User avatar
ATA L1011
Topic Author
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Wed Mar 14, 2001 1:09 pm

For those of you have flown on the Avro/146 what do you think of them? I actually like them they are quite roomy and large considering its a regional jet the cabin seemed to be nearly as wide as a 737's, wider than the Md-80/DC-9. To me no other regional jet competes wit these on comfort, what do you guys think that have flown on it Vs. other regional or small jetliners.
Treat others as you expect to be treated!
 
Guest

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Wed Mar 14, 2001 1:13 pm

I was actually quite surprised by the 146. It was very comfortable and had a smooth ride. But its still more fun to fly on a CRJ or a even a J41 to tell you the truth... its comfortable but nothing special with the avro.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Wed Mar 14, 2001 1:16 pm

What do I think of them?

Well, I know that they have overhead wings, which makes it a somewhat unique configuration for a civillian jetliner.

I also happen to know it has 4 engines and funny shaped landing gear doors.

I think they look like miniature/baby C-5's and C-141's.


Just my $.02
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Wed Mar 14, 2001 1:16 pm

The 146s are great. We used them as freighters and they were realy reliable. We had times to times problem with smoke in the cockpit requiring emergency landing with oxygen masks on. This is due to smoke coming from the climatisation system, a problem well known for nearly every 146 operator. As a passenger point of view, the cabin is wide and very silent.
Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
Skystar
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: The Avro RJ85

Wed Mar 14, 2001 4:02 pm

I've flown the LH RJ85; fairly quiet, nice initial climb, smooth landing (trailing arm landing gear system is good) and a comfortable cabin, with 777 width seats (if not wider).

It's clearly a class above the CRJ/ERJ aircraft, never mind that it's slower, because on short regional routes, it's not significant enough to make a notable difference.

Cheers,

Justin
 
johnnybgoode
Posts: 2144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Wed Mar 14, 2001 10:42 pm

hey, skystar,
perhaps you´ve been on a flight with my dad, he´s a pilot on LH´s RJ85  Wink/being sarcastic
actually, he likes the plane very much because it offers so much room. he flew the CRJ prior to the ARJ and although the CRJ is a flying computer and it´s a rocket, the ARJ is much more comfortable.


cheers
daniel
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Wed Mar 14, 2001 10:44 pm

One of the reasons why the BAe 146 had success was the fact because of its wing design the plane could fly in and out of airports with runways as short as 3,500' in length. That's why the plane became pretty popular at London City Airport (LCY).

That's why I said Air Canada (AC) should seriously look at buying 50-75 BAe/Avro RJX's to replace their aging DC-9/F28 fleet; the RJX's are well-suited for the many smaller airports found in northern Canada.
 
airlineguy
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Thu Mar 15, 2001 1:59 am

Is this aircraft still being made? If so how much do they run...are they compairable to a 717, or other reginal jets/
 
GOT
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:44 am

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Thu Mar 15, 2001 2:05 am

I think that it's a nice aircraft, but is it echinomical with four engines?

GOT
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
 
tito
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 1:39 pm

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Thu Mar 15, 2001 7:40 am

It's a very friendly airplane to fly, and the trailing link gear will almost guarantee compliments on the landing from passengers ,you almost have to work on getting a hard landing... but trust me, it is possible to pound it on  Big grin

I would say that the most unusual thing about riding in this plane is the sound that the flaps make when extending or retracting (as they pass between 6 - 18 degrees). For those who haven't heard it, it's a very loud howl, a cross between a wolf and a freight train... very disconcerting to passengers who've never been on a 146/Avro before. I like to think of it as engaging/disengaging the warp drive. The noise is aerodynamic in nature, and is louder the faster we're going. Apparantly it can be heard quite well on the ground below.

At cruise we usually burn about 5200 lbs. per hour, and cruise at .70 mach (.73 on the 300), which is not alot less than what a 737 or A319 burns, and they are going faster. If it weren't for the short field performance, I don't think this airplane would have sold as many as it has (about 400?)
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:15 am

The 146/ARJ is a niche plane for short field and low external noise operation. Airlines, which don't need these qualities, should probably look for more conventional airliners which are faster and cheaper.
Several posts praise the comfort and wide seats. They obviously flew on a five abreast configured plane. Some airlines configure their 146/ARJs with six abreast seating, which makes it probably the most cramped airliner in the world.
Being 6'3" I hate the wing main spar passing through the ceiling. I tested it. It IS stronger stan my forehead!. Apart from that it's a great plane.
It is fun to watch it when on a large airport there is a long take-off queue. All other planes roll to the end of the runway in short bursts as the queue advances. The 146/ARJ rolls to the middle of the runway and waits for its turn. And still it takes off with plenty of runway to spare.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Guest

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:53 am

I flew on the BAe146 a couple times with BUZZ and I like it alot. The flights were smooth, the cabin is pretty quiet and I like the view on the engines.

I think the design of this plane with it's wings mounted on top, four engines and low landing gear comes from a military background.


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Barry Rauck


 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: The BAE 146/Avro 85/100

Thu Mar 15, 2001 10:18 am

Ab.400 wrote:
I think the design of this plane with it's wings mounted on top, four engines and low landing gear comes from a military background.
----------------------------------------------
I wonder if that can be the case.
The number "146" indicates for me that its original brains came off the Hawker stable. Hawker never made high wing four engined military transport. The only British plane with that configuration, which come to my mind, is the Short Belfast. But the 146 was definitely not born in the Short stable. It's closest cousin must in fact be the HS-121, better known as the Trident.

The design goals were obviously low noise level and exceptional runway performance. It also requires light weight.

Four engines with low exhoust velocity gives low noise.
Four engines also gives a good weight distribution along the wing span = light wing structure.
Four engines automatically gives shorter take-off runway since only 25% power is lost at engine out at V1 speed.

The high wing allows short landing gear legs and still good engine / ground clearance. Short landing gear legs are both light and strong. Look how far Boeing went to make th 737 landing gear short - strangely shaped engine intakes, nacelles so high on the wing that they obviously disturb wing airflow. (Larger planes need the long legs anyway for tail / ground clearance).

The most widely used alternative on small airliners is low wing, short landing gear and tail mounted engines. It has many advantages, but they are paid with a heavy airframe weight penalty. It would be even worse on a plane with four tail mounted engines.

I think that the 146 designers knew exactly what they wanted, and they started on a completely white sheet of paper.

Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirbusOnly, AsiaTravel, Baidu [Spider], CCFA, coolian2, factsonly, GCT64, Google [Bot], nitepilot79, reltney, sailsman1, SCQ83, UAL777UK, User001, Yahoo [Bot] and 190 guests