Kaddyuk From Wallis And Futuna Islands, joined Nov 2001, 4125 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3920 times:
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3853 times:
Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 4): Are BAe working on any aircrafts to replace the 146?
No, BAE has no civil aircraft capability at the moment, beyond its share in Airbus. The Bae 146 line was closed in 2002 and there are no plans for a successor.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9996 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
I'm kind of sorry to see it go. I have a couple thousand hours in it, and it was one of my favorites.
If you accept that an airspeed needle starts out just about 12:30 on your dial, swings around clockwise, you take off at around 4:00, climb from about 5:00 to 7:00 o'clock and cruise somewhere around 9:00 o'clock and this is true for just about any airplane so it really doesn't matter what the numbers are behind the needle. The ones I flew did not even have a mach meter.
Once you accepted that it was not fast and it climbed about like a 1951 Studebaker pulling a horse trailer over the Grapevine, it was a pleasure to fly. A friend (flying MD-80s at the time) once said that flying the -146 was sort of like self-abuse: It might feel good at the time but it wasn't anything you want to brag about in the crew lounge.
The tail-mounted speedbrake was terrific. I called it the smart-handle. You could correct the most egregious errors in descent planning with it. You could set thrust at the final approach fix and fly an ILS with the speedbrake. For a really steep descent you could go flight idle, gear up, flaps 33 (full) speed brake deployed and maintain IIRC, 200 knots. It would give you nearly a level deck angle and you'd drop like a Simonized beer bottle, something on the order of a thousand feet per nautical mile!
I loved the overhead panel. My absolute favorite of all the aircraft I've ever flown. I just loved those rocker switches. Clean, modern, unambiguous. ON or OFF, at a glance.
I liked our instrument panel. We had the round gauges so the center panel looked very much like a 'big' airplane. Stack of four. 26 round dials on that panel alone, plus a huge annunciator panel.
Some oddities: Small point - the gear handle was not labeled 'landing gear' it said only UP and DOWN. It was shaped a little bit like a wheel though. The biggie: When you took off with the Sperry style command bars showing you had both pitch and roll commands depicted. But when you put the autopilot ON you had no pitch mode engaged even though HDG was automatically engaged. It was important to know this and it was hardly mentioned in the training. If you went A/P ON in HDG for example it would begin a pitch up and eventually (twenty seconds or so) stall the airplane if you let it go that far. If you did not engage a pitch mode like Speed or Rate of Climb you had to sit there and apply nose-down trim for about five seconds every five or ten seconds or so because the nose just kept climbing. It was a quirk and it is just good practice to assure that you have both pitch and roll modes engaged anyway when going on autopilot but there you are.
It was maintenance cost and dismal dispatch reliability that finally killed the plane. It was the most expensive airplane in the fleet on maintenance. Higher per-hour costs than thirty year old Dougs or jumbos. It was doomed by unreliable engines and electronic gremlins.
I once bragged to a jumpseater that at about 1500 hours in type I'd never had an engine failure. I had two in the next thirty days, one of them really spectacular. It has an aural engine failure system - all the passengers on that side SCREAM when a fireball shoots out the intake!
I'd still jump at the chance to fly it again though. I just wouldn't want to pay the bills.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8142 posts, RR: 65 Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3739 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Thanks, SlamClick. Your posts are wonderful to begin with, but descriptions of flying qualities and nuances like that are some of the most enjoyable posts on the forum, as far as I'm concerned.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8426 posts, RR: 19 Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3697 times:
Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 4): Are BAe working on any aircrafts to replace the 146?
No... The BAe 146 has been out of production maybe 10-12 years. It's 'replacement' the Avro RJ family was only in production for 8 years or so. They offered good short field operations, but were maintenance hogs.
[Edited 2006-07-24 04:11:55]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
WSOY From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9): Quoting EMBQA (Reply 8):
The BAe 146 has been out of production maybe 10-12 years
Try 4 - the last aircraft was delivered in 2002.
Actually not quite 3. The production had ceased in 2002, SAS came to the rescue and bought the unsold RJs from storage in late 2003. The world's last British-built jetliner is flying as OH-SAP (E2394).
"The first production aircraft was delivered in 1993 and production ceased in 2002. The last four aircraft built, two RJ85 and two RJ100, have been leased from BAE Regional Aircraft by Blue 1 (formerly Air Botnia) of Finland. The last Avro RJ was delivered in November 2003." http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/avro_rj/
On the engines/"APUs": I recall there have been stories in the Finnish press that at least on two occasions an engine had failed in-flight with obnoxious fumes entering the cabin at the same time.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8426 posts, RR: 19 Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3598 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9): Try 4 - the last aircraft was delivered in 2002.
The last BAe 146 (sn:E2227) was delivered on 6/23/94.
The last Avro RJ was deliverd in early 2002. The Avro production line stopped manufacturing in 2001 and several aircraft sat on the ramp undelivered. In fact the last aircraft, yet unfinished was scrapped.
The question was BAe146, not the Avro. Although they look the same and have the same roots, they are different aircraft.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3581 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 11):
The question was BAe146, not the Avro.
The official designations for the Avro series were:
Avro 146-RJ70, -RJ85, -RJ100 and -RJX
These were developed from the Avro 146-100, -200 and -300 respectively and were upgraded versions of those aircraft.
The reason for the name change was due to the aircraft production being moved from one factory to another and production taking place under license by Avro International Aerospace.
If you talk about the BAe-146 it is prudent to also include the RJ series because they were the same aircraft.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8426 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3559 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12): If you talk about the BAe-146 it is prudent to also include the RJ series because they were the same aircraft
As someone that has worked on both...not just read about it in some book, no they are not the same. Different engines, avionics, aircraft systems. They look the same yes, but that is where it ends.
I stand by what I said... the last BAe 146 was delivered on 6/1994 (backed up by airlinersfleet.com ...!! as they say the same) The last Avro RJ was delivered in 2002.
[Edited 2006-07-24 16:50:01]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 13):
I stand by what I said... the last BAe 146 was delivered on 6/1994 (backed up by airlinersfleet.com ...!! as they say the same) The last Avro RJ was delivered in 2002.
Thats comparable to saying a 747-400 is not a 747 because it has different systems to a 747-300, -200 or -100.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8426 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3554 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14): Thats comparable to saying a 747-400 is not a 747 because it has different systems to a 747-300, -200 or -100.
A 747-400 is light years different then a 747-100 and deserves to be acknowledged as such. The Avro RJ is different then the BAe 146 as should be acknowledged as such.
His question was "is the BAE 146 here to stay.?" My opinion No.!! The Avro RJ... well, maybe. They fixed a lot of the problems of the -146, but it's still a maintenance hog.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8142 posts, RR: 65 Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3553 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 15): A 747-400 is light years different then a 747-100 and deserves to be acknowledged as such. The Avro RJ is different then the BAe 146 as should be acknowledged as such.
So where do you draw the line? Would you think differently if the engines were identical between the 146 and ARJ? What about if the similarities extended to the avionics? What if it were the engines and systems, but not the avionics?
Perhaps, in cases like this, the two models would better be described as the same airframe, rather than the same aircraft....because, as we can plainly see, the latter is quite ambiguous.
BoeingOnFinal From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3542 times:
Thanks SlamClick, for your insightful post. I learned alot about the 146 just reading that post!
So you are no longer flying that aircraft? Seems like many airlines have theirs in use still, like Lufthansa. When do you think they will fade out? If they have that high maintenance cost, they can't possibly make much profit having it in service.
Hope you are still up in the air in other nice aircrafts
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8426 posts, RR: 19 Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3537 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 17): Let's call the Avro version a 146NG, then
I'll go with that to keep the peace.
But I stand with what I said. You guys are being general and on that, yes they would be the same. I, as someone that is actually in the business and has worked on both aircraft, no they are two very different aircraft. Different enough that the FAA lists them independently on the TCDS.
Slamclick.. who did you fly with..? There have only been a small few US operators of the BAe 146 and only two operators of the Avro RJ.
[Edited 2006-07-24 17:52:25]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
WSOY From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3517 times:
Actually, the Wikipedia on this a/c appears to be quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bae_146
They too say the last Avro RJ was delivered in late 2003, not in 2002!
Last flight in the plane I affectionately called the 'swineliner' or the 'quadrophonic leafblower' was November 1990. However, I can still say that the smallest jet I ever flew had four engines.
My mind is a black hole of business judgement. Whatever I guess will be wildly wrong. I will say that it would take a lot of minor MX faults and downtime to equal the purchase price of 85-100 seats in a modern airframe. The DC-8-73 soldiered on long after it was obsolete because it was already paid for and the cost of replacement was huge. The -146 may still be 'cheap' seats.
Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 18): they have that high maintenance cost, they can't possibly make much profit having it in service.
I don't know if the MX cost is still that high. My info is very old - 1980s. One upside of high fuel cost is that it makes high MX cost less critical. It was pretty economical per seat-mile.
Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 18): Hope you are still up in the air in other nice aircrafts
Last career flight was September 2004. Only been in an airplane (Lancair) once since then. It would take a very interesting offer to lure me back out to the airport. Flying Ilyushins in Africa was not enough incentive!
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8426 posts, RR: 19 Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3510 times:
Quoting WSOY (Reply 20): Actually, the Wikipedia on this a/c appears to be quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bae_146
They too say the last Avro RJ was delivered in late 2003, not in 2002!
Keep in mind, Wikipedia is NOT an official source by any means. It is an open bulletin board where anyone can post any information. Fact or not....
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
WSOY From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3502 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 22): Quoting WSOY (Reply 20):
Actually, the Wikipedia on this a/c appears to be quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bae_146
They too say the last Avro RJ was delivered in late 2003, not in 2002!
Keep in mind, Wikipedia is NOT an official source by any means. It is an open bulletin board where anyone can post any information. Fact or not....
Thanks for the info. But please consider this:
"Last production Avro RJ delivered
An era came to an end of November 26, when Air Botnia took delivery of the last Avro RJ produced. The aircraft, Avro RJ85 msn E2394 has been built in April 2002, making her first flight on April 24 of that year. She had then been stored, initially at Woodford and then at Filton, together with three other unsold RJs -- another RJ85 and two RJ100s. Air Botnia bought all four earlier this year, and they were flown to Exeter for customization by Flybe Aviation Services prior to delivery. The other three were delivered in late October and early November, painted in the new colors of Blue 1 -- the new name Air Botnia will adopt from January 1. To mark the end of the BAe 146 and Avro RJ production program, E3294 was flown from Exeter to BAE SYSTEMS Regional Aircraft's facilites. She first overflew Weybridge, site of the European Spares Logistics Centre, and Hatfield, home of BAE SYSTEMS Asset Management and site of the initial BAe 146 production line. She then proceeded to Woodford, where she had been built, and now home of the Customer Training and Engineering unit, and landed there. A final stop was made at Prestwick, headquarters of Regional Aircraft and centre for customer Support and Engineering. Under the command of Captain Pauli Perttula, she was then delivered to her new home in Helsinki. [2003-11-28]" http://www.smiliner.com/news/2003.shtml#0311_4a
This corrects my earlier info on the serial number of the last plane.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9996 posts, RR: 79 Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3510 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): Low noise, great short field performance, rugged design.
Not that great as it turns out.
It can land really short. Taking off is another matter. The takeoff roll at sea level standard day is not markedly short. Hot and high it is pretty disappointing.
I evaluated it for a startup 121 supplemental operation out of Lake Tahoe (KTVL) shortly before any US carriers had announce any purchases. We found that the takeoff with an engine failure was not the problem, it was the full 4-engine takeoff that did not meet the needs.
By the way we determined that the operation could only be performed with one airplane; the DC-9-21 but they are the rarest of airframes and none were available at the time.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
BoeingOnFinal From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3468 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 21): It would take a very interesting offer to lure me back out to the airport
Really, are you sick of it? Like I'm sick of building houses after 4 years in the proffession
I would imagin that as interesting as aviation is, it would be enough to keep a man busy for a lifetime, but maybe not.
Since you have been in the proffession some years I would asume, what aircraft was most enjoyable to fly? Sounds like the 146 was one of them.?
norwegianpilot.blogspot.com
26 David L: I flew in couple this month, for the first time in about 12 years, and I'd forgotten how much it feels as though the aircraft is "hanging" by that sp
27 Starlionblue: I was thinking of LCY. Both climbout and approach have pretty steep gradients. Don't want to run into any skyscrapers. But hey, you've flown the Jumb
28 SlamClick: No, not sick of it at all. I truly enjoyed going to work, being at work (except for the crew lounge being a ghost town when compared with pre-9/11) I
29 Bri2k1: It shouldn't go without mention that this arrangement also provides you with time to dramatically increase the value of certain aviation-related Inte
33 XXXX10: I would stick my neck out and say that the 146/RJ will be around for at least another 20years. The last 1-11 was only just retired , production ceased
34 Titch: Gonna have to disagree with you on that one, I'm afraid. According to the database, there were at least two Caravelle's flying well into 2001. The la
35 XXXX10: I defer to your research but it does re-inforce my point
36 AirbusA6: As the BAe146 was designed as a rugged simple airliner, for use in the third world, I'm sure they'll be around for years to come!
37 BoeingOnFinal: That is nice, so at least we'll see them around. But I don't think I got the answer on how many BAe146 there are in service? Both new and old version.
38 HAWK21M: Apart from The Engine IFSD.What were the othe Snags that raised costs. Surprisingly out here the 146 never arrived.Currently the A320/B737NGs seem to
39 Starlionblue: I'm pretty Druk Air operates (or operated) the 146 or the Avro from Bhutan to India. Yes, I know India is a big country so you're probably nowhere cl
41 SlamClick: Well, not apart from the engine, rather, concerning the engine I heard and believe two stories. 1. One operator had an uncontained engine failure tha
42 EMBQA: A quick visit to airlinersfleet shows... 394- Built (BAe-146/Avro Series) 306- In service 70- Stored 8- Scrapped 10- Written Off
43 Starlionblue: Ah yes. Brits and creature comforts. Having lived for two years in the UK, I can definitely confirm this. Drove me absolutely batty how everything wa
44 Jetlagged: When was this? Thirty years ago? We have modernised a little since then. Glass in the windows, electricity instead of gaslight, etc. Of course Hollyw
45 Arrow: Or North America, or just about anywhere else in the world. Is it still illegal to have a pressurized hot water tank in the UK? That was my favourite
46 BoeingOnFinal: I build houses in scandinavia, and I think they are some of the best houses indeed. Both solid to cope with snow in the winter, and good looking as w
47 Jetlagged: No, though I'm sure there are still regulations to follow if you install one! But US style boiling water on tap is considered wasteful. If you mean t
48 SlamClick: I believe the standard explanation is that it is too slow to actually collide with anything. Anything!
49 Starlionblue: Moved away the second time in 2004. State of the art rental in South Kensington.Of course, our landlady was a penny pinching class A b***h. So that p
50 2H4: I really enjoyed your earlier observation that, for the most part, airplanes rotate at approximately the 3 or 4 'o clock position on the airspeed ind
51 SlamClick: That tail-mounted speedbrake gets a lot of praise but I just remembered another incident. I was at eight thousand, doing 250 knots and approach asked
52 RichardPrice: I hope you had no passengers on that trip
54 Jetlagged: Thought there might be a punchline coming Sounds lovely, I like Stockholm as well. Don't think I could live there for long, though, with the awful be
55 XXXX10: There is IMHO a worrying trait with the 146 when operating in cold climates. It seems that when de-iced the fluid can freeze in the control surfaces g
56 AC320tech: The new Embraer E-Jets family is its main competition. Basically any aircraft that fits the 70 to 100 seat market.
57 BoeingOnFinal: Thanks for the info. Although I though that competition was decided on range as well, but there's probably many factors that play a role here. Really
58 SlamClick: No. I meant a hundred. I don't recall for sure the number, it might have been three hundred or something but it was far short of a thousand. We had e
59 Zarniwoop: Is it true that the BAe146 (not the Avro) autopilot had no vertical speed control? If so, must have meant a lot more work for the pilots.
60 Mirrodie: Likewise, we flew in one of Qantaslink's 2 BAe146s left. Its a great aircraft to be flying on. And so unique in the USA.
61 HAWK21M: I meant Indian operators [quote=SlamClick,reply=41][quote] Great Details.Thanks. regds MEL
62 Starlionblue: You said "out here the 146 has never arrived". Nothing about Indian operators in that sentence.
63 ThrottleHold: The single A/P on the BAe 146 was basic, but no more so than some 1970's era jets. What it really lacked was the integration of an auto-throttle syst
64 HAWK21M: And I thought We were on the Same Frequency..... Seriously Speaking I wonder Why the 146 never found Interest with Indian Operators. regds MEL
65 ThrottleHold: Possibly something to do with it's woeful hot weather performance!
66 BoeingOnFinal: No one has a point of view on this statement?
67 Starlionblue: I would assume it has something to do with engine suitability. Could it be that four small engines were at the time quieter than two larger ones? BTW
68 ThrottleHold: When the aircraft was initially being developed, BAe, or HS as it was at the time, couldn't find a suitable engine for a twin config and therefore we
69 Bri2k1: Another comment that has been made before regarding the engine selection referred to the quieter nature of the smaller engines. By using four APUs in
70 BoeingOnFinal: Thanks very much, I did not think of that. By the way, is there a place where I could find the noise regulation in different parts of the world? And i
71 Bri2k1: A quick Google search found the following link: http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/usc/usc.htm That one seems to be a listing of the applicable parts of US
72 Starlionblue: My guess is that the FAA cares little about noise since it doesn't impact safe operation. People on the ground do care, however, so noise is more cor
73 Prebennorholm: I don't doubt that the above is true. But it is a fact that all 1,576 engines on all 394 BAe-146/ARJs were produced in the US of A. Speculation: If R
74 SlamClick: True, so far as I know. (maybe they were outsourced) The engine had fairly good reliability on the Grumman OV-1 Mohawk and the Vertol CH-47 Chinook.
75 SlamClick: We used to joke about hanging a pair of JT-8Ds on the inboard pylons and fuel tanks on the outboards. There's that APU story again! Actually the firs
77 BoeingOnFinal: Is the Embraer loud? Awsome registration, G-SSSH! Which engine manufacturers are the best at reducing nois? I hear that Airbuses are very quiet, but t
78 Jetlagged: The 146 doesn't have an autothrottle, but it does have a very effective thrust management system, which synchronises the RPMs and enables a set RPM o
79 Bri2k1: I don't have any numbers, but I would say just from listening experience it's quieter than a CRJ-200. It's pretty quiet.
80 SlamClick: If you intended this question in response to my post #76 that is not what I meant. I was referring to the reggo on the jungleJet in the second pictur
81 Bri2k1: I don't get it. Why should the EMB-110 have a PT-SIX reg? I'm not too dense, I hope...I get the SSSH on the BAe.
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13597 posts, 
From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8142 posts, 
From Wallis And Futuna Islands, joined Nov 2001, 4125 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8274 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
