Talk:BAe 146

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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

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 Have they been withdrawn from service in N. America recently?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)

Contents

[edit] 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.
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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)