Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3218
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Why Didn't Avro/BAerospace Make A Two Engined RJ?

Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:53 pm

I've always thought the BA146 was a great craft - comfortable for passengers, good STOL & rough field capabilities for its day - and that it would have had more longevity in the market if a twin version had been developed. Did British Aerospace look at this? If so, what's the story? Why was it not commercially viable etc?

Interested in your thoughts, opinions etc
Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
Guest

RE: Why Didn't Avro/BAerospace Make A Two Engined RJ?

Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:00 pm

i think the 4 engines allowed the A/C to be very quiet and probably helped its takeoff performance too.

Either that or it was to avoid heavy Etops restrictions on those ultra long-range, trans-pacific flights, which the Avro 100 was specifically designed for. Big grin
 
Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3218
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Why Didn't Avro/BAerospace Make A Two Engined

Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:02 pm

Thanks Bob

Ticketyboo
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
voodoo
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: Why Didn't Avro/BAerospace Make A Two Engined RJ?

Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:36 pm

Yes there was a proposal for a 2-engined version. It had winglets. Have seen a model in Northwest livery.
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
 
av757
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:49 am

RE: Why Didn't Avro/BAerospace Make A Two Engined RJ?

Thu Apr 29, 2004 12:54 am

It is not so simple to convert a four engine airplane to a two engine airplane, even though they did offer a two engine version; it requires a lot of expensive redesigning of the aircraft systems to make it operational; and not to many airlines showed interest in the model.

Also here at MM in Colombia we had nine Avro RJ100´s,
the major set back was its Allied Signal LF507-IF engines which are extremely delicate; to the point that in three years we had 188 engine removals caused by many inflight shutdowns and failures due to a desing flaw of the main bearing seals. To the point that the airplanes had to be grounded and returned to their owner after a long lawsuit for which compensation was awarded to MM.

The airplane had a good feel with the flying public and were liked by crew and passengers who had a chance to ride on them here at MM.

But I think the four portable hand held hair dryers installed under the wing really sent their goodwill down the drain, even though they changed the name from the original BAE146 to RJ100. Even with two good turbofans installed it could be a great airplane but the damage to its fame here in Latin America is already done.


Also let me remind you the acronym for BAE in this specific case is:

B bring
A another
E engine


 
XXXX10
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 7:10 am

RE: Why Didn't Avro/BAerospace Make A Two Engined RJ?

Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:52 am

The 146 was designed as a 'regional jet' along time before the canadair or Embraer or Dornier had thought of it.

A four engined aircraft allowed a steeper engine out climb which was a major plus when operating from remote airfields surrounded by high ground. Other benefits included the ability to shorten routes by flying over high ground that a twin could not (in case of engine failure) also the ability to fly the aircraft (empty) with an engine out to reduce the chances of having a stranded aeroplane at a remote field.

Two engines would have had to be bigger and therefore heavier than the four hair dryers and would in turn make the aircraft heavier. At one point BAE offered some sort of guarantee that the four engines would not cost more in terms of maintenance and fuel, than two comparable power units.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 76er, a36001, Baidu [Spider], LY777, Roadcruiser1, Someone83, tcaeyx, United Airline and 242 guests