Didn’t know it was fitted with a Napier Sabre…;):):D

Huh???

i beg to differ!!! we refer to aircraft as women, and imho they arent “scrapped” they die 🙁

We do indeed differ. I’ve worked with aircraft on a professional basis for over 20 years and they are “its” to me. I’ve never used the female pronoun with respect to any aircraft. Even the French “avion” is masculine.:)

You’ve sussed it eh?

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/daughter.asp

It is one of these dreadful things you dare not disagree with lest you are accused of not supporting the troops.
I have every admiration for those serving overseas in difficult circumstances but I bet they don’t want this sort of garbage propagated in their name.

I can maybe provide a few answers here. I was involved in steep approach certification on both the BAe146 /RJ and the Jetstream 41.

The length of the runway is in itself irrelevant however combined with a steep approach of 5.5° as it is at LCY makes it relevant.

What happened on the certification programmes I was involved in was that initially handling trials were carried out using visual approach aids (not at LCY) at 5.5, 7.5 and 9.5° approach angles The higher angles were required for abuse case, tailwinds etc. The aircraft handling and ability to flare were assessed. Factors such as airbrakes, flaps, thrust (with engine antice on, it puts the idle thrust up), CG position , landing weight were all assessed. Only when all these tests were completed, tests at LCY were flown to assess the aircraft when the autopilot was coupled to the ILS, something that couldn’t be done anywhere else due to the glideslope. At LCY factors such as ground handling, noise etc can be assessed as well.

On the 146, the aircraft has to be set up in the landing configuration before descending on the glideslope otherwise it will not be able to slow down during the approach. There is a steep approach switch in the flight deck. It gives an indication of when the aircraft is in the correct configuration for the approach and desensitizes the GPWS Mode 1 “Sink Rate” call out. The Jetstream 41 steep approach switch did something similar.
The approaches use standard VREF values so are no faster or any more hazardous than normal approaches
The flare is awkward as the aircraft has to be rotated through a larger angle than during a normal 3° approach and if the flare is not correct, the aircraft may float – that is when the short runway becomes a factor. LCY has touch down lights set so that if you are not on the ground by these lights then you go-around for another attempt.

I assume Embraer will have gone through a similar test process and I believe the aircraft has had to be modified to allow steep approach certification.

I hope this helps clarify a few points.

I’ll see what I can dig out – I worked there from 1986 to 1989.
Thought I’d link this for starters.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/TNT/British-Aerospace-BAe-146-200QT/1009974/L/

Not side on but not far off.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/English-Electric-Lightning/0821063/L/

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 🙂

Or just flying!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Supermarine-389-Spitfire/1391095/L/&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=2&sok=WHERE__%28reg_%3D_%27PS853%27%29_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=1419921&next_id=1290019[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the photo link. If you want to use it, let me know.

AP (Derek Ferguson)