146 didn't exactly have a huge portfolio of orders when it entered service in 1982.
It was Pacific Southwest Airlines in California who ensured the aircraft's long-term success, when it brought 25 146's in 1983 to replace 727's that could not meet tough local airport noise regs, and the 146 was more economical and suited in size for many of PSA's routes anyway.
Of course Air Winsconsin was the first US operator, but PSA was then seen as a bigger, more innovative airline, which also operated full-size ailiners like the 727 and MD-80.
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1040 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4476 times:
Miller22 is right there.
It was in the 70s when it was first designed, that there were no suitable engines of which the 146 could have one of each on its wings. the RR Spey and Jr. Spey were far too heavy for the 146s wings to hold, so they opted for four smaller engines instead.
Acidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1855 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4410 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Where I work, our RJ85's (same idea) go to Aspen, CO (ASE) which has like a 9000' elevation. The BAe146 family is really the only commercial aircraft that goes into there since nothing else can match the lost-engine performance on takeoff at that high of an altitude. Private jets (usually twin engines) go in there, but if you were to lose an engine at that altitude upon takeoff, I'd imagine that could be rough.
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3192 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4261 times:
GDB beat me to it, the Dash 7 was also designed along the same lines and has 4 Pratt and Whitney PT-6 engines (ie Twin Otter engines!). Again the philosophy was to operate from city airports and thus quietness and ability to climb steeply from short runways were major considerations. The city airport boom did not materialize and the Dash 7 remained a relatively poor seller - selling just about 111.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16896 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
Like it was said earlier, when the plane was designed, they originally were going to use two engines. The story I read was not that the proposed engines were too heavy, rather that they engines they wanted to use would not be available on a timetable that suited BAe, so the Lycoming jet engines were decided on and the number of engines went to four due to the lesser power of the new engines.
Duncan From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4164 times:
I saw a proposal for the 146 for HP (AmWest) and one of the big selling points was the 3 engine ferry flight capability. If one engine goes t*ts up, you can ferry the aircraft back with only 3 engines to save the cost of shipping a motor and installing it at an outstation. Obviously a selling point, given the reported unreliability mentioned above!
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4131 times:
I think the BAe-146/Avro ARJ is a good looking airplane. I like the 717-200 a hell of alot better though. The 717 is quieter in my opinion, and it smells better. The BAe smells decent enough, and I would fly on one anyday, but if you had a BAe-146, and a 717 sitting right next to each other, and you gave me a choice, I would take the 717
25 RJ: Why Does The BAe-146 Have 4 Engines? Because it can!!!! Happy flying!!! RJ (I just couldn't resist)
26 Duncan: I can't wait for the day that airlines choose a type of plane because of it's smell I can't wait to see the odor characteristics on the spec sheet I c
27 TWAMD-80: Hey, do the engines on the 146 have thrust reversers? I have never seen them. I know they put out a big air brake right before touchdown, but I'm not
28 BR715-A1-30: None of the BAe-146/Avro RJ have thrust reversers. The design of the wing, and the air brakes act in place of the thrust reversers
29 LZ-TLT: This was told be by a BA employee at CGN: "What stands the 146 in BAe-146 for?" 1 engine will always fail it has 4 but it really needs 6