Don’t know the answer to your question Dave but this engine was what was intended for the original 146. However when HS/BAe got round to building the Tonka Toy Starlifter the engine was no longer in production.

Mongu, I concede that the one engine inop scenario favours the 146 compared to other regional jets but this is the only area that I see it having an advantage. It still loses out on reliability, etc.
Most engine problems occur either during start up or during the take off roll. Putting four engines on a jet requires serious justification as it doubles your chances of an engine failure. 4 engined short haul (especially regional) jets do many sectors (ie many starts and take offs) so proportionally expose themselves to much increased risk from going tech compared to the twins. It really isn’t necessary when the aircraft is designed to be a relatively short take off and landing aircraft anyway. On the other hand for long haul 4 engined aircraft the balance of risk between increased likelihood of failure, freedom from ETOPS restrictions and less restriction from the one engine inop scenario makes 4 engines a more suitable option.

regards
wys

The 757 has an advantage over an equivalent Airbus in that if the 2 types departed at the same time onidentical routes the 757 would get to altitude sooner and get the optimum level while the other would have to operate at a less efficient level.

MM seems to have sniffed what I am trying to evaluate here. The 777 is better in several areas than the A340 with all engines operating. However with one engine inoperative the 340 is relatively unaffected in comparison to the 777. Airfield performance is determined on one engine failing, so although you see 777’s storming out of most places with both engines running you may find that a 340 is surprisingly less performance limited than a 777!

A quick question (which I shall explain my reasoning for later) but does any operator operate 777’s out of JNB?

I have quite often thought about posting something about this matter for quite a while but didn’t want to get accused of victimisation! I usually find a few technical and operational errors in each issue which make me bite my teeth somewhat. However it is still a great read and in the UK at least it is great value for money (especially as my mate pays my subscription as my Christmas present!).
Perhaps Webby can tell us if it gets proof read by anyone from the inside. If you need a proof reader from a technical perspective I could be tempted.

Turboprops have become the unglamorous face of commercial aviation from the piloting perspective (hard work, low down in all the weather, multi-sector days, regional style existance, smaller companies, etc) so they tend to be the starting point in an aviation career. They are usually operated by small companies without the means of paying reasonable salaries so pilots treat them as training grounds before moving to the majors for a salary you can actually line on. Like everything else it’s just another food chain!

Comet – check with your travel agent but I think you should be protected by ATOL or ABTA.

Typical accountant!!! 😉 In aviation terms we refer to reciprocal as meaning ‘the other way’.

Just a few additions fo interest –
The number is actually the magnetic track of the runway to the nearest whole 10 degrees. The magnetic north pole slowly moves which changes the magnetic bearing of evrything on the planet so every few years you may find that a runway is redesignated as it’s magnetic track may have change from 325 (Runway 32) to 326 (Runway 33).
If there are three parallel runways the middle runway is referred to as Center (eg Runway 14C.
In most of the world runways are referred to using two numbers and maybe a letter if applicable (eg Runway 08R at LGW). However in America if the magnetic track of the runway is between 006 and 095 degrees they drop the 0, so Runway 08R would become Runway 8R.

Regards
wys