BAe 146 in Aust
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: brisbane, australia
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe 146 in Aust
what is a good example of a good route for a 146 in Australia?
is there anywhere that they'd outperform all comers?
most everyone seems to complain about them, yet the beancounters will probably keep on using them as long as they are cheaper. anyone?
is there anywhere that they'd outperform all comers?
most everyone seems to complain about them, yet the beancounters will probably keep on using them as long as they are cheaper. anyone?
How can any one answer the question?
Its like asking is there a better destination for fords than holdens.
The 146 comes in 64/74/87 pax seats.
What do you want to compare it with a CRJ a dash 8 a 717 a 737???
Its like asking is there a better destination for fords than holdens.
The 146 comes in 64/74/87 pax seats.
What do you want to compare it with a CRJ a dash 8 a 717 a 737???
Grandpa Aerotart
A 146 would probably be very good at shuttling pax between densely populated city pairs in the UK/EU that are close together.
In Oz the distances are too great and the population densities too low to bother with it.
And yes I have flown them.
Chuck.
In Oz the distances are too great and the population densities too low to bother with it.
And yes I have flown them.
Chuck.
I love your post BK, very impressive and made me laugh a lot, i have read so much 146 bashing on this site, its great, now i know why when i go to work at darwin there is always 12 grease monkeys climbing over the overnighting ones!!!
ah...a terrible aircraft indeed though you would have to agree they have served a purpose in oz...
ah...a terrible aircraft indeed though you would have to agree they have served a purpose in oz...
Fuel burn is not everything but its a factor......
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)
0.0791-RJ70
0.0684-B717-200
0.0662-RJ85
0.0604-F100
0.0582-RJ100
0.0575-B742
0.0500-B744
0.0480-B737-700
0.0472-B763ER
0.0470-A333
0.0465-B738
0.0460-A332
0.0443-A320
0.0395-B734
0.0341-B733
0.0305-B762
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)
0.0791-RJ70
0.0684-B717-200
0.0662-RJ85
0.0604-F100
0.0582-RJ100
0.0575-B742
0.0500-B744
0.0480-B737-700
0.0472-B763ER
0.0470-A333
0.0465-B738
0.0460-A332
0.0443-A320
0.0395-B734
0.0341-B733
0.0305-B762
Grandpa Aerotart
swh I think the question was about Bae146s...got the figures for the -100/-200/-300...think they will be a bit different to FADEC controlled high flying RJ70/85/100...did the 85 and 100 ever entered service?
Chuck.
Chuck.
Chuck,
Would be interested with the figures you have, me thinks they will be worse than the RJ. Buring more fuel than a 737-300 with half the pax capicity ?
About 70 RJ85 and 50 RJ100s are in service at the moment.
RJ100
AEGEAN AVN 2
CITYFLYER 7
CROSSAIR 14
DAT 9
DELTA AIR TRANSPORT 1
SAM COLOMBIA 9
THY-TURKISH AL 12
RJ85
AZZURA AIR 3
CROSSAIR 4
DAT 14
LUFTHANSA CITYLINE 18
MESABA AL 26
PELITA AIR SERVICE 1
UZBEKISTAN AIRWAYS 3
Would be interested with the figures you have, me thinks they will be worse than the RJ. Buring more fuel than a 737-300 with half the pax capicity ?
About 70 RJ85 and 50 RJ100s are in service at the moment.
RJ100
AEGEAN AVN 2
CITYFLYER 7
CROSSAIR 14
DAT 9
DELTA AIR TRANSPORT 1
SAM COLOMBIA 9
THY-TURKISH AL 12
RJ85
AZZURA AIR 3
CROSSAIR 4
DAT 14
LUFTHANSA CITYLINE 18
MESABA AL 26
PELITA AIR SERVICE 1
UZBEKISTAN AIRWAYS 3
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK_116.80.
ROFLMAO
As you would know I have my own 'agenda' regards the 'gas chamber'but would like to clarify a few Items mentioned in your quote.
I mean, hydraulically driven fuel pumps?? Three DC generators (including the APU) but 4 AC starter motors (requiring two MASSIVE transformer-rectifiers, each of which is a no-go item - some Australian operators even having to fit a third massively heavy TR to try to improve the dispatch reliability)?? A S.H.A.G. (sounds like something out of Austin Powers) Standby Hydraulic AC Generator?? What were they thinking!!
1.Basically 4 electric 'boost pumps' (the hydraulic are actually transfer pumps for an 'electric failure'.
2.3 AC generators with 5 dc starters(ya forgot the APU).
3.Early aircraft had only 2 TR's(and some -300s)If ya open the cockpit access panel and look forward there is a switch that can be selected (on some)for single TR engine start.
4.S.H.A.G (loved ya quote)Again for emergency use.(got sick of bleeding it to get it working)
I totally agree with the Idea of two mad english-men (possible ex-engineers creating permanent employment)
Cheers.
P.S. ya forgot to mention the bomb release system in the ailerons
ROFLMAO
As you would know I have my own 'agenda' regards the 'gas chamber'but would like to clarify a few Items mentioned in your quote.
I mean, hydraulically driven fuel pumps?? Three DC generators (including the APU) but 4 AC starter motors (requiring two MASSIVE transformer-rectifiers, each of which is a no-go item - some Australian operators even having to fit a third massively heavy TR to try to improve the dispatch reliability)?? A S.H.A.G. (sounds like something out of Austin Powers) Standby Hydraulic AC Generator?? What were they thinking!!
1.Basically 4 electric 'boost pumps' (the hydraulic are actually transfer pumps for an 'electric failure'.
2.3 AC generators with 5 dc starters(ya forgot the APU).
3.Early aircraft had only 2 TR's(and some -300s)If ya open the cockpit access panel and look forward there is a switch that can be selected (on some)for single TR engine start.
4.S.H.A.G (loved ya quote)Again for emergency use.(got sick of bleeding it to get it working)
I totally agree with the Idea of two mad english-men (possible ex-engineers creating permanent employment)
Cheers.
P.S. ya forgot to mention the bomb release system in the ailerons
Grandpa Aerotart
Sorry swh I left out the ? at the end of 'got the figures for the -100/-200/-300?
The RJ series (surprised there's that many out there) solved the performance issues for the 146 but it still the same systems nightmare about which BIK writes so eloquently
Sooner or later it will be acedemic, B717s will be the QLink jet of choice.
Chuck.
The RJ series (surprised there's that many out there) solved the performance issues for the 146 but it still the same systems nightmare about which BIK writes so eloquently
Sooner or later it will be acedemic, B717s will be the QLink jet of choice.
Chuck.
Chimbu/BIK,
You guys really do have a problem with the swinebat, don't you?
Firstly, it has all those systems because it was certified as a true 4-eng aeroplane, and is therefore automatically ETOPS, something which NJ has used to great effect to CCK. Into the bargain, it has so much redundancy that it is very unlikely to get you into a hairy situation. I've had a TRU go tits up in 12 years, so knock off the criticism there. And 12 engineers on each turnaround is absolute garbage.
Fruitloop, the Emerg Start button to which you ignorantly refer, has nothing to do with the TRUs. It permits the aircraft battery to start a donk. When's your next line check?
Sure the 717 may be the machine of the times, but it certainly wasn't up to 3 years ago.
She's all a case of economics. You may want to fly a nice shiny new Boeing to an out of the way place, but the person paying the dollars is not interested, and so the 146 is it. Quite apart from it's unsurpassed hot/high performance.
Ref BIK's snipe at the 502, the thing is NOT underpowered: look at what it was designed for ie Europe at ISA. Just because Oz operators try to make it do more isn't the problem of the jet. Whinge to the beancounters. And who the hell cares if it's slow to climb above 250? Does that mean the coffee comes more slowly??
I could go on and on: stick to the practicalities boys. I'm just as keen to get out of the gas chamber, but the dollars (or the politics!!) will decide. Bring on the Brazilian Sports Car! OK, I'll take a 717 if you insist...
You guys really do have a problem with the swinebat, don't you?
Firstly, it has all those systems because it was certified as a true 4-eng aeroplane, and is therefore automatically ETOPS, something which NJ has used to great effect to CCK. Into the bargain, it has so much redundancy that it is very unlikely to get you into a hairy situation. I've had a TRU go tits up in 12 years, so knock off the criticism there. And 12 engineers on each turnaround is absolute garbage.
Fruitloop, the Emerg Start button to which you ignorantly refer, has nothing to do with the TRUs. It permits the aircraft battery to start a donk. When's your next line check?
Sure the 717 may be the machine of the times, but it certainly wasn't up to 3 years ago.
She's all a case of economics. You may want to fly a nice shiny new Boeing to an out of the way place, but the person paying the dollars is not interested, and so the 146 is it. Quite apart from it's unsurpassed hot/high performance.
Ref BIK's snipe at the 502, the thing is NOT underpowered: look at what it was designed for ie Europe at ISA. Just because Oz operators try to make it do more isn't the problem of the jet. Whinge to the beancounters. And who the hell cares if it's slow to climb above 250? Does that mean the coffee comes more slowly??
I could go on and on: stick to the practicalities boys. I'm just as keen to get out of the gas chamber, but the dollars (or the politics!!) will decide. Bring on the Brazilian Sports Car! OK, I'll take a 717 if you insist...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok.I'll Bite.
Capn,If I may assume you are refering to 2+ TRU's,2+ Batteries,2+ Inverters and nil variant's then you statement is correct,however to start an engine you do require 2 supplies of DC.Try pushing the button on a 2 TRU,single battery aircraft (even with external AC power plugged in and operating)with a dead TRU 2 and tell me what happens.!!
As for variants,do your operated aircraft all have Engine Oil Chip Detector Clogged warning lights,Digital instruments Etc.or are they still bound (per car's)under ETOPS ruling ??
I won't be goaded into a "better then yours" debate and I sincerely hope that you never have the above lights illuminate.your inner windscreen is haze free,no blue-brown particles are found on your glare-shield area and there is nothing but compressed air in your stick-push accumulator.
Cheers
Capn,If I may assume you are refering to 2+ TRU's,2+ Batteries,2+ Inverters and nil variant's then you statement is correct,however to start an engine you do require 2 supplies of DC.Try pushing the button on a 2 TRU,single battery aircraft (even with external AC power plugged in and operating)with a dead TRU 2 and tell me what happens.!!
As for variants,do your operated aircraft all have Engine Oil Chip Detector Clogged warning lights,Digital instruments Etc.or are they still bound (per car's)under ETOPS ruling ??
I won't be goaded into a "better then yours" debate and I sincerely hope that you never have the above lights illuminate.your inner windscreen is haze free,no blue-brown particles are found on your glare-shield area and there is nothing but compressed air in your stick-push accumulator.
Cheers
