Re: What happened to the BA146?

From:         rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick)
Organization: Netcom
Date:         27 May 96 13:35:38 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In <airliners.1996.799@ohare.Chicago.COM> D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk
(Darren Rhodes) writes:

>... four engines considerably, such that Avro's advertising campaign
>boasted twin engined operating costs for the aircraft. Whether this can
>be justified is quesionable,...

It has some twin operating costs, and some twin operating limitations.
Each engine has a single accessory pad, so each has a generator or a
hydraulic pump, but not both.  With four engines you still get just two
generators and two hyd pumps.

>As to why they chose that engine in the first place. Back in 1978-1983
>when>the program started, there were no modern engines in the class
>required...

The primary requirement for design of an airplane is availability of a
suitable powerplant.  The second is where to stow the landing gear.
The rest of the plane is wrapped around those two decisions.

>... The second major reason was that they got the engine cheap. The
>LF502 was a new engine needing sales to get it established.

Yeah, it was originally a tank engine, probably developed with US
militarly funds.  It was later upgraded to a military helicopter
engine, and then the Canadair Challenger.  Canadair and Lycoming sued
each other for a couple of billion dollars over that one, and the
Canadair ended up with a GE engine.

I had not thought of this before, but maybe the ALF-502 was so
unreliable because it wasn't originally designed for competitive
commercial service.

I think the name was changed from BAe-146 to RJ because they could not
shake the motto:  Bring Another engine.

RD