Is this one of the Royal BAe 146s?

[blueedge]

Out for a walk today when I heard an unusual sounding (to me) aircraft and turned around to see this flying quite low overhead.
I was just wondering if anyone knew if it was still one of the Royal, or whatever the technical term is, 146s?

[Boatbuoy]

Yep, one of the RAF's two BAe 146 aircraft operated by No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron out of RAF Northolt, Middlesex.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/bae146.cfm

[Prawo Jazdy]

I hadn't realised how many extra bumps they had. I assume the pods at the rear are ECM?

[onyx39]

Prawo Jazdy said:

I hadn't realised how many extra bumps they had. I assume the pods at the rear are ECM?

We could tell you but....we would have to kill you

[Seight_Returns]

onyx39 said:

We could tell you but....we would have to kill you

Or we could just look on the RAF website - which explains what the bumps and sticky out bits by the tail are (allegedly) for - and then no-one would need to be killed.

[AlexC1981]

What a stumpy looking aeroplane. Reminds me of the Fisher Price Jet or Jimbo!

[mph1977]

AlexC1981 said:

What a stumpy looking aeroplane. Reminds me of the Fisher Price Jet or Jimbo!

the 32 sqn aircraft are the shortest length version of the 146 the 146-100 , the 146 -300 looks rather less dumpy, the dumpiness of the 146-100 is in the same way that something like a C17 looks 'dumpy' when pictured with no points of reference

[PaulG40]

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!

[onyx39]

PaulG40 said:

Luxurious inside isn't the word! Loved every minute of it!

Pics?

[Eric Mc]

AlexC1981 said:

What a stumpy looking aeroplane. Reminds me of the Fisher Price Jet or Jimbo!

Cross Air called their 146s Jumbolinos.

[Yertis]

I've heard the RAF are acquiring some more of these, how many and why I don't know.

[onyx39]

Yertis said:

I've heard the RAF are acquiring some more of these, how many and why I don't know.

Looking to purchase two to temporarily fill the gap in airlift in Afganistan until the A440M Arrives... apparently...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-to-f...

[anonymous-user]

Yertis said:

....why I don't know.

Smaller than a C17, faster than a C130.

[Eric Mc]

Will these be freighter conversions?

[mph1977]

Crossflow Kid said:

Yertis said:

....why I don't know.

Smaller than a C17, faster than a C130.

let's see as cross flow kid says, plus the advantages of the C17 in terms of minimising FOD ingestion risks ( high wing so the engines are away from the ground ( where other small jet transports have to have specially configured engines to maintain ground clearance ( oval podded CFMs with specific layout of ancillaries to keep the bottom of the engine clear, on the 737 ) , known basic type to the RAF - as 32 sqn operates 146-100 in the VIP role ...

[onyx39]

Crossflow Kid said:

Yertis said:

....why I don't know.

Smaller than a C17, faster than a C130.

I suspect he may have been asking what they were to be used for, rather than, why are they choosing this particular type?

[Eric Mc]

I always think that it was a great shame that BAe never developed a twin engined version of this aircraft.

[onyx39]

Eric Mc said:

I always think that it was a great shame that BAe never developed a twin engined version of this aircraft.

They thought about it:



"One interesting proposed civil variant was the "RJ120", which was stretched to 35.26 meters (115 feet 8 inches) to give a passenger capacity of 125 with single-class 5-abreast seating and up to 139 with single-class 6-abreast seating. It also has a larger, redesigned wing with winglets, and twin engines, such as the CFM56. It was another nonstarter.

"

[Eric Mc]

Yes. It's main drawback were the four fairly low powered Avco Lycomings - which were what was required for a low noise footprint when the design was originally proposed in 1973 (as the Hawker Siddeley HS146). If it had been given the go ahead back then it might have sold really well. As it was, the decision to build the aircraft was delayed until 1978/79 by which time Hawker Siddeley had become part of British Aerospace.

This is what it could have been -

[Seight_Returns]

Why would 2 big engines be better than 4 small ones ?

Fuel Consumption ? Range ?