Is this one of the Royal BAe 146s?
Discussion
The 146 was originally designed as a commuter airliner able to make use of smaller city centre type airports that were begining to spring up in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Back then, only turboprop airliners such as the Fokker Friendship or the De Havilland Canada Dash 7 were cleared for using these types of airport. The 146 would be a proper turbofan powered airliner rather than a turboprop.
To keep the noise levels down it was decided that four low performance engines would be better than two higher powered but noisier engines. It even used an airbrake system rather than thrust reversers so that the landing approach could be steep and the landing run shortened without making any extra noise.
That was in 1973 (indeed, initial studies were begun in the mid 1960s).
By the 1980s, engines were a lot quieter so the same type of noise footprint could have been achieved with a higher powered twin engined set up - which is both more economical on fuel and also more economical on maintenance.
Back then, only turboprop airliners such as the Fokker Friendship or the De Havilland Canada Dash 7 were cleared for using these types of airport. The 146 would be a proper turbofan powered airliner rather than a turboprop.
To keep the noise levels down it was decided that four low performance engines would be better than two higher powered but noisier engines. It even used an airbrake system rather than thrust reversers so that the landing approach could be steep and the landing run shortened without making any extra noise.
That was in 1973 (indeed, initial studies were begun in the mid 1960s).
By the 1980s, engines were a lot quieter so the same type of noise footprint could have been achieved with a higher powered twin engined set up - which is both more economical on fuel and also more economical on maintenance.
I was at Hatfield when we had that big storm in 1987. We were on the side of a hangar across the airfield from the main production factory and they were using our hangar as a finishing line on customer ready aircraft. To see panels of glass and metal that had fallen from the roof and sticking out of the wing was a little shocking.
Great aircraft, the longer ones always looked right and I had the occasional flight in them too - we used to do the air-air filming for the Commercial side and it was great tottling along in a Beech Baron just feet away over the middle of East Anglia!
Great aircraft, the longer ones always looked right and I had the occasional flight in them too - we used to do the air-air filming for the Commercial side and it was great tottling along in a Beech Baron just feet away over the middle of East Anglia!
BAe also failed miserably to promote the military applications side of the design. It was an ideal layout for a rear ramp freighter but they never pushed the concept hard enough, in my opinion. I remember them displaying a camouflaged 146 at the 1986 Farnorough Airshow. It was named the 146 STA.
Eric Mc said:
BAe also failed miserably to promote the military applications side of the design. It was an ideal layout for a rear ramp freighter but they never pushed the concept hard enough, in my opinion. I remember them displaying a camouflaged 146 at the 1986 Farnorough Airshow. It was named the 146 STA.
They actually did some trials with parachuters coming out the back door!speedtwelve said:
Ahh, the 146.
4 oil leaks linked by an electrical fault...
4 oil leaks linked by an electrical fault...
onyx39 said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Yertis said:
....why I don't know.
Smaller than a C17, faster than a C130.Better?
Or maybe for those occasions when "Two chinooks with an ERT in each" isn't the answer although I'm not sure such a scenario actually exists.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 10th February 13:07
The old man flew them when they first entered service and he hated it; they had the nickname 'cockroach' and the stories he used to tell put me off them for life. The number of engine failures he experienced was staggering. In his opinion it's only saving grace was the STOL capability, he much preferred the 1-11 to fly.
topsparks said:
Crossflow Kid said:
So has Prince Charles. Oh hang on, he found a soft spot for one, just off the end of the runway at Port Ellen.
He thought it would be a good idea to land WITH the wind instead of into it thus increasing his ground speed= not enough runway!onyx39 said:
topsparks said:
Crossflow Kid said:
So has Prince Charles. Oh hang on, he found a soft spot for one, just off the end of the runway at Port Ellen.
He thought it would be a good idea to land WITH the wind instead of into it thus increasing his ground speed= not enough runway!PaulG40 said:
Ive been on the CAS's 146. Had a compassionate return flight from a detachment along with a pilot of ours back from Sweden, and they used that. It diverted in, quickly stopped and kept running, we ran from the terminal security hut out to the aircraft, boarded and off it went again. Must have been on the ground for no more than 5mins! Luxurious inside isn't the word! Loved every minute of it! 
Interiors were fitted out in Cambridge.Despite people saying the engines were not the most powerful, they still had enough grunt to blow our large ground running portakabin cross the airfield when some plonker parked the aircraft in front of it.
CobolMan said:
The old man flew them when they first entered service and he hated it; they had the nickname 'cockroach' and the stories he used to tell put me off them for life. The number of engine failures he experienced was staggering. In his opinion it's only saving grace was the STOL capability, he much preferred the 1-11 to fly.
Was he a Dan Air pilot?Crossflow Kid said:
onyx39 said:
topsparks said:
Crossflow Kid said:
So has Prince Charles. Oh hang on, he found a soft spot for one, just off the end of the runway at Port Ellen.
He thought it would be a good idea to land WITH the wind instead of into it thus increasing his ground speed= not enough runway!(The previous time at Islay, there was no FISO, no wind and precious little light - but that was a long time ago....).
Anyway, the responsibility remains with the Captain. Always.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff