Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1895435
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
Rob L wrote:I believe/recall/think that the 146 used APU (Auxiliary Power Units) as the engines. I'm willing to be corrected.


Commonly said, but only in jest.

The Honeywell LF502s (507s on later models) are pretty conventional, if small, dual shaft high bypass turbofans. Not configured at-all like APUs.

G

Course if they'd re-engined them with a pair of RB211s.......
I flew into Berne in one when Dan Air did the schedule; quite exciting as the city is in a dead end valley so at that time, this was the only turbofan which was cleared in there, otherwise everyone used turboprops.
#1895437
Paul_Sengupta wrote:But derived from the Chinook's turboshaft engine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146#Engines


That's what it says there, but to go from a single shaft turboshaft, to a dual shaft turbofan is stretching the word "derived" somewhat. Presumably shared hot section and the T55's compressor/turbine pair were substantially the LF502's HP stage, plus a few common parts like pumps and gearboxes. But, not a lot of resemblance there.

G
#1895460
All this 146 chat has got my reminiscence batteries recharged!! One particular aspect I remember about the 146 was how nice it was to fly. This was due, I was told by one of the many wonderful old timers that I used to fly with back then, that Hawker Siddeley had merged with de Havilland and it was the latter who was responsible for the flying controls. As such they had incorporated servo tabs to control the free floating elevators and these servo tabs were attached directly to the control column without any hydraulics. As such, without any airflow over the tail, you could often see the elevators moving independently on the ground with one up and one down, which looked a little disconcerting to the uninitiated, but in the air with the servo tabs providing a light feel for both pitch and roll, the aircraft was responsive and handled delightfully.
The other item which invariably got noticed on the 146/RJ was the rear split airbrake in the tail. A former Concorde Captain ("Stack" Butterley) who came to CityFlyer after the compulsory age 55 retirement from BA back then was regularly paired up with me and was well known for his capers and comedy routines around the network. One of his favourite ditties was to wait until a BA aircraft had stopped close behind us at a holding point on the taxi out to the runway. He would then open the rear airbrakes and emit a large raspberry farting sound on the ground frequency to which his former colleague would invariably reply "thank you, Stack!" Happy days!
AF :salut:
#1895477
Fond memories of being a regular punter on the BAe corporate shuttle using one of these between Farnborough and Warton. The crew sometimes had fun exercising the things performance especially if lightly loaded - don't know if true but I was told most of the flight crew were former company test pilots? If you had a carry-on bag you certainly wanted to avoid the letterbox-like overhead bins under the wing. I also recall the extremely odd and loud noise they made when extending the flaps which scared nervous passengers witless!
#1895495
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Aerotech Flyer wrote:As such they had incorporated servo tabs to control the free floating elevators and these servo tabs were attached directly to the control column without any hydraulics.


They did that even after the 111 experience?


Hi Paul, the type certification testing of the 146 was long after the lessons learned during the BAC 1-11 development. Therefore using this understanding and the addition of the stick pusher to keep out of a deep stall, I assume the aircraft was considered safe to fly and the advantages of the servo tabs and floating elevators left to work their magic. The fact that the engines were not rear mounted but in pods under the wings also probably changed deep stall characteristics too.
Cheers
S.
#1895520
PeteSpencer wrote:.. let’s just celebrate the arrival for preservation and display of a British built airframe that flew in significant
numbers in divers civvy Airline liveries all over the place :roll:


.. and still in use (and popular, according to a Canadian contact) in a firefighting tanker conversion in North America. I assume the 'single engine loss' characteristics (compared to those of a twin) are a bonus in such roles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... onversions

Used to be a regular visitor to Staverton for Northolt crews practising civilian Approach procedures; popular with sightseers. There used also to be occasional operational VIP flights too, for Royals or Ministers visiting local establishments. On one occasion there were 2 Wattisham Apaches (also practising civil Approaches) also in the Terminal parking area when the Minister came to depart; he is said to have asked 'is that my escort ?' :)
#1895568
Thanks for this thread; now I feel really old! I first encountered the HS146 at Hatfield in 1973 on my first job after uni. Then in 1986/87 I saw this very aircraft at Chester when it was being modified for the QF, and again in 1990 I went inside it when I visited Benson. Now it's retired to a museum, so I guess that's pretty much what I am as well. :(
#1895573
Dominie wrote:Thanks for this thread; now I feel really old! I first encountered the HS146 at Hatfield in 1973 on my first job after uni. Then in 1986/87 I saw this very aircraft at Chester when it was being modified for the QF, and again in 1990 I went inside it when I visited Benson. Now it's retired to a museum, so I guess that's pretty much what I am as well. :(

Don't forget development was temporarily halted between 1974 and 1978 when it was re-launched, first flight being 1981. Later, the QF (possibly '85 or 86 I forget which) brought an aircraft into Farnborough for evaluation by the Queens Flight where it operated in various configurations off all our runways to assess noise levels, crosswinds and tailwinds.
The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers organised a tour of the Hatfield production line in about 1986 (I flew in with Talkdownman as pilot) and it was very interesting with the 'bonding' method of construction first used in the DH Flamingo and Mosquito still being used.
kanga liked this
#1895601
Image

Spent quite a few hours on this one...... as a flying spanner during the Route Proving flights. Pax loads were BAe employees. Memorable one was the full aircraft evacuation as cabin filled with smoke just prior to departure at Dusseldorf . APU oil seal had gone bad. Only 2 door slides deployed but despite that all pax and crew were off within 90 seconds.
BAF didn't take up any orders eventually.
Question was often asked ..... Why does it have four engines ? Answer usually given was that there wasn't enough room for Six !
Rob L liked this
#1895608
146 is a de Havilland number, i.e. dh 146.

The aeroplane was stillborn in 1974, and it probably should have stayed that way.
I was asked to inspect a load of fuselage panels at Weybridge for corrosion, they had been stored for years.
The construction was complex, these panels would be chemically etched to remove 8 thousandth of an inch inside leaving a pattern of raised surfaces between where the stringers would be Redux bonded to the skins. Weight saving at a price.
Redux bonded structures require heavy repairs when fork lifts, and ground equipment is driven into them. Look at the riveted boiler plates on some Comet airframes...

Add ten minutes and save a lot of fuel on a typical 146 journey by flying a Viscount instead. Fuel guzzling Lycomings were not progress.
The core engines were used in Huey helicopters.
The better aeroplane would have been the 1-11 with Tay engines. This design was given over to Rombac, but didn’t last long.

A lot of snags with the 146 design, not as well made as a Hunting Percival 1-11 or a Vickers VC10.
All the chemical etching, how much weight was saved?
The cabin floor was too weak... There was Michael bending over inside the cabin at Hatfield inspecting the floor strengthening modifications that put weight back on...
Then the ‘ditching mod’ increasing the thickness of the rear fuselage bottom skin behind the gear box.

Best design office was at Weybridge which continued with the design of Airbus wings.
Best factory to work in was Weybridge, very clean and professional.
Worse factory to work in was Hawarden, Chester, awful just plain awful!
How nice it was to relieve one’s stress in G BARS, when the duty instructor wasn’t drunk on a gorgeous day.
Then the Hurn holiday camp atmosphere... They made A310 leading edges, and I had to sort them out at Hawarden.
Filton made the 146 fuselage centre section, and I inspected them at Hatfield for a short time.