Bae146 "SE-DRM" of SN Brussels

Skystef · Post by **Skystef** » 26 Jun 2003, 23:32

Hey folks,

For next 18 months or so this SN Brussels OO-DJJ aircraft is operating for Malmö Aviation.
Colors are Skyways.
Perhaps we'll see it @ BRU 8O .

SkyStef

Post by **luchtzak** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:00

Thank God the old DJJ is gone, a 146 is nothing but troubles!!

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:11

Thank God the old DJJ is gone, a 146 is nothing but troubles!!

But DJJ and the other BAe146 are only 12 years old!! that's not so old for an aircraft. Why should they have so many problems??

Chris

Post by **luchtzak** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:23

Old cockpitconfiguration, no music-system, no pre-recorded speeches, leaking coffeemakers, old ovens, worn-off trolleys, smelly cabin inflight because of bad airconditing-system that gave passengers headaches, ... Do I need to say more ?

ciao,

Bart

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:30

Man, now I understand why SNBA's loadfactor is so weak

no pre-recorded speeches

So You have to do more work

Greetz
Chris

BBKing · Post by **BBKing** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:34

why not simply dump the 146's???

and why did the management ever decide to buy them anyway ???

Post by **luchtzak** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:34

Avro wrote:So You have to do more work

Inderdeed !

liebensd · Post by **liebensd** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:35

Some information about OO-DJJ

MSN: E2196
BAE 146-200
First flight: 13/05/91
Engine: LYALF502R-5

A question:
Wherefor dit OO-DJJ goes to Malmö Aviation, it is the jongest 146-200 of SNBA?

Greetz,

Dave

Post by **sn26567** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:36

luchtzak wrote:Thank God the old DJJ is gone, a 146 is nothing but troubles!!

Next time I see a 146 in the SN timetable I'll look for another airline (as they say in Portugal: TAP = Take Another Plane)

Luckily, my flight to MAN next Monday is an ARJ100

Good surprise for my return flight on the same day: BA seems to have switched from a 146-200 to an ERJ-145

Post by **luchtzak** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:39

BBKing wrote:why not simply dump the 146's???

and why did the management ever decide to buy them anyway ???

Because the 146's are owned by SN Brussels Airlines, all the other aircrafts are leased. Now they can lease their own aircraft to other companies.

ciao,

Bart

Post by **sn26567** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:40

luchtzak wrote:Thank God the old DJJ is gone, a 146 is nothing but troubles!!

Wait until it comes back in 18 months

After having been in the hands of the Vikings it will be in an even worse condition.

And you will still have to fly it

liebensd · Post by **liebensd** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:49

I have maybe a solution for the BAe146-200’s, cut a hole in them and use or sell them as a freighter plane.

Greetz,

Dave

Post by **sn26567** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:52

liebensd wrote:I have maybe a solution for the BAe146-200’s, cut a hole in them and use or sell them as a freighter plane.

Good idea Dave

Sure that TNT would be interested in extending its current fleet of 146s and Avro's

Post by **sn26567** » 27 Jun 2003, 14:46

This discussion reminds me that I still have an unanswered question about problematic SN flights operated with a BAe 146-200: see this topic :shoot:

Lyulka · Post by **Lyulka** » 28 Jun 2003, 12:40

can someone tell me the what the visual differences are between an avro and a BAE 146?

Post by **luchtzak** » 28 Jun 2003, 14:28

Lyulka,

a 146 has a triangular thing below the rear-lights, it was build to prevent that the tail scratches the runway. If you look closely you can see the difference.

ciao,

Bart

Post by **sn26567** » 28 Jun 2003, 14:36

luchtzak wrote:a 146 has a triangular thing below the rear-lights,

A thing? Un "bazar"?

Can you please, explain Bart?

Post by **luchtzak** » 28 Jun 2003, 14:50

Check http://www.airliners.net/open.file/365824/L/ right-below the rear-door, just at the height of the grass you will see a white triangular thing. That's the difference with RJ85-RJ100

ciao,

Bart

Post by **sn26567** » 28 Jun 2003, 18:53

I understand now.

The Russians are smarter than the British for that. In the Il-62, they have installed wheels at the same place - to prevent the back of the plane from scraping the tarmac at take-off (see http://www.airliners.net/open.file/365413/L/).

I flew the Il-62 a few times. The back of the plane, with its four jet engines, is so heavy that passengers must board the front of the plane first, otherwise it could drop on its small back wheels.

meerkat · Post by **meerkat** » 28 Jun 2003, 20:00

Ilyushin didn't really get their sums right when they designed the Il-62 (o copied the VC-10) as they had to install a wheel to stop scraping the tail due to overrotation and when on the ground had to fit a pole to stop the aircraft tipping up. Obviously their c of g calculations were a little awry!

Meerkat