Talk:British Aerospace 146

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: [1] — 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)

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)

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)

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 necessaryily 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 \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/avrorjx/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b 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 ^Notify_Online 10:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)