BAE-146 family

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 14 Jun 2005, 20:58

Alright, it is clear that a lot of airlines are beginning to phase out this airliners. Flybe is replacing them, AC has just gotten rid of them. Is there another version of this aircraft ebing made? I absoloutely adore it, and feel it is a shame that it is being phased out. Also, is there any other competition in this category? Regards,
-Rudi

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 14 Jun 2005, 21:34

BAe intended to produce the so called Avro RJX which was the new Avro's, but since the demand wasn't high they decided to abandon the project a little bit after 9/11 if I recall well.

But the project was already in a well advanced phase when it was abandoned. There was already a prototype doing some test flights.

So in fact BAe doesn't produce any Avro's anymore and won't produce the RJX in the future unless there is a sudden and very big demand for those planes. But this won't be the case..

As for the competitors of the Avro's. Well in the 70-100 market we have Embraer and Bombardier which are quite strong. And well Boeing and Airbus also claim to have a competing aircraft for the 100 seat market (B736 and A318) but we all know how competitive they are....

Chris

Fiero · Post by **Fiero** » 14 Jun 2005, 21:43

The RJX wasn't that different from an AVRO.
Basicly it could be compared with the difference from Bae146=> Avro .
The extra's that the RJX had were airstarters , new engine's , Fadec controlled apu and a better made cockpit. So it wasn't that much different. And most Avro's now are so far modified that there is no difference apart from the engines and apu.
From the competitors there is also Sukhoi and Antonov. They are both creating some new good looking types.

Grtz

A318 · Post by **A318** » 14 Jun 2005, 21:45

If they should decide to build the Avro RJX do you think it would still be a interesting buy for an airline?
Reason I ask is the fact that this single aisle aircraft has 4 engines so it is very fuel consuming when you compare it with a 2 engine aircraft like the EMB170-195.
What is your view on this? Maybe there are places where you just need this kind of plane to do a normal take-off. I know Euromanx is adding them to their fleet right now and they do fly on some tricky fields.
However Antonov and Tupolev are indeed building some nice stuff:

Greetz,

Erwin

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 14 Jun 2005, 22:19

The perception that 4 engines use twice the fuel as 2 engines is not correct. The engines on a 4-engined plane are much smaller than the engines on a 2-engined plane (just compare A340/B777 engines) The difference in fuel consumption would not be that different. (although some difference does exist).
However it is more expencive to maintain 4 engines, so that is an other negative side of 4 engines.

MrAirbus · Post by **MrAirbus** » 15 Jun 2005, 00:00

Good with 4 Engine:
-Might be safer if you loose engine.
-In the case of A340/B777, the A340 spare engines are cheep and easier to transport.
-The engine manufacturers have so good engines that maintenance plan that its not so expensive.
-A340-200/300 have lots of communalities with the CFMI powered A320- family!
-Better take off ability on airports like Mexico City.

Bad with 4 Engine:
-The aircraft needs 4 of many things to connect the engine with the wing. More equipment = more weight!
-You also need lots of more Spare parts, that’s lots of money for the airlines.
-In the long run there is greater chance to get engines problems inflight.

When it comes to the fuel consumption the debate can go on for ever!

In the case of TWO engine Jumbojets (B747/A380/2 deck) the fuel consumption with today’s technology would be very high, 4 engine is much better! Its has to do with some physic laws I have heard on TV!

(The B777-300 overcomes this with a smaller wing and one deck fuselage!)

During the time of the A340-600 first flight, FlightsInternational had letters-to-the-editor column that explained very good indeed all of these!

A318 · Post by **A318** » 15 Jun 2005, 22:07

Okay ,your explanation sounds logical about 4 smaller engines against 2 big ones. So there would be a market for those updated Avro's, question is if there is any chance they will start a new production?

Erwin

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 16 Jun 2005, 00:45

I see the Fokker line relaunched & succesfull before BAe will even think of relaunching the Avro RJX...

Post by **sn26567** » 16 Jun 2005, 11:04

British Aerospace had plans to launch an Avro with only 2 engines. The idea was abandoned when production stopped...

A318 · Post by **A318** » 16 Jun 2005, 21:43

Could be interesting, I heard rumours that if the F70NG (still strange with that NG since it reminds always to Boeing) would be build it will probably have a new wing design so I suppose they can still do this trick with the Avro to bring it back to 2 engines.

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 16 Jun 2005, 21:53

A318 wrote:I heard rumours that if the F70NG (still strange with that NG since it reminds always to Boeing) would be build

F70 is still her real name. Ok, it's easier to name it NG like the B737 but actually, she is not called F70NG.

http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/forum/

Seb.

vc-10 · Post by **vc-10** » 19 Jun 2005, 14:02

The problem is that they are the biggest aircraft that can fly into London City Airport, with the only other jet (I think) being the ERJ-135 and the DO-328 which is out of production. When I flew on an Air France (British European) 146-200 out of Heathrow it went up like a lift despite being full(100%)

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 19 Jun 2005, 14:17

For the BAe-146, these planes are some years older than the Avro RJ's.
I heard that the engines are helicopter-engines with a fan. The reliability is not that high, some problems occur often: like oil leaks, etc. That's why it has this nickname: 4 oil leaks connected with a electrical failure.

It's not a very good climb specialist, especially with the anti-ice on.

Greetz

Koen

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 19 Jun 2005, 14:46

realplaneshaveprops wrote:It's not a very good climb specialist, especially with the anti-ice on.

It's certified for LCY, so it MUST have a very good climb rate...

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 19 Jun 2005, 15:51

Buzz wrote:
realplaneshaveprops wrote:It's not a very good climb specialist, especially with the anti-ice on.
It's certified for LCY, so it MUST have a very good climb rate...

This is my concern. Now all that can go into LCY are turboprobs, as no one operates Dornier 328 Jets into it. This will really change the range available from this airport

nwa757 · Post by **nwa757** » 19 Jun 2005, 17:24

Buzz wrote:It's certified for LCY, so it MUST have a very good climb rate...

I have had the pleasure to fly on some Mesaba/Northwest Airlink RJ-85s over the years. You are definately right in saying that it has a good climb rate. The last time I flew in one (October 2004) there were real strong head winds on take-off, but it was no match for the powerful Avro!

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 19 Jun 2005, 18:48

HorsePower wrote:F70 is still her real name. Ok, it's easier to name it NG like the B737 but actually, she is not called F70NG.

My mistake, I saw some Rekkof papers naming it F70NG

.

vc-10 wrote:The problem is that they are the biggest aircraft that can fly into London City Airport, with the only other jet (I think) being the ERJ-135 and the DO-328 which is out of production.

Don't forget the F70! more infos can be found here.

Buzz wrote:It's certified for LCY, so it MUST have a very good climb rate...

Also, what is revelant is the approach rate (5% IIRC). on a side note, I saw yesterday @LBG an A318 making a successfull approach at 8°!

Regards

Seb.

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 21 Jun 2005, 20:04

Since sn brussels airlines relies so much on avros does someone know what their future plans are gonna be like? Also are these planes actually new? or are they 2nd hand planes that sn found on the cheap?

Really liked the embrear at le bourget. Apparently they can land on the bumpiest runways but also land on a very short runway. Also I assume that they are cheaper than the the others coming from brazil (oh maybe the russians are actually cheaper dunno..

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 21 Jun 2005, 20:19

The first flight dates of the SNBA aircrafts are:

BAe-146 aircraft: 1990-1991

RJ85/100: 1995-1999

The RJ100's are the newest ones. All these aircrafts were delivered new to Delta Air Transport (DAT)-SABENA.

Koen

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 21 Jun 2005, 20:29

Okay, but this still leaves the question what are they going to do to LCY? I mean, of course you can sue the turboprops, but they have a smaller range then the Avro's. I do not think a Dornier 328 JET can land at LCY, and I don't think any airline who flys to LCY operates them. This will greatly affect LCY's future