Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAe146 Engines  
User currently offlineBabyJumbo-SP From Hong Kong, joined May 2001, 28 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Does anyone know if the four "little" engines on BAe146 are turbofan? Is the layout a typical turbine engine (i.e. Fan-LP compressor-HP compressor-Combustion-HP turbine-LP turbine)? In my mind, they seem too small for a turbofan system to be efficient. What's the concept behind it, using 4 small engines instead of 2 "normal" size turbofan?

It would be great anyone has the engine's cross-section diagram.

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRmm From Australia, joined Feb 2001, 524 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

These engines are turbofans. They are similar to your describtion but have a reverse flow combustor and a reduction gear set for the fan. I don't have a cut away handy but if you search around you should be able to find one.

I consider these to be the most unreliable engines that I have ever worked on, especially the early ones.

Rmm


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1769 times:

The BAe-146 was originally the HS-146, designed in 1973. The oil crisis suspended the programme until 1978.
At that time, the only engine suitable for the aircraft's perceived role - operating quietly in and out of city-centre small airports, was a turbofan version of the turoshaft used on the CH-47 helicopter!
Not a perfect choice, but the only game in town.
BAe missed the opportunity to upgrade the aircraft with two modern engines in the 1990's.
But the Avro, as it was then called, was a low priority.
Just as the RJ market took off! Typical.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6452 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

Dear BabyJumbo-SP, the concept behind four engines instead of two is to be able to operate from shorter runways.

Since every airliner must have runway to spare to tolerate one engine quit at V1, then maintaining 75% power instead of 50% calls for a substantial shorter runway.

That could be compensated by installing more power.

But then the 146 was also designed to be the world's most quiet jet airliner. More power and everything else equal would spell more noise too.

So the concept was clever enough. Except for that fact that it didn't last and has now been discontinued. Cheaper procurement and maintenance prices of twins won in the long run.

The demise of the 146/ARJ/RJX line shows us that there is no money in low noise levels. Planes must obey to stage 3 rules. But apart from that nobody wants to pay one cent for noise levels considerably lower than that.

Regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic BAe146 Engines
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Smoky PW Engines? posted Sat Jun 27 2009 20:39:58 by HawaiianA330
Stage III Jet Engines, Where Are We At Present? posted Sun May 24 2009 02:27:44 by EcuadorianMD11
Help Identifying Engines posted Sat May 23 2009 08:07:33 by Imiakhtar
Shutting Down Engines After Landing? posted Sun May 10 2009 11:40:50 by 413x3
Engines & Clouds posted Wed Apr 29 2009 16:43:27 by Propilot83
US A321 Engines posted Mon Apr 6 2009 09:48:32 by GoDIA
Swiss MD-11 Engines posted Tue Mar 24 2009 05:28:42 by AlexEU
762/763/764 Engines posted Sun Mar 1 2009 19:52:22 by Salvation
Same A/c, Same Engines, Larger Cost Per Km - Why? posted Wed Jan 21 2009 14:55:11 by Sonic
Concorde Questions(throttles And Engines) posted Wed Jan 21 2009 06:44:47 by SpeedBirdA380

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format