Re: What happened to the BA146?

From:         wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann)
Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University
Date:         25 May 96 14:40:19 
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.770@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
R.S. Solene <rsolene@sisna.com> wrote:
>Acavitt@mindspring.com (A.C.) writes:
>> The aircraft is a really nice aircraft.  Quiet, roomy, good all around
>> aircraft.  However the maintenance is the biggest problems that it
>> has.  Many parts are hard to get, expensive, and with 4 engines you
>> have 4X as many problems.  Sense there are few around and flying,
>> parts are not in great demand.  Sometimes it takes some time to get
>> those parts.  Unlike a 737.
>
>Why didn't the airplane's designer's realize that this aircraft would
>present 4X as many maintenance problems?  Why didn't the airlines?  Why
>wasn't the aircraft designed for just two higher thrust power plants?
>I remember asking myself these questions when I watched these planes
>enter service with PSA in large numbers and I couldn't help but wonder
>what its advantage was.

The idea was smaller, lower thrust, engine = less cost, less maintenance.
(.. and less noise.)
Ideally, half the maintenance of an engine twice the thrust.

The engines on the Avro RJ (I forget the exact designation, LF507 ??)
are _much_ improved over the original ALF502s in the 146s.  In particular,
the engine operating temps were brought down.

Whether the engines are now half the work of, say, the BR750 I don't
know, but they are far better than the originals, and I'm sure were
a major factor in factor in the purchases by SW and LH.  They're also still
quieter than any other larger engine.

John Wangermann