BAe 146 in RAF service

The Islanders were introduced to replace the Beavers in NI – they’ve actually been in service for 20 years now!! Similarly with the Bell 212s the Army uses.
.

Sorry I did mean the Defender, I’m more than aware of its service career due to my work area!

Not exactly military, but FAAM uses a BAe-146 for atmosheric research…..

Ken

Think I saw this low over Salisbury at 4pm today (4 engines slung from high wing, T tail painter blue, short and slightly stubby) . Presumably heading to Boscombe.

mc: BOAC were the reason for the VC10 as it was built to meet specs they laid down. Indeed so. Sir Giles Guthrie, new MD inheriting the order and tasked to staunch the Parastatal’s mire of ghastly losses, bewailed its operating cost increment over 707-326B/C, was allowed to buy more (32) 707-326B/426 than the (29) VC10s he failed to divert to RAF, and was loudly compensated for a Buy British/National Interest imposition, thus dishing its sales chances. The Minister of the day should have told him to complain to the Specifiers.

The RAF had Andovers/748s, so the beef about the 146 not being a military aircraft is not relevant.

Besides, didn’t the Hastings start out as a civil type?

Bri 🙂

The Andover C1 was much modified for it’s military role – kneeling u/c, rear ramp etc. The C2 was a basic airliner used in that role, and was replaced inthe QF by – wait for it – the BAe 146!!

The 146 was too small to be a flexibile airlifter and too large to be a local liason type.

As for the MoD buying Islanders recently, it seems to be a fad at the moment, witness the recent aquisition of Squirels, Griffons, Agusta 109s many years after other civilain and military operators.

The Islanders were introduced to replace the Beavers in NI – they’ve actually been in service for 20 years now!! Similarly with the Bell 212s the Army uses.

The more recent Defenders have been for a specific need in Iraq.

As for Squirrels, Griffons etc, the advantages of leasing basically civillian aircraft has resulted in that.

The RAF had Andovers/748s, so the beef about the 146 not being a military aircraft is not relevant.

Besides, didn’t the Hastings start out as a civil type?

Bri 🙂

Other than Concorde and the Tu144 it (VC10)has never to my knowledge been beaten on speed by any other airliner.

Actually the Convair 990 had the edge; 615mph to the Vickie Ten’s 580.

On sheer beauty, the VC10 wins every time.

I think the limiting factor for the 146 as a subhunter is the internal space, adding a reasonable sized bombay, adding long range and then dealing with all the extra weight (new engines, wing redesign etc?). The Nimrod is at the limit for internal room as it is, but is a very different beast from the Comet it was derived from.
I’ve certainly never heard of noise being a big factor in ASW aircraft.

As for the 146, I remember the RAF borrowing 2 for analysis in prep. for Liz2. They pushed the airframes to the limit, hot n high, slow n low, rough landings….all the testing you would expect. After the analysis, the RAF handed these tired and exhausted airframes back to Woodford with “Yes, we’ll have two of these”.
The stretched, twisted and knackered airframes were bought by Dan Air.

The RAF would not have done anything that BAE (Hatfield) had not already tested.
E1004 (ZD695) was only leased to Danair for a short time and was so “knackered” by the RAF that it was still flying until late 2008 with NJS in Australia.
E1005 (ZD696) was operated by Danair for 4 or 5 years then went to NJS in Australia where it was used until 2005.

There are no hard points on the wings and no space for them, the fuselage is too low to load weapons even if their were space for them and the whole thing is short on power and range, dream on but the 146 does not fit the bill in any way, shape or form.

The ARA aircraft pictured earlier in the thread has underwing pylons, used to carry scientific instruments. The fuselage ground clearance is not much different to the Nimrod’s. FAAM are using the 146 at low level for extended periods over the sea so maybe it isn’t too far off the mark.

I flew on 695 between Germany and the UK several times and far preffered to travel by C-130 if the option was there.

Each to their own I guess 🙂

Bograt: fall into the same category as the Skyvan, Shorts 330, Islander. All, like 146, subsidised by the taxpayer to stimulate sales: Shortscraft, as we owned them, BN-2/146 by Treasury Launch Aid. To impose an “order” from State-entities that had no need for them would have provoked negatives from Chairmen/budget holders with their own objectives. Remember the counter-productive imposition of Trident and VC10 on BEAC/BOAC.

Sorry? I was under the impression that BOAC were the reason for the VC10 as it was built to meet specs they laid down. Other than Concorde and the Tu144 it has never to my knowledge been beaten on speed by any other airliner.

They’d be useful… that alone disqualifies them in the MOD’s eyes.

I see someone else understands MoD procurement policy:) I’ve learnt from my own experience that this is true of the way they order things. I’ve seen new equipmment sent to a unit for their opinion on it. After much report writing, the concensus of which is that it will be fine in a civivlian application but is totally unsuited to military use, the reply is that it’s already been ordered. Then when it breaks down in military service they wonder why.

Bernie Ecclestone has two of ’em!

The RAF flew to A/C before the Queens Flt A/C were delivered. They opperated mainly between Brize, Gutersloh, Wildenrath and Aldergrove. The aircraft had insufficient lower hold space for baggage and frt in military use. The average soldier has far more baggage than your average bucket and spade traveller.

I flew on 695 between Germany and the UK several times and far preffered to travel by C-130 if the option was there.

What difference does being quiet mean to a submarine 200ft below the surface?

A great deal, you have obviously never seen an aircraft signature on a LOFAR Gram/display. When you then think about the gain possible in a forward hemisphere submarine sonar array you will see the potential problem. Not the same for TA as you have to think broadband not discrete.

As for the 146 in the maritime role, don’t be silly; and that is roughly what BAe were told!

exmpa

A great deal of the 747 research was funded by the Shuttle piggy-back idea too.

Neat trick since the 747 was designed before the Shuttle was approved or designed.
Also, I have to remind you that both NASA 747s were bought used from airlines….hardly the thing to do if the plane were designed for that mission.
You’ve gotto stop reading those Airbus news releases… 😀

And recall that Boeing did fund the 367-80 on its own…at considerable risk to the firms finances.
They put their money on the line whereas the Comet was government funded.
Yes give Boeing its due.

Where?
The prototype was funded as a private venture (some $16 million at the time a HUGE amount of money).
Boeing re-engineered the 367-80/KC-135 into the 707…less commonality then you’d think (different fuselage width to start).
And unlike the UK, American airlines were not semi-government controlled…each order had to be one by its own merits…plus, they had internal competition from Douglas.

And unlike what I’ve read about many UK airliners developed with government support for UK carriers, Boeing jets could not be tailored too closely for one user or route.
But Boeing did spend a lot of time and money to tailor variants for customers…like the 400 series of 707s with Rolls engines for BOAC.

I’m not saying you have to love Boeing, but give Boeing its due.:D

Boeing does deserve it’s due.
But, just because the fuse was a different diameter made no difference. What today we would call IPR was funded entirely by the DoD on the KC135. So were the test rigs, all the Bird-strikes etc. and and and.
The “Hard” tooling is only about 15% of the non-recurring cost of a project, and the DoD funded the 85%.
A great deal of the 747 research was funded by the Shuttle piggy-back idea too.

All defence co.s do this, Boeing was able to exploit it more.

As for the 146, I remember the RAF borrowing 2 for analysis in prep. for Liz2. They pushed the airframes to the limit, hot n high, slow n low, rough landings….all the testing you would expect. After the analysis, the RAF handed these tired and exhausted airframes back to Woodford with “Yes, we’ll have two of these”.
The stretched, twisted and knackered airframes were bought by Dan Air.

“I think the 146 would’ve made an excellent sub hunter -very quiet and with 4 engined safety”

What difference does being quiet mean to a submarine 200ft below the surface? The Nimrod has been successfully hunting and finding submarines for years and it’s not very quiet.
There are no hard points on the wings and no space for them, the fuselage is too low to load weapons even if their were space for them and the whole thing is short on power and range, dream on but the 146 does not fit the bill in any way, shape or form.

On a more serious note was’nt there talk one time of a risk of exhaust gases or something being drawn into the cabin area. Had this been sorted?

It was alleged vapour from the oil seals on the main bearings getting into the Air Con – especially around the flight-deck. All sorts of comments are still being made with assorted lawyers approaching staff of all operators.

(one of my ‘other jobs’ is being ‘ead-itter’ of the Dan Air Staff Association newsletter!)

At one time there were talks between BAe and Lockheed on teaming up to develop a rear loading version of the aircraft.

This eventually came to nothing as there were some concerns that it could take sales from the C130 and would struggle to cover the development costs.

I recall an article in the late lamented original Air Enthuiast (when it covered all aspects of aviation) about a program to put a ramp on the ATR 42 or CN 235..it was a huge amount of money.

It’s appearently far more work than we non-engineers seem to think.
I can’t imagine it stealing many sales from the C-130..weights and fuselage size/cargo capacity put them in a different class as an airlifter.
But as I mentioned earlier, it would be handy in niche operations.

If they’re not going to use them over here would anyone like the jigs & fixtures for assembling the universal joints & flap control shafts. I used to assemble them and still have some bits. On a more serious note was’nt there talk one time of a risk of exhaust gases or something being drawn into the cabin area. Had this been sorted?