Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Dalex64

I believe it was designed with four engines because of noise.

Four, less powerful engines are quieter than 2 more powerful engines.

I buy that, but it also increases fuel consumption. That depends a bit on when it was designed. Plus the noise wouldn't be so bad with a low wing. All i know about high wings is a friend who built RC planes told me high wing designs glide better. I don't know if that's true.

Quote: Nareed

I buy that, but it also increases fuel consumption. That depends a bit on when it was designed. Plus the noise wouldn't be so bad with a low wing. All i know about high wings is a friend who built RC planes told me high wing designs glide better. I don't know if that's true.

yes, the purpose for which why it was designed that way. for example,

Quote:

The BAe 146 is also renowned for its relatively quiet operation, a positive feature that appealed to those operators that wanted to provide services to noise-sensitive airports within cities.[18][21] The aircraft is one of only a few types that can be used on flights to London City Airport, which has a steep approach and short runway; for several years the BAe 146 was the only conventional jet aircraft capable of flying from London City Airport.[22][23]

and

Quote:

Advantages of adopting the four engine configuration includes greater redundancy and superior takeoff performance from short runways, as well as in hot and high conditions.

as for its efficiency,

Quote:

Reportedly, the aircraft is profitable on most routes with only marginally more than half the seats occupied.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146

from what I recall, it is not a popular plane among pilots or passengers. passengers find it uncomfortable and smelly, pilots disparage it for having "4 apus" instead of 4 engines.

Quote: Dalex64

pilots disparage it for having "4 apus" instead of 4 engines.

An APU is an Auxiliary Power Unit. Typically it's small jet engine located at the tail, which provides power for the airplane systems and AC while on the ground with the main engines off. You can see the exhaust of these units on most planes sticking right out the point of the tail.

Calling a proper engine that is an exaggeration, but I wonder how much of one. I also wonder how well it really took off. If it flew from London City, I will buy it a bit. That runway's really short.

Quote: DRich

Nevermind, I found it. It was the BAE-146

It was the primary VIP flight in Britain for decades, the so called "Queen's Flight"

She doesn't use it much anymore. It has been declared that the military gets priority over the Royal Family. Prince Charles prefers to lease a much more luxurious aircraft, even for short hauls.

In Britain, helicopters are more in demand than planes, given that so much of the population lives within 200 miles of London. The royals lease a Sikorsky as it is much more comfortable than a Westlant.


Unlike the POTUS, who usually helicopters in a group of up to five identical helicopters for secuirty, the British paint the royal helicopter a bright purple so that everyone knows who it is. Hopefully, no one will ever have reason to question the intelligence of such a decision.

She much prefers the royal train.

You have to admire the chutzpah of flying the queen around with 4 APUs ;)

Seriously, I see a lot of interesting details. For instance, the fuselage sits close to the ground, likely because the engines are higher up and protected from FOD (foreign object damage). Likewise the high engines make a high tail necessary, as a low tail would be in the engine's wash (see also the 727, DC9 and their variants for a different application of this principle).

Lastly, every time I look at it I can't help but wonder whether a C-5 and a C-17 had a baby.

Quote: Nareed

You have to admire the chutzpah of flying the queen around with 4 APUs ;)

The first BAE-146 flew on 3 September 1981. The remaining two in the RAF flew on 18. Feb 1986 and 09. Jul 1986. I think there was a third which was retired. The assumption was that the monarch would be leased a British Airways jet on favorable terms for long distance Head of State visits, and the regional jet could ferry her around most of Europe as it has a range of under 3000 km.

2510 km Heathrow, London, GB (LHR) to Ataturk Arpt, Istanbul, TR (IST)

It was the single most successful British airframe ever produced @ 387 sales.

In 1995, the Queen's Flight moved from RAF Benson to RAF Northolt, where it remains. At this time the RAF's provision of dedicated VIP transport aircraft are available to VIP passengers only if not needed for military operations. Effectively it was used by the royal family for fewer and fewer operations, and is primarily used today if the Queen's safety is thought to be an issue (like flying to Ireland). Part of the problem is that they break down due to their advanced age.

Prince Andrew flew one to China once (with two intermediate refueling stops), but that was because the cost of his private airplane leases was producing a lot of bad press.

Quote: Pacomartin

It was the single most successful British airframe ever produced @ 387 sales.

Commercial, the little pedant I had for lunch insists I say this :) I mean, the Hurricane and Spitfire sold rather well!

Seriously, I can't help but wonder how things would have gone like had the Comet not been built with a fatal defect...

Quote: Nareed

Commercial, the little pedant I had for lunch...

I meant commercial passenger jets. Yes, there were over 20,000 Spitfires and over 14,000 Hurricanes built.

Quote: Pacomartin

I meant commercial passenger jets. Yes, there were over 20,000 Spitfires and over 14,000 Hurricanes built.

I was under the impression many more Hurricanes were made, as they were cheaper and faster to assemble. You are the one person whose facts I won't question unless I'm certain they're wrong.

Perhaps I'm just thinking that more Hurricanes than Spitfires were used during the Battle of Britain.

Quote: Nareed

I was under the impression many more Hurricanes were made, as they were cheaper and faster to assemble.

You are correct that the Hurricanes were a much simpler design, but the production numbers are correct.

Quote: Nareed

Perhaps I'm just thinking that more Hurricanes than Spitfires were used during the Battle of Britain.

Shortly before the Battle of Britain began, a practice air raid had been arranged between a Spitfire squadron and a Hurricane squadron. The Hurricanes were to make a mock bomb run over the Kenley airfield in Surrey. Number 64 Squadron was to send six Spitfires to intercept the incoming ‘bombers.’ It all looked like a nice, easy practice drill on paper, but whoever planned the exercise had not reckoned on the rivalry between Spitfire and Hurricane pilots.

Each side thought its own airplane was the best. Now they had their golden opportunity to demonstrate which fighter really was superior, once and for all. The exercise began according to plan-the Spitfires patrolled above their aerodrome, and the Hurricanes showed up flying in bomber formation. But when the Spitfires dove to the attack, the plan quickly fell apart. When the Hurricane pilots saw their adversaries closing from behind, they broke formation and turned to meet their attackers–a highly unbomberlike maneuver! For the next several minutes, the two squadrons chased each other for miles in all directions. The strain of dogfighting quickly wore down the pilots’ enthusiasm, and both squadrons landed after several minutes of wild aerobatics. Despite the great effort, however, nothing was accomplished by the little drill. Nobody’s skills at breaking up bomber formations had improved, and neither side could brag about a clearcut victory over the other. But at least it had given the pilots something else to argue about.

David Alan Johnson in the November 1994 issue of Aviation History.


http://www.historynet.com/supermarine-spitfires-and-hawker-hurricanes-world-war-ii-aircraft.htm