PHX787
Topic Author
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 12:34 am

I ran a search, out of curiosity (again) and found these two threads from a while ago:
BAE 146 And US Carriers
Why Wasn't The Avro RJ A Big Hit with US Carriers
Both threads bring up a number of points, including the hot-and-high aspect,

But I want to know how the aircraft has done in terms of the world....how popular was it, how nice is it to fly on, is there any chance of seeing a resurrection of some sort (AvroNEO or something), What could this plane have been, in terms of successes, if certain things were changed, etc etc.

   Z
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18822
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 12:41 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
how nice is it to fly on

It's very nice to fly on, one of my favourite shorthaul aircraft, as long as the seating is 5-abreast like those operated by LX and SN. It's horrible to fly on, even worse than a 10-abreast 777, if it's 6-abreast like those still operated by LH (not for much longer I don't believe), AF CityJet, and most other European carriers that have operated the type.

Unfortunately, with current fuel prices they won't be around much longer as newer twin-engine types burn about 1/3 less fuel for the same number of passengers.
 
huxrules
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:17 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 1:58 am

I flew on one from Sofia to Varna Bulgaria last year. I remember thinking the takeoff wasn't all that short but it did seem to climb like a rocket. I was sitting in the way back. It was very cramped and wasn't a very enjoyable flight. It's a cool looking plane however.
 
User avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 2:18 am

I flew on one from Johannesburg to Maun (return) in September last year. Both airports are high, and hot. JNB was reasonable (10 AM departure) -- MUN was like an oven (1 PM departure).

The flights themselves were comfortable enough for an hour -- I think the Air Botswana BAe146 is 6-abreast -- and certainly felt very stable.

However, as I mentioned over in Tech Ops, the first time I was on one, I thought we were heading for an emergency landing when the flaps were retracted. The noise was very unexpected and sounded like the pilot had fire-walled the throttles.

SlamClick (when he pops in) has some great anecdotes about flying the 146 ...
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 2:37 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
is there any chance of seeing a resurrection of some sort (AvroNEO or something),

The simple answer is no. BAE Systems publicly announced in 2006 when it sold its 20 per cent holding in Airbus that it would focus in future purely on the defence sector.

In 2010 according to the Stockholm International Peace Reseach Institute BAE Systems was, when measured in terms of revenues, the world's (excluding China) second largest arms manufacturing and military services company behind Lokheed Martin:

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/Top100
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 3:59 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
What could this plane have been, in terms of successes, if certain things were changed, etc etc.

Well it's becoming very popular among the operators of aerial firefighting aircraft. Two US-based companies have converted the BAe146 for use as a 3000 US gallon airtanker (one converted in PEI and has been used operationally on a handful of fires; the other in Nevada has yet to be flown in anger). It has been demonstrated to be a solid platform suitable for the mission involved, but the structural design necessitates an internal pressure-assisted delivery system through a nozzle mounted on the ventral portion of the fuselage. Fine in theory, but in reality it delivers a very poor product pattern on the ground.
A Canadian airtanker company has purchased and is developing an RJ-85 for the same purpose, but is designing a gravity tank mounted fore and aft of the main landing gear (no pressurization required). We will have to wait to see how effective this design will be, but it promises to be a far better solution that the aerosol approach.

The US Forest Service is tendering for a number of "next generation airtankers" to replace aging piston and turbine powered aircraft. We can expect to see a fleet of BAe/Avro aircraft in new roles within a few years.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 4:24 am

A BAE146 has also just started operating out of YYC for North Cariboo Air! Operating to northern Alberta and BC. RJ85s and 100s are coming soon.
 
User avatar
ThrottleHold
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 6:06 am

Quoting huxrules (Reply 2):
I remember thinking the takeoff wasn't all that short but it did seem to climb like a rocket.

You've got that the wrong way round....the take-off run was always short, but it's climb performance was akin to a large brick!.
 
Wisdom
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:43 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 7:36 am

Quoting threepoint (Reply 5):
Well it's becoming very popular among the operators of aerial firefighting aircraft. Two US-based companies have converted the BAe146 for use as a 3000 US gallon airtanker (one converted in PEI and has been used operationally on a handful of fires; the other in Nevada has yet to be flown in anger). It has been demonstrated to be a solid platform suitable for the mission involved, but the structural design necessitates an internal pressure-assisted delivery system through a nozzle mounted on the ventral portion of the fuselage. Fine in theory, but in reality it delivers a very poor product pattern on the ground.
A Canadian airtanker company has purchased and is developing an RJ-85 for the same purpose, but is designing a gravity tank mounted fore and aft of the main landing gear (no pressurization required). We will have to wait to see how effective this design will be, but it promises to be a far better solution that the aerosol approach.

The US Forest Service is tendering for a number of "next generation airtankers" to replace aging piston and turbine powered aircraft. We can expect to see a fleet of BAe/Avro aircraft in new roles within a few years.

As an aerial firefighting specialist, I will easily tell you that the Avro RJ and BAe146 is a lousy aerial firefighting platform. The first reason being its limited payload capabiity. 12 tons maximum, dropped every 30-45 minutes.
That's good enough to extinguish very small starting fires, utterly useless for large fires.

The next problem is its operating cost. Nobody wants them and there's a reason for it. They are expensive to operate fuel and maintenance-wise.
This would mean that you won't be tempted to dispatch it for a small fire.

So there you have it, too expensive for small starting fires and too small for large fires.

Add the shallow maneuverability, the heavy controls, the temperature sensitive engines and you have a useless aerial firefighting platform that is cheap to park but useless for all the rest.


The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.
It has brakes as robust as the A319/B737's, an over-engineered landing gear that is a marvelous piece of engineering but also results in a lot of useless dead-weight.
Its engines overheat very very easily, so actually you can't push them to the limit unless it's very cold outside.
That burries the HOT performance myth.
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance.

It's a useless airplane, the only useful mission I can see for it is as a flying hospital.
Its cabin is just the right size to hold beds or stretchers across and leave enough space for a corridor and it's cheap to park, which is a requirement for a flying hospital used only for larger emergencies.
 
bananaboy
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:58 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 8:33 am

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
It's a useless airplane,

There was an article written by a 146 pilot (as far as I recall) in an old edition of Airways magazine that stated almost the exact opposite opinion to yours. I remember that some "niggles" were noted but that the author talked very highly about the machine.

It's clearly not a useless airplane. It did apparently have some major limitations, but also filled a niche for certain operators rather well which explains why it was in use for several years. It's just that now there are lighter, more efficient aircraft available that can perform similar missions.

Mark
All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 9:45 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
It's very nice to fly on, one of my favourite shorthaul aircraft, as long as the seating is 5-abreast like those operated by LX and SN. It's horrible to fly on, even worse than a 10-abreast 777, if it's 6-abreast like those still operated by LH (not for much longer I don't believe), AF CityJet, and most other European carriers that have operated the type.

6Y on the 146 may be very unpleasant, but a typical 1.5 hour hop is a lot shorter than the 10 hour long haul routes operated by the 777!
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 9:47 am

It seems to have suffered from the same disease as a previous British offering the VC10, optimised for short field performance, when short fields are disappearing fast. In the early days of LCY the 146 was the only jet aircraft whiich could meet the required glideslope angle and operate from the short runway, now of course E190's and even A318's can operate out of LCY due to a combination of slightly more runway and better aircraft performance.

The 146 will continue to be in demand for quite some time, as its undercarriage allows it to operate from unpaved strips, and despite what Wisdom claims it does perform well off short runways. I can remember my 1st sighting of a 146 at a Duxford airshow, (Ansett colours) it almost seemed to hover on the approach compared to anything else that day, and the departure was a short take off followed by a steep climb.

Of course this demand is limited, and the operators who utilise it will probably depend on well used examples for many years.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 10:45 am

Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 9):
There was an article written by a 146 pilot (as far as I recall) in an old edition of Airways magazine that stated almost the exact opposite opinion to yours.

Indeed, an acquantance operated a large fleet of these in a STOL location and his reports cannot corroborate what Wisdom is saying.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

I have to disagree there, especially on the latter. You do realise it's been used out of strips as short as 800/900m on sectors of an hour? If that does not epitomise STOL, I don't know what does...


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
mcr
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:37 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 10:57 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

It most definitely is a STOL plane! It was that capability (and the fact that for a jet it's relatively quiet) that lead to it being the majority type at London City Airport for many years, operated by Lufthansa, Cityjet, Air France, Swiss, VLM, and several others. I loved departing LCY on them, it always seemed to be airborne using a small part of an already short runway, with a really powerful take-off roll. Never tired of that, much more fun than bigger jets on longer runways.
 
LX138
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:45 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 11:07 am

In answer to the OP question, the type has been modestly popular. When combining all variants, 146 and the Avro's the aircraft was a sales success. The aircraft has been operated by several blue chip airlines globally and some in significant numbers. The capacity of the larger models is close to what you can get in a 737, hence they have had lasting appeal instead of just being seen as an out and out regional jet.

In terms of how nice it is to fly, opinion has been divided, and a lot of discussion talks about the noise the flaps make. The configuration setup an airline chooses seems to make a big difference on comfort too. But again gives flexibility to airlines who want operate them at high capacity.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
nor a STOL airplane.

The aircraft clearly IS a STOL airplane. That was/and is one of its key features.

There won't be a NEO version, the ARJX was the last design penned and that was discontinued before launch. It's easy to forget that the original design dates back to the 60's - yet they are still around competing with ERJ's and CRJ's today. If BAe ever produce something else - and it might be in generations to come, then this will be a new design.
StarWorld Team - The ultimate airline alliance
 
BAeRJ100
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:49 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 12:58 pm

I'm fortunate enough to be a cabin crew member of the only airline in Australia that still operates the 146/Avro RJ. As we utilise a fleet of 146-100, -200 and -300 aircraft (the only Avro RJ's we have are the 100s), I can say that all of them perform very well in regards to taking off from small airstrips in conditions that probably weren't considered during its' design (the Australian desert, where temperatures are regularly over 50C in summer). You can definitely tell the type is dated, but it's still a very comfortable aircraft as both a passenger and a crew member - something little that I like which I wouldn't have expected from such old aircraft are touch-sensitive controls for passenger lights and crew call buttons. The RJ is definitely a step up from the 146 in terms of comfort, but overall both of them hold a special place in my heart and I feel privileged being able to fly on a type such as this every day in a world that is primarily over-filled with Airbus and Boeing.

As for the noise the flaps make when they're retracted/extended - one of our pre-flight PAs is to inform pax that "an airflow noise will be heard after take-off/prior to landing" and that it's completely normal. There's still the odd passenger from time to time that has a little bit of a freak out in their seat though, as it really is unexpected.

It would've been nice to see how the RJX project turned out, but obviously we'll never know. Like the original Avro RJ brought the 146 from the 80's to the 90's, no doubt the RJX would've pushed it further into the new millenium - it's just a shame we'll never know how it would've ended up.
B738-9/744ER/752/753/763/77L/773/77W/A320/332/333/388/MD82/717/F100/RJ85/RJ100/146-100/200/300
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 1:08 pm

Quoting LX138 (Reply 14):
There won't be a NEO version, the ARJX was the last design penned and that was discontinued before launch. It's easy to forget that the original design dates back to the 60's - yet they are still around competing with ERJ's and CRJ's today. If BAe ever produce something else - and it might be in generations to come, then this will be a new design.

The ARJX was discountinued after launch, as prototypes had already been made and FlyBe had placed an order. It was still more of the same (i.e. 4 engined), if BAE had coughed up a bit more money and launched a twin engined version, surely this would have had more success?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
UALWN
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 1:41 pm

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 3):
The noise was very unexpected and sounded like the pilot had fire-walled the throttles.
Quoting BAeRJ100 (Reply 15):
As for the noise the flaps make when they're retracted/extended - one of our pre-flight PAs is to inform pax that "an airflow noise will be heard after take-off/prior to landing" and that it's completely normal.

Correct. I clearly remember that from an AYQ-CNS trip with Qantas Airlink in 1996 on a -200 (I think). However, I was pretty much used to the noise from flying the 146/Avro both on LX (Crossair back then, which called them Jumbolinos) BSL-BCN and occasionally GVA-BCN, and on Air Wisconsin on a number of DEN-ASE trips. I have to say I love the type. I believe all those trips were with 5-abreast configurations. And I'm positive that the announcement about the noise was only made in Qantas Airlink.

[Edited 2012-05-02 06:47:45]
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340
 
User avatar
treebeard787
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:03 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 4:05 pm

Last time I flew on an Avro, I was flying DFW-MSP on Northwest (XJ) on an Avro RJ-85. The only other time I've flown on the type I was flying DEN-MSO-DEN on a United Express (Air Wisconsin) BAe-146-200. Both of those flights were years ago now. It's definitely a unique type of aircraft to fly on, Certainly better than all the CRJ's that are used in their place today. I do miss the variety of airlines and aircraft types that we had around, even just ten years ago.
Allons-y!
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 4:16 pm

Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 9):

The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

Don't know where you are getting this from. It has better field performance than a turboprop.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance.

What has this go to do with performance out of high altitude airports?

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its engines overheat very very easily, so actually you can't push them to the limit unless it's very cold outside.
That burries the HOT performance myth.

Which variant are you talking about because there is a huge difference between the original 146 and Avro RJ in this regard.
 
Wisdom
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:43 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 6:00 pm

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 19):

Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 9):

The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

Don't know where you are getting this from. It has better field performance than a turboprop.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance.

What has this go to do with performance out of high altitude airports?

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its engines overheat very very easily, so actually you can't push them to the limit unless it's very cold outside.
That burries the HOT performance myth.

Which variant are you talking about because there is a huge difference between the original 146 and Avro RJ in this regard.

Better field performance than a comparable turboprop?
What's a comparable turboprop, the ATR72, Q400, C130? The Avro can't compete in STOL performance.

Lower ceiling is a EAS limitation on the engines. This EAS limitation also affects field performance at high altitude.

All the BAe's and avro RJ's have temperature sensitive engines.
They have the same core design, most of the differences between the ALF502 and LF507 are in the accessories and the additional stage in the low pressure compressor.
The LF507's turbine proves challenged by the increased pressure ratio and higher TIT, it only made the problem worse.

During the summer, these engines get dropped routinely for a turbine stage replacement.
For a full summer season's operations, you can expect at least 2 engine changes per aircraft.

Quoting mcr (Reply 13):
It most definitely is a STOL plane! It was that capability (and the fact that for a jet it's relatively quiet) that lead to it being the majority type at London City Airport for many years, operated by Lufthansa, Cityjet, Air France, Swiss, VLM, and several others. I loved departing LCY on them, it always seemed to be airborne using a small part of an already short runway, with a really powerful take-off roll. Never tired of that, much more fun than bigger jets on longer runways.

Then we could say the same of all Embraer, Gulfstreams, Bombardier, heck why not even Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies capable of landing and taking off from LCY. They're all STOL?

The 4 engines make it look like a STOL airplane, but the thing is so heavy and such a drag factory that even with one engine out, it has nowhere the performance of a twin.
That's why even the military don't even look at it.

For landing or accelerate stop performance, it may have strong carbon brakes and huge spoilers but it doesn't have reverse thrust.

You can push the airplane to make it do a short take-off, but it would require a borescope inpection and probable shop visit of all engines after each such take-off. The brakes also tend to overheat very fast due to their higher heat absorbtion rate and take a lot of time to cool down.

It's a STOL airplane by 1980's standard, nowadays even a B738 SFP can fly out of 1300m runways.

It' a useless plane, no matter whatever myths or pre-conceived idea's you have about it. I know the plane, changed plenty of engines, done plenty of engine runs and flights. All it is is a fuel hog and maintenance lemon airplane.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 6:10 pm

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
As an aerial firefighting specialist,

Sir, I can assure you that your lack of aerial firefighting "Wisdom" has been betrayed by your comments. Allow me to deconstruct some of your mythical arguments. Note that I'm not sure about the depth of experience you have gained from the vast amount of aerial firefighting conducted in the Netherlands, but here in North America, I believe am I significantly well-versed to address your points. If your profile is accurate, I have been working in aerial firefighting for longer than you have been alive.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
The first reason being its limited payload capabiity

It will carry 3000 US gallons (11, 365 litres) of retardant. Actually scratch that, it DOES carry that amount of retardant.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
dropped every 30-45 minutes

On a gravity-evacuated tank, there is no minimum time between drops. Perhaps you assume we use just one airtanker at a time. We do not. Certain incidents have had enough airplanes to have consecutive drops every 2-4 minutes for an entire afternoon.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
That's good enough to extinguish very small starting fires, utterly useless for large fires.

Extinguishing very small starting fires is precisely the point. No aircraft or fleet of aircraft can "extinguish" a fire of any size. But they can certainly be used to achieve various objectives that assist the ground firefighters and they do so successfully every year.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
The next problem is its operating cost. Nobody wants them and there's a reason for it. They are expensive to operate fuel and maintenance-wise.
This would mean that you won't be tempted to dispatch it for a small fire.

Nobody wants them except for the three operators that are building them you mean? Or the numerous government agencies interested in evaluating them? I have also worked with a much larger, more expensive airtanker (DC-10). It actually becomes MORE cost-effective when you dispatch it to small fires. Waiting for fires to "grow large enough to action by aircraft" is a folly identified decades ago. One can spend a few thousand on up-front aircraft costs at the incipient stage of a fire, or up to millions in extended suppression costs once the fire grows to approximate the size of your country. Being accountable to the taxpayers and political masters, most wildfire managers opt for the intelligent choice.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Add the shallow maneuverability, the heavy controls,

Ah, you have flown it? The BAe146 I observed over a fire could maintain a tight circuit at 125 KIAS drop speed and had no vertical or lateral manoeverability problems within the fire area. Perhaps that pilot had bettter skills than your own.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
you have a useless aerial firefighting platform that is cheap to park but useless for all the rest

Any airplane is NOT cheap when they are parked. That's when they become very expensive.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
It has brakes as robust as the A319/B737's, an over-engineered landing gear that is a marvelous piece of engineering but also results in a lot of useless dead-weight.

Except when operating from a 4500' narrow strip, then that "dead weight" becomes very handy indeed.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
Its lower cruise altitude and ceiling compared to other jets are there to prove its lousy HIGH performance

The trick is to position your airtankers as close to the anticipated fire activity as possible. Where I work, that a radius of about 100km. How high do you need to climb when flying such short stage lengths? Anything above 12,500' or FL180 in Canada is controlled or IFR airspace anyway,and airtankers generally transit to fires under day VFR rules.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 8):
It's a useless airplane, the only useful mission I can see for it is as a flying hospital.

I'd prefer a DC-10, MD-11 or L-1011 for a flying hospital. Indeed, somebody thought of that long before I did and made it happen. I'm certain you will not be successful in lending these critical analysis skills to anybody actually engaged within the industry.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
mcr
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:37 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 6:53 pm

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 20):

Then we could say the same of all Embraer, Gulfstreams, Bombardier, heck why not even Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies capable of landing and taking off from LCY. They're all STOL?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are any Boeing aircraft certified for LCY.

The 146 was in use at LCY before the runway was extended, when it was definitely a short field.

How would you define STOL?
 
HELFAN
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:56 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 7:59 pm

Used to love to fly on those planes which according to one SN F/A "Looked like a chicken but flew like an eagle" I had the privilege to fly on one to Berlin Tempelhof a few years ago when it still was open. A truly unique experience. Don't know if there were any other airlines flying regularly there with jets except SN with their ARJ85/100.
 
Wisdom
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:43 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 8:07 pm

Quoting mcr (Reply 22):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are any Boeing aircraft certified for LCY.

The 146 was in use at LCY before the runway was extended, when it was definitely a short field.

How would you define STOL?

STOL is a relative term. What was STOL 30 years ago has become the norm now.
The misconception about STOL is that small 4-engined aircraft are all STOL and have better hot and high performance. If you look purely at absolute performance, a twin will outclimb a quad, simply because it's a certification requirement. The twin has to be able to reach a higher climb gradient with 50% of engines operating than a quad with 75% engines operating.

The big limiter on the Avro are its engines.
They're too small, heavy and create a huge amount of drag due to thekr setup, while being temperature limited on the thrust side and requiring a huge fuel flow.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 21):
Sir, I can assure you that your lack of aerial firefighting "Wisdom" has been betrayed by your comments. Allow me to deconstruct some of your mythical arguments. Note that I'm not sure about the depth of experience you have gained from the vast amount of aerial firefighting conducted in the Netherlands, but here in North America, I believe am I significantly well-versed to address your points. If your profile is accurate, I have been working in aerial firefighting for longer than you have been alive.
Quoting threepoint (Reply 21):
Sir, I can assure you that your lack of aerial firefighting "Wisdom" has been betrayed by your comments. Allow me to deconstruct some of your mythical arguments. Note that I'm not sure about the depth of experience you have gained from the vast amount of aerial firefighting conducted in the Netherlands, but here in North America, I believe am I significantly well-versed to address your points. If your profile is accurate, I have been working in aerial firefighting for longer than you have been alive.

I have a good depth of experience.
The experience I gathered summarizes everything in one simple sentence.
The only effective aerial firefighting platforms currently in existence or development that can do any relevant firefighting work are the Martin Mars and the Mi-26 with twin bambi, and that's supposing that there is a water source nearby.

Forget the CL415, the AT802 and the expected AT1002, the C130 MAFFS, all the ex-military fuel guzzlers, the 10 tanker, the Evergreen Supertankers, the midget helicopters, the Be-200.
The Supertankers are never dispatched to small fires, due to their cost. They are usually only dispatched once the fires are large enough to hit the media.

In America, you use many aircraft at the same time with 2 minute intervals to attack small fires?
You wish. The Evergreen Supertanker circles 15 minutes before it drops its load.

Also, retardants are a myth. They don't retard anything in close vegetation. In high winds, the only existing way to stop a fire is through ground work.

Early attack is important, obviously, but if they did send MAFFS in 2-minute intervals to extinguish an acre big fires, then we wouldn't have all those huge fires.
Most of the water evaporates before it hits the ground and retardant never reaches the ground.

If you think that they know what they're doing, I beg to differ. Those are tax-payer sponsored airshows that are supposed to show that the politicians are taking care of their manipulated people.
I have once received a missed CL415 drop from 200 feet above me as the wind and the rising hot air carried it away from the source of the fire. I was standing below a tree and I didn't get a drop on me, even though next to the tree you saw the water dropping. I touched the ground 2 minutes later to feel if it was still wet where the water dropped, forget it, it was 42 degrees nd very dry and the dropped water droplets evaporated in less than a minute.

Stop manipulating the public.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11732
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 9:20 pm

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 24):
STOL is a relative term. What was STOL 30 years ago has become the norm now.

I wouldn't call it the norm now. However, an E170 with the short field kit is a far more economical airframe.

Against the CS100? The 146 has zero chance.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 20):
What's a comparable turboprop, the ATR72, Q400, C130? The Avro can't compete in STOL performance.

   buy a Q400 or another turboprop. I think we can agree that there just isn't enough of a market to keep the type in any major numbers for any airline.

As you noted with the fuel and maintenance burden on the 146, it simply is not an economical airframe.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 24):
In America, you use many aircraft at the same time with 2 minute intervals to attack small fires?
You wish. The Evergreen Supertanker circles 15 minutes before it drops its load.

I have a few friends who fly firefighting aircraft periodically. There are times when they are used in numbers and do drop often. If the TV cameras are there, it is the big tankers. Away from the media, much of the real work gets done.

CalFire alone has 50 aircraft at its disposal:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/communication...AviationGuide_FINAL_webbooklet.pdf

However, the frequent water bombing is less common since, quite a few years ago, CalFire banned the TBF/TBM and other small WWII era firebombers due to the risk of a crash starting rather than halting fires. But there are still teams trained to water bomb one after the other here in the US. If they are tax payer sponsored airshows... so be it. But in Kern County North of here in the US, the technique is considered effective.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18822
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 9:29 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 10):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
It's very nice to fly on, one of my favourite shorthaul aircraft, as long as the seating is 5-abreast like those operated by LX and SN. It's horrible to fly on, even worse than a 10-abreast 777, if it's 6-abreast like those still operated by LH (not for much longer I don't believe), AF CityJet, and most other European carriers that have operated the type.

6Y on the 146 may be very unpleasant, but a typical 1.5 hour hop is a lot shorter than the 10 hour long haul routes operated by the 777!

Yes, but even on a 1-hour flight, almost every other type, jet or prop, is more comfortable than a cramped 6-abreast BAe146/Avro RJ. Why not be comfortable on those flights too when you have the choice?
 
PHX787
Topic Author
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Wed May 02, 2012 11:06 pm

Quoting mcr (Reply 13):
Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
The Avro is not a hot and high performer, nor a STOL airplane.

It most definitely is a STOL plane!

I believe you may have misquoted me. I never said that in the thread starter  


I agree, it is a STOL plane, by a long shot. When I saw the NW ARJ take off from CVG back in 06 when Mesaba operated them, that thing barely used half of RWY18L. It's really efficient when it comes to short runways.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 1:23 am

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 24):

I have a good depth of experience.
The experience I gathered summarizes everything in one simple sentence.

Let's retreat back to the subject at hand. You can start a new thread on this subject and please PM me so that I'm sure to participate. On aerial firefighting, you know nothing. Honestly, I prefer not to be so blunt on this site (the new, improved threepoint), but I'll stand behind my statement.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
However, the frequent water bombing is less common since, quite a few years ago, CalFire banned the TBF/TBM and other small WWII era firebombers due to the risk of a crash starting rather than halting fires. But there are still teams trained to water bomb one after the other here in the US.

Again, while you are a highly-respected member in obvious high standing, I respectfully submit that you know little about which you speak on this subject. Your assertions and the explanations that follow are misinformed at best.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2261
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 4:45 am

How does it go, 4 APU's connected by an electrical fault?  This aircraft is on my bucket list, my grandad used to take me to Hatfield before I was really interested in planes and I saw them test flying the 146...

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
any chance of seeing a resurrection of some sort (AvroNEO or something),

The thing is, the ARJ is already a 146NG - I think there was quite a gap between the two variants - so while a makeover version 3 has worked for the 737, I dont think it would in this market with a limited niche coming at the expense of a hefty fuel bill.

If BAe were still in the civilian airliner game, I could see them persevering with the frame with modern technology and possibly a pair of CF34's, as it is clearly a very able and sturdy frame with the fine DH/HS heritage and it could have given the E-Jets a real run for their money. Sadly, BAe made their decison and the once great British airliner industry dried up for ever sans the PBN Islander, Westland sharing their bed with Agusta, Airbus wings and a few insignificant GA types.

Anyways, the Russians have been and gone and done what you asked - pretty much what a 146 with a pair of CF34's would look like  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sergey Kramarev

Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
PHX787
Topic Author
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 6:20 am

Quoting BAeRJ100 (Reply 15):
I can say that all of them perform very well in regards to taking off from small airstrips in conditions that probably weren't considered during its' design

So what kept it from being really successful here in the US?

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 20):
Lower ceiling is a EAS limitation on the engines. This EAS limitation also affects field performance at high altitude.

Does the FAA have that kind of restriction?
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
ScottishDavie
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:48 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 8:32 am

I still have happy memories of taking off from LCY in a BA Avro RJ-100 with only 20 pax on board. After taxying out very briskly the pilot ran up the engines to what seemed like maximum thrust with the aircraft shaking and straining against the brakes. When these were released we went down the runway as if we'd been fired from a gun. Rotation seemed to happen in a matter of seconds and the near-empty aircraft went up like a skyrocket. I've never experienced anything like it before or since and I only wish I'd had the sense to time the run. I have no real interest in what does or does not constitute STOL but that day I had one of my best ever flying experiences. The E-jets are unquestionably more efficient and more comfortable but they are sadly lacking in character compared to the Avros
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 9:01 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 30):
Quoting BAeRJ100 (Reply 15):I can say that all of them perform very well in regards to taking off from small airstrips in conditions that probably weren't considered during its' design
So what kept it from being really successful here in the US?

Mainly operating from longer strips which could operate more efficient aircraft carrying the passengers in greater comfort.

In its heyday the smallest jet competitors were the 733 and the MD80 series, both of these could probably carry the same passenger load for less cost than a full 146-300. If the airline coudl then sell any of the empty seats which the 733 had over the 146-300 the economics looked even better.

The only way the 146 could win was at locations where the 733 and MD couldn't fit in, of which there are few which are economically viable.
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 10:36 am

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 24):

.

Well you clearly are going to stick to you own opinion so we will leave the discussion at that.
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 10:44 am

I can remember when the 146 was introduced in Australia in 1985 by Ansett doing the milk run up the west coast from PER through to KNX and DRW. It caused a lot of excitement at the time and the aircraft was considered to be the height of luxury from a pax point of view (AN always ran them 5 abreast). I remember flying KNX - PER in the 146 which took around 4 hours against a strong headwind. Given the long sectors often covered by the 146 in Aus its extra comfort was always appreciated, the only alternative was the F28 which didn't measure up from a comfort point of view. Maintenance crews no doubt saw things a bit differently.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
How does it go, 4 APU's connected by an electrical fault?

How cruel ......



Regards,
StickShaker
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11732
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 3:03 pm

Quoting threepoint (Reply 28):
Again, while you are a highly-respected member in obvious high standing, I respectfully submit that you know little about which you speak on this subject. Your assertions and the explanations that follow are misinformed at best.

I admit to knowing little on this subject, but I do know a few ex-waterbomber pilots who flew the aircraft I described (or they're really good at creating fake photos) and told tales. They flew up in Kern county for the most part. I do not speak as if this is a universal practice. But I watched a fire near when we lived in Santa Clarita and the planes were not in 15 minute intervals, they were in very short intervals, then a break for the larger water bomber to make a run, then continued on with short intervals.

Please recall I was in flight test. Once a pilot graduates test pilot school, they seem willing to try about everything (and want too!). Then we hire them back to fly something new. Also being in flight test, we see how things are really done versus how the regulators think they are done. I also know the engineers that worked the original conversions on more than a few waterbombers. While I respect you know more about waterbombing, I also know today's practice is different from 5 years ago which is incredibly different than how the practice was done 20 years ago; at least here in California. Then again, we seem to be good at crashing waterbombers... But up in the sierras (Kern county/Mono county), they seem to do things a little differently. I do not claim to be an expert, but that seems to be where contract test pilots from Edwards do their waterbombing.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 3:36 pm

About two years ago BAE Systems and UK design consultancy Design Q unveiled their ideas of an "Explorer version of the Avro Business Jet". Seems as if these ideas fell on stony ground.


copyright: BAE Systems


copyright: BAE Systems
 
trinxat
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:54 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 3:49 pm

I have a special hatred for the type (only comparable to the Fokkers 70/100 but for other reasons) as it is the most cramped plane I have flown in (in a 6-abreast configuration I am sure the mid seat is the worst you can find in any airplane -CRJs included)

Aside from that the overhead bins are a joke so cabin luggage capacity per passenger is very small compared to other similar A/Cs. And on the wing section you hardly can fit a laptop in there

When I fly AMS-LCY I find a world of difference being able to choose between the comfy E170s with BA, or the dreadful RJs with CityJet
 
bellancacf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:51 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 5:34 pm

I remember watching one climb out as I was walking around "Silicon Valley" (no sidewalks ...). Fairly level attitude, but looked as though it was on a steep escalator. Got as high as it wanted to be, appeared to stop climbing, pivot to a new heading, and accelerate rapidly -- gone. Wow, I thought, I have to fly in one of those some day. Finally got a chance in Sweden going out to an island. One of my favorite rides ever; it just did everything differently -- and well. Up, over, and down.
 
ScottishDavie
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:48 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 5:53 pm

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 38):
it just did everything differently -- and well.

   What a splendid epitaph for an aircraft I genuinely miss
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18822
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Thu May 03, 2012 9:21 pm

Quoting trinxat (Reply 37):
Aside from that the overhead bins are a joke so cabin luggage capacity per passenger is very small compared to other similar A/Cs. And on the wing section you hardly can fit a laptop in there

The only overhead bins that are very shallow are those under the wing. I always choose a seat as close to the front as possible and never have a problem. My standard carry-on bag even fits lengthwise rather than sideways as is necessary on all Embraers, CRJs and Fokker 70/100s.
 
BAeRJ100
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:49 am

RE: BAe 146 & Avro RJ-What It Could've Been And Future

Fri May 04, 2012 1:13 am

Quoting trinxat (Reply 37):
And on the wing section you hardly can fit a laptop in there

That's where we store pillows for distribution to the passengers, to stop people from getting their carry on stuck in the mid overhead compartments!
B738-9/744ER/752/753/763/77L/773/77W/A320/332/333/388/MD82/717/F100/RJ85/RJ100/146-100/200/300

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Focker, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hoons90, LAX772LR, MGA86, PlanesNTrains, quiet1, robsaw, seanpmassey, Yahoo [Bot] and 237 guests