Avro RJX - Manchester
Discussion
I just sent an application form to volunteer on the Avro RJX at Manchester Airport, my mate (J4ckos mate on here) told me about it, not got any particular aviation skills but would love to get involved, am guessing if it isnt never going to be returned to flight they may let me near it ?
Anyone got any interesting stuff about them, anyone else want to get involved ?
Would be a pretty good way to spend a Sunday I reckon.
Anyone got any interesting stuff about them, anyone else want to get involved ?
Would be a pretty good way to spend a Sunday I reckon.
Preserved!
Don't be ridiculous.
Its still a new aircraft.
I grew up on the edge of St. Albans, a mile and a half from the runway, and vividly remember the excitement as the brand new jets came over.
Can't be that long ago....
Buggrit, 36 years.
You've made me feel old, all of a sudden.
David
Don't be ridiculous.
Its still a new aircraft.
I grew up on the edge of St. Albans, a mile and a half from the runway, and vividly remember the excitement as the brand new jets came over.
Can't be that long ago....
Buggrit, 36 years.
You've made me feel old, all of a sudden.
David
Hawker Siddeley had hoped to launch the HS146 programme back in 1973.
In those days, there was an actual Minister of Aviation - and guess who he was - a certain Michael Heseltine.
He wouldn't sanction any government funding so the programme was shelved. When Labour came to power in 1974, they eventually released funding but only after Hawker Siddeley had been nationalised into British Aerospace in 1977 - so it became the British Aerospace 146.
In those days, there was an actual Minister of Aviation - and guess who he was - a certain Michael Heseltine.
He wouldn't sanction any government funding so the programme was shelved. When Labour came to power in 1974, they eventually released funding but only after Hawker Siddeley had been nationalised into British Aerospace in 1977 - so it became the British Aerospace 146.
I was working at BAE Woodford (Avro) in 2001 shortly before the RJX project was cancelled. Remember mooching round it in the hangar. I was working on some RJ checks being handled in the AVRO part of the hangar and also later on the Nimrod project. Spent a lot of time working on the 146 and RJ's in Belgium and Germany as well.
Edit to add I also worked on the production of the RJ fin and flap assemblies at BAE Brough when I was apprentice, 1996 I think.
Edit to add I also worked on the production of the RJ fin and flap assemblies at BAE Brough when I was apprentice, 1996 I think.
Edited by hacksaw on Wednesday 14th June 15:07
hacksaw said:
I was working at BAE Woodford (Avro) in 2001 shortly before the RJX project was cancelled.
I was there from 1998 till early 2003. After the RJX program was canned and RJ production wound up there wasn't much work left at Woodford.
The next time I returned there was the closing party for the Lancaster club and also when I collected a few things that I'd won from the auctioneers that closed the site.
Eric I know how much we like a pedant in this section
.... I don't think you'll have flown on an RJX, as this was the designation given to the evolution of the RJ series of aircraft (themselves an evolution of the 146 as you've noted) that were in the process of being built ready for 'the future' of Woodford's civil aircraft business. New engines, avionics and cockpit with a fresh interior and a few other bits IIRC.I've flown on RJ's a couple of times with BA under their CityFlyer subsidiary. I'm a bit biased, but I like the aircraft.
Al
I've always grouped the 146 and the RJ family together as the RJ was an upgraded development of the 146 much as the MD-80 family was an upgrade on the DC-9 and the Fokker 100 was an upgrade of the F-28.
You are correct, I never did fly in one of the later RJ variants. All my flights were in original 146s.
You are correct, I never did fly in one of the later RJ variants. All my flights were in original 146s.
Been on a few 146s but not for ages, amazing how effective those airbrakes are, it really does feel like the pilot has jumped on the brakes like in a car.
I remember talking to a 146 pilot, a female one and asked if they were good to fly "Not really" was the response, I said that as a non pilot I guessed that four engines would make it pretty powerful and fun to fly, she just said "Yeah, it has four engines but they are really weedy ones", couldnt wait to get off it she said, "onto something decent".
I remember talking to a 146 pilot, a female one and asked if they were good to fly "Not really" was the response, I said that as a non pilot I guessed that four engines would make it pretty powerful and fun to fly, she just said "Yeah, it has four engines but they are really weedy ones", couldnt wait to get off it she said, "onto something decent".
Flown on a few over the years, quite liked the experience. Used to slow over our old home, quite noisy as the spoilers deployed, always recognisable.
From friends who fly, the big problem flying them was very little opportunity to move fleets. With Boeing & Airbus, there's far more potential to work up the ladder or move to a different carrier. With the 146 & derivatives, you're limited to those that fly them & that's a much smaller pond to fish in.
From friends who fly, the big problem flying them was very little opportunity to move fleets. With Boeing & Airbus, there's far more potential to work up the ladder or move to a different carrier. With the 146 & derivatives, you're limited to those that fly them & that's a much smaller pond to fish in.
J4CKO said:
Been on a few 146s but not for ages, amazing how effective those airbrakes are, it really does feel like the pilot has jumped on the brakes like in a car.
I remember talking to a 146 pilot, a female one and asked if they were good to fly "Not really" was the response, I said that as a non pilot I guessed that four engines would make it pretty powerful and fun to fly, she just said "Yeah, it has four engines but they are really weedy ones", couldnt wait to get off it she said, "onto something decent".
They're fairly asthmatic so the climb performance is dire. If you ever fly on one again you'll notice it takes forever and a day to reach it's cruising altitude which will be lower than most commercial aircraft. They're bloody slow as well, an absolute pig to try and stream with other aircraft types especially at cruising level.I remember talking to a 146 pilot, a female one and asked if they were good to fly "Not really" was the response, I said that as a non pilot I guessed that four engines would make it pretty powerful and fun to fly, she just said "Yeah, it has four engines but they are really weedy ones", couldnt wait to get off it she said, "onto something decent".
Mercifully they're being retired in favour of more capable and efficient modern aircraft.
My old man converted onto the one four sick from the 1-11 when Dan-Air first started operating them. He hated it, the only positive thing about it was it's short field performance. When they did the sim checks, the trainers were amazed that the crews could react so quickly to certain failures until they were told these 'unusual' events happened with regular monotony. He personally had several engine failures, usually on take-off - he was told that in 18 months the number of engine changes in the fleet of 3 aircraft ran into double figures. I guess things got better as the aircraft were developed as he didn't hate it quite so much when he flew them for Palm Air.
They were designed specifically for operations into tight and short runway airports - which up to then had been the preserve of turboprops.
It was probably ahead of its time in that small jet liners are now operating into such airports regularly. If it had entered service in 1975 or so as had been envisaged by Hawker Siddeley when they announced the original project in 1973, , it would have had a good ten year stretch of no competition. However, when they did start operating in 1981, other manufacturers such as Canadair (later Bombardier) and Embraer were coming up with more advanced and more modern designs.
The jet version of the Dornier 328 seems to borrow a lot from the 146/RJX design - but with two rather than four engines.
It was probably ahead of its time in that small jet liners are now operating into such airports regularly. If it had entered service in 1975 or so as had been envisaged by Hawker Siddeley when they announced the original project in 1973, , it would have had a good ten year stretch of no competition. However, when they did start operating in 1981, other manufacturers such as Canadair (later Bombardier) and Embraer were coming up with more advanced and more modern designs.
The jet version of the Dornier 328 seems to borrow a lot from the 146/RJX design - but with two rather than four engines.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff