By: wysiwyg - 17th November 2002 at 10:07
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
…but British Rail never thought about the passengers views when designing the inter-shitty 146
By: mongu - 17th November 2002 at 01:12
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
I guess a breather pipe seems OK, although its always rusty at the tip! It’s probably no big deal, but when passengers are sitting opposite an engine in a high wing aircraft, any small thing is nervously noticed! Especially, when the interior is very uncomfortable and your attention is kind of focused outside as a result.
Same with Dash 8’s, I always find myself inspecting the landing gear when it’s down, for any faults. Not that I’d know one if I found it, like.
By: wysiwyg - 16th November 2002 at 21:56
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 16-11-02 AT 09:58 PM (GMT)]I believe it’s the engines will to live draining away 😉 I couldn’t say for sure but it could well be a breather pipe for the oil system. A lot of jets use a total loss system, I believe.
By: mongu - 16th November 2002 at 17:44
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
I guess I’m not the only one who dislikes the 146.
I travel on a particular 146-200 (G-MIMA) quite often, as it operates the IOM-LGW route. At least 2 of the engines have a pipe on the bottom, which drips a liquid out of it. I can sit mesmerised in my seat, watching stuff be drained out of the engine! What is this, does anyone know? It is very disconcerting.
By: GZYL - 16th November 2002 at 00:54
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
I thought the 146’s angines were from a chinook too! I also thought that the same engine was used to power the M1A1 Abrams battletank.
By: Bhoy - 15th November 2002 at 23:00
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
it is indeed…
the 146 engines were (if I remember correctly) Allied Signal, then were branded Honeywell for the Avro…
By: wysiwyg - 15th November 2002 at 22:58
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
and I believe the RJ was more powerful than the one four sick!
By: Bhoy - 15th November 2002 at 22:52
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
well, here’s what the Swiss website lists as the details for the engines on it’s Avro RJ’s
Engines: LF 507-1F
Thrust per engine: 3 181 kg
sure enough, it don’t sound like an awful lot…
By: wysiwyg - 15th November 2002 at 22:43
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
I wouldn’t of thought that a pair of hairdryers off a 146 would be powerful enough for a Chinook 😉
By: Bhoy - 15th November 2002 at 22:34
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
I know… I’ve flown on BA 757’s, 767’s and L1011’s… I do have a penchant for those RB211’s…
as for the 777’s, isn’t it more the case that the Trent hadn’t been certified on the -200’s when BA originally ordered them, so they settled for the GE90’s?
By: mongu - 15th November 2002 at 22:32
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
Somebody once told me that the engines from a BAe 146 are from a chinook. Do you reckon that’s true?
By: wysiwyg - 15th November 2002 at 22:08
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
The only other engine option for the 757 is the P&W although it is not very common.
By the way, the GE in the Saab 340 was originally a helicopter engine as used in one of the big Sikorsky’s.
By: mongu - 15th November 2002 at 21:33
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
I don’t think patriotism is too relevant – economy and commercial concerns are the criteria of choice. Airbus is making inroads to the US market, with the likes of Northwest and jetBlue.
On the other hand, BA don’t just use RR. Their 777 fleet is mostly GE90 powered except for the 777-200ER’s which use the Trent 895. Theyv’e got lots of 777’s (43+16 options as at 30.09.2001) so they can afford to mix n’ match I suppose.
BTW, the BA 757 fleet is RB211 powered, as are the majority in service. They make good use of the RB211 – 757-200, 747-400 and 767-300. It even powered the L1011 fleet in the good ol’ days and they used RB211’s to re-engine the 747-100 fleet.
By: Bhoy - 15th November 2002 at 20:32
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
Isn’t that more political, though… American companies tend to buy American engines…
Although, to be fair… I’ve never flown on a jet powered by GE engines (I’ve been on a couple of GE powered Saab340’s, but no jets), although maybe that’s more because 75% all my flights have been with BA.
(Unless UA 757’s use GE? but I believe they use P&W)
Although, again… I thought P&W were currently the smallest of the big three… even though I’ve flown ’em pretty often on MD83’s…
By: mongu - 15th November 2002 at 19:01
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
What are the purchase cost and maintainance costs like compared to the competition? I’ve noticed RR are certainly the smaller of the big 3 engine makers.
By: KabirT - 15th November 2002 at 15:19
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
thanx for that…really interesting.
By: skycruiser - 15th November 2002 at 13:38
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
Here are some pro’s about this engine, for those who like that sort of thing.
The engine is physically shorter because it has less
compressor and turbine sections because it is
shorter it flexes less, is more rigid, and therefore
gives better engine performance over the life of the
engine.
The LP, IP and HP sections all work closer to their
optimum performance levels because they have
their own shafts.
They have better fuel consumption, and lower
noise.
Better thrust to weight ratio.
Easier to start because only one shaft has to be
turned.
Modular in construction, easier to build and
maintain.
Better propulsive efficiency.
By: EGNM - 15th November 2002 at 10:24
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
thought i could get cocky again!! :d
By: A330Crazy - 14th November 2002 at 23:53
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
These engines are running at 100% and the are Rolls Royce RB 211’s
EGNM, compare the two pictures on a.net and you’ll see that this is the 100% pic. 🙂
By: monster500 - 14th November 2002 at 23:48
RE: Pic Of the Day-Raw Power!
they arent trents Kabir, i think you already new that?
Sign In
November 14, 2002 at 3:43 pm
