Talk:British Aerospace 146/Archive 1

Speed
The maximum speed noted in the info box top-right and the cruising speed in the characteristics don't agree.

Calgary
I was passing through Calgary airport in Alberta, Canada earlier today and noticed about a dozen of these planes parked off to one side of one of the taxiways, all without identifying livery. Does anyone know why? Have they been withdrawn from service in N. America recently? Or is someone in Calgary trying to corner the market? --Rich 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I found the answer myself: http://www.smiliner.com/news/2005.shtml (Jazz retires its BAe 146s)

Avro 146 or Jumbolino
On a Spiegel webpage, I stumbled on the term Jumbolino (said to be used by Prince Philip at the airfield of Barth (Germany)), but Wikipedia had no infos. It seems this models is meant. Coincidentally, I've seen one a few days ago. Four jet engines on a small plane is remarkable, considering that A300s and B767s have only two. --Matthead 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "Avro 146" is also used by official institutions, while Jumbolino is e.g. used by SwissWorldCargo and newspapers. See Google counts.


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 440,000 for "BAe 146"
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 69,100 for "Avro 146"
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 858 for +Jumbolino +Avro
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 610 for +Jumbolino +BAe.
 * Bundesamt für Zivilluftfahrt (BAZL) - Certain Models BAe 146 and AVRO 146-RJ series
 * Air Accidents Investigation Branch - Avro 146-RJ100, G-CFAA
 * EASA EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE - AVRO 146-RJ70 Series aircraft
 * http://www.swissworldcargo.com/web/NS6/index/operations/op-fleet/op-fl-narrowbody-aircraft/op-fl-ar1.htm
 * http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/824796-1.html
 * http://www.weltwoche.ch/artikel/?AssetID=4899&CategoryID=66


 * I understand that Jumbolino is a marketing name only used by the swiss airline Crossair (later Swiss Air Lines)MilborneOne 19:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Various sources refer to it as Avro 146 and/or Jumbolino. That's a fact and not a matter of discussion. If readers want to find out about the plane, they should be confirmed that they've found the right one. --Matthead 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been on one of these planes which the crew called a "Jumbolino" - it wasn't Crossair or Swiss Air but I can't remember which airline it was... 84.9.33.108 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lufthansa operates RJ85, not -300
Lufthansa doesn't operate the -300 series, but the RJ85 series. The -300 series corresponds with the Avro RJ100, which Lufthansa doesn't operate.

Could someone please correct that? Regards, Flying Finn.

HS 146 in Shetlands in Dec 1981 ?
I have a memory of seeing a HS 146 in what looked like British Airways colours (red white & blue) low over the Shetland Islands, looking like it had just taken off, in December 1981. It was unmistakable with its wing and engine arrangement and was getting a lot of publicity at the time, as was known as HS, not BAE. Was it flying as the HS-146 before it gained certification as the BAE-146 ? Or could this flight been part of the certification program - certainly island-hopping was the sort of thing it was designed for. Or am I going senile ? Rcbutcher 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add why BAE have stopped developing this aircraft? mxpule

 * Because it was costing the company a fortune. My understanding is that each aircraft was sold at a loss. Mark83 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Competitive Market forces and the restructure of BAE Systems within the UK caused the RJ to go under. BAE systems "choice" is to persue military orders, Spares & Repairs and maintenance. Some employees are of the belief that it is the intention of BAE Systems to dispose of BAE Chaderton & BAE Woodford which supplied & assembled many of the parts and that the business was not worth relocating elsewere.

Six seats abreast more comfortable? rschu
In the history section, it says: "One of the main features of the BAe 146 that made it different from other regional aeroplanes is the fact that it features six-abreast seating which proves to be more comfortable than the more traditional four- or five-abreast seating of planes in its class."

How can more seats abreast be more comfortable?Rschu 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In practice, the comfort doesn't really come from the six abreast seating, but rather that the hull of this plane is wider than most other regional jet aircraft like the Bombardier CRJ or the MD-80/DC-9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.43.9 (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Four engines?
Somebody should explain why this small plane needs more engines than some bigger ones. --Cancun771 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They chose four engines for 2 reasons - noise and runway length - four engines running at lower power make less noise than 2 engines at higher power, allowing the planes to land in noise restricted airports, while four engines allow the plane to use less runway, making it possible to take off from airports literally in the middle of nowhere. --Xanthar 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also an advantage in ground clearance at rough strips if you have four smaller, rather than two larger engines.MilborneOne 12:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Four is also much better than two when you lose an engine (as a pilot who lost an engine in a single engine aircraft I can attest to the consequences of engine loss!). So in the case of the 146, a three engine landing is much preferable to a one engine landing. Although all two engine aircraft can fly quite happily on just one engine, managing the vastly different flight characteristics in this configuration can lead to pilot error. There is also the minor risk on a twin engine aircraft of shutting down the wrong engine in the case of engine trouble and being left with none (e.g. Kegworth air disaster). On the negative side you have increased flight systems, avionics complexity and maintenance costs with four engines. --Cheesy Mike 07:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to have more engines is that the aircraft can make a ferry flight (with a limited range and no passengers) on 3 engines if it suffers an engine failure. For an aircraft designed to operate out of small regional airports (with limited maintenance facilities) this will reduce the likelihoods of having an aircraft stranded (and not earning) for a significant period of time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.232.152 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Four engines were used primarily in order to provide a reserve for short runway 'hot and high' conditions should an engine fail:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Using some of these arguments, all a/c should have four engines. This is, of course, economic nonsense. The 'hot & high' idea goes back to the Air Ministry days of the 40s and 50s, when the UK had many colonies, with heavily subsidized services. Airlines hated the idea, as it handicapped them right from the start. The VC-10 was a good example of this. BOAC were forced into buying this bit if rubbish before it was off the drawing board. This is what happens when civil servants have absolute power. The only decent English airliner was the BAC-111. BAC unionists were not in Harold Wilson's inner circle, hence the company was outcast from the amalgamations. They should have been the center of it. The Dash-7 may have had good short performance, but it was also economic nonsense.220.244.75.148 (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (Interjection: from what I've read and seen (BBC documentaries), it wasn't civil servants who asked for the VC-10, but BOAC. And when Vickers delivered an excellent airliner to the spec the airline had asked for, the airline decided it didn't want it not because it was rubbish - it was a superb airliner from many points of view, fast and comfortable, cabin noise being lower than many other airliners due to the engine position - but because it had a significantly higher cost per passenger mile than the competition (particularly the Boeing 707) because of the BOAC spec that it should be capable of operation from short runways in hot and high conditions typical of various far-flung parts of the fast-crumbling British empire.


 * The VC-10's big problem was that airports made their runways longer to accommodate airliners like the 707, so the VC-10's superior take-off performance turned out not to be so useful in practice.


 * If I recall ex BOAC pilot Norman Tebbit's comments on the VC-10 and BOAC correctly, he reckoned the problem was that BOAC had too much influence and Vickers should have had the freedom to design the airliner they thought was best, rather than having to meet one airline's rather flawed specification. Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC))


 * This makes sense. On their own, the stated justifications on "hot & high capability", short & quiet take-off, redundancy, are not convincing : competitors met these rqmts to greater or lesser extents with two engines. Only the "cost is no problem" argument for showing the flag around the remains of the Empaah makes sense. A proper Encyclopedia article needs to give a convincing explanation of how this aviation freak came to exist. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The linked Flight article above should have made this clear. If you lose an engine on a four-engined aeroplane you only lose 25% of your thrust, so the asymmetric flying condition is much less than the same situation on a twin, where if you lose an engine on a twin you not only lose half your power at a critical part of the flight, i.e., take-off, you also have the handling problems of thrust on one side, no thrust on the other, which if handled wrongly - perhaps at night - can lead to a spiral dive into the ground. There is also the aspect of having sufficient rudder authority in such conditions, with a twin the fin and rudder area would need to be bigger to handle the larger out-of-trim condition with one engine not operating. This would have meant more weight and drag than the smaller fin and rudder required for a four-engined aeroplane flying on three engines. More airframe weight and drag results in a less efficient aeroplane and more cost, in terms of less payload per flight, to the customer - the airline.


 * BTW, BOAC were only 'forced' into buying the VC10 because it was they who originally had the most say in the drawing up of the specification for it, then after chopping-and-changing their minds, had the cheek when it was built to say they didn't want it. Then BEA did almost the same for the original DH.121 that later became the Trident. Oh, and the BAe 146 was originally the DH.146 as it was designed at Hatfield by what had previously been the de Havilland design team. Coincidently, the DH.125 was also a DH Hatfield design, although by then it had become the HS.125.


 * ... and the BAC One-Eleven was originally designed to a specification from Freddie Laker - who knew how to run an airline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.81 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now added some details of the four-engine considerations from a source that I hope is appropriate. I felt it was a bit unhelpful for the article to note that there were reasons for it without actually stating what they were. Reading between the lines, it seems that the engine type might have been the consequence of BAe's partnership with Avco, but this isn't fully spelled out in the article I found. --PaulBoddie (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Error in type -100 info?
I just noticed this section;

BAe 146-100 and Avro RJ70 First flight of the -100 occurred on 3 September 1981,[5] with deliveries commencing in 1983. The launch customer in March 1983 was Dan-Air soon followed by the RAF's Royal Flight. The -100 migrated last to the Avro RJ standard development, with first deliveries of the RJ70 beginning in late 1993. The RJ70 differed from the 146-100 in having FADEC LF 507 engines and digital avionics. The RJ70 seats 70 passengers, 82 six abreast or 94 in high-density configuration

Should that section read;

beginning in late 1983. The RJ70 differed from t...

--Bebowler (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The section looks OK as far as dates are concerned - first flight 1981 by prototype 146 (G-SSSH) then the first delivery was to Dan-Air was serial number E1006 (G-BKMN) which was delivered to Dan-Air in May (not March) 1983. Not sure which was the first RJ70 but three aircraft for Business Express aircraft were delivered in September 1993. MilborneOne 14:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is mention of migration several times. The term is used for the change of production from the BAe 146 to the Avro RJ.  Sounds to me like birds migrating or Transformer robots changing.  Shouldn't we treat the Avro RJ70 as a variant based on the BAe 146-100? I'll edit the variant section 146-100 as a model for others to see how the modification would look like.  It can be reverted easily as I'll limit the proposed change to just that section.Archtransit (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right it is not the right word - just tweaked your edit but if you dont like it we can agree on some words - has to be better than before.MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to a design section?
A design section appears in several airliner articles. In those articles, the development section covers the initial engineering and politics in creating the plane. The design section describes the plane, such as being a jet, capacity, etc. Archtransit (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's actually the recommended format in WP:AIR page content guidelines. We usually combine the two sections when there's not enough info to warrant separate ones, esp in new articles. Go ahead and split them up. In the future, you probably don't need to ask unless there's a specific situation that is odd or unigue about a page. I look forward to seeing what you add, as the article certainly needs expansion. - BillCJ (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened to this effort, but it's finally there now. Needs work though. Kyteto (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Aer Arann in Ireland operates BAe 146
It has come to my attension that under the operators section, in Ireland, Aer Arann is missing. Maybe someone would be able to add it in please?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.153.162 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Operators update
The operators section states that it applies "as of August 2006". There are two problems with this: first, that's now over two years ago; and second, I think people have updated the list since then anyway. Is there a source which we can update the entire list from anywhere? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see an Air France RJ-85 on planefinder.net today (Flt AF1978/AFR1978 CGD-DUB), but Air France is not listed as an operator. I am not qualified to add full details to the page, but perhaps someone else is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.227.147.60 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * They are operated by CityJet on Air France services. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical anecdotes suggest that Peter Abeles of Ansett/TNT was invited to the UK by BAe, circa 82. They got him drunk, which wasn't hard to do, and signed him up for the first 100 a/c. He then leased these a/c via Ansett Air Services, around the world. Ansett/TNT slowly disposed of these machines, and owned about 20 by 2002, when they wound up.220.244.75.148 (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Second most succcessful - what's the first?
The first paragraph says:

With 387 aircraft produced, the Avro RJ/BAe 146 program is the second most successful British civil jet to date.

So what counts as the most successful? The BAe 125? I think a link should be included, because it is an obvious thing for readers (including me) to wonder about. 79.199.66.184 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found two sources, one being from the company, that claim it is the most successful "civil jet". I've thus changed the sentence, and added the sources. - BillCJ (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The most successful was probably the BAC One-Eleven but it may have been exceeded by the above by now.

Not a STOL aircraft
According to the sourced definitions used in the STOL article, the 146/RJ is NOT a STOL aircraft. None of my sources, nor the company brochures, make any such claims. The brochures make it clear that the aircraft cannot land or take-off in less than 1000 meters, which is over twice the length for STOL. - BillCJ (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Empty weight
Empty weight is lower, given value is ZFW, I think. Look at maximum load and compare to weights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.208.203 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1993-94 operating empty weight for the -200 is 52,684 lb (23,897 kg), with a ZFW of 75,000 lb and a MTOW of 93,000 lb so it looks like you are correct.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Entry into service
We could do with an entry into service bit, Dan Air had the first delivery with 1006 (G-BKMN) on 23 May 1983, I think the first service was Gatwick to Zurich or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Found out that G-BKMN was handed over to Dan-Air on 23 May 1983 and deliverd Hatfield-Gatwick the same day. Operated the first 146 revenue service Gatwick-Berne on 27 May 1983. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea; I have had the same idea to develop an Operational History section, I'll try to start such a section off next week. If you could share your sources with me, that would be quite helpful - I don't have many of my own that cover this aspect of the aircraft very well. Kyteto (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

perceived reduced effectiveness in anticipated conditions
what does it mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146#Overview The engines lack thrust reversers due to their perceived reduced effectiveness in anticipated conditions, instead the BAe 146 features two large airbrakes... Salomanuel —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Flight International reference for that section states that thrust reversers would be less effective at the low speeds that the 146 would land at, that airbrakes could be used in flight and that the use of airbrakes was simpler.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/avro_rj/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/avrorjx/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)