Why does this plane need four engines? I read once that the fuel efficiency is poor...I don't understand why such a little plane needs 4 engines when almost every other recent plane only has 2...

I don't know, but I sure like having a first class cabin for a "commuter" aircraft! Maybe to get all those extra amenities off the ground...

The Avro 85 is by far my favorite Regional Jet....
F/C seating :-)

I saw a joke about this plane that started off with a similar question.

Q: Why does the Avro-85 have 4 engines?
A: Because they couldn't fit 8 engines under the wings!

The big cost with having extra engines is the extra maintenance required.

Many years ago, when it was designed, more engines made it quieter. Struth!

The RJ's engines are underpowered.

Perhaps azj can shed more light on this.... he is our resident Mesaba RJ-85 driver.

Thanks Seiple (bow, bow... sorry no curtsey)

First, there is a saying we have on the Avro and the 146 drivers use this as well... "It't not broken... it's British"

WIth that said, the original version of the plane, the 146 was produced in the 70s/80s. At this time there weren't reliable, powerful enough and small enough engines to hang on this airplane. In addition by having 4 engines it made the airplane a very maneuverable airplane. It is the only a/c that can get into Aspen year round and still the only jet that is certified to fly into LCY. So, by having 4 engines it made it a niche aircraft. The flap system and the short take off and land capabilities also made it the perfect a/c to go into unimproved airports.

Why does the second generation Avro have them? #1 - because they can. #2 - 4 engines worked for them and why fix what 'aint broke and #3 - the LF-507s are actually much more reliable engines than the oringinal 502s and have 7,000 lbs of thrust each as oposed to the 5000 lbs of thrust that the 502s have.

THe RJX was supposed to have 2 engines but they decided to hang more fuel efficient small ones to carry on the tradition... you know the English and tradition, not to mention pride.

The Avro is actually only 15% more fuel INefficient than the CRJ. The Avro also has twice as many and is twice the weight. Remember, this airplane is as large as the 737-100. 93 feet long and wingspan of 86 feet. Max gross takeoff weight is 93,000 lbs. She's not called the "chubby" for nothing! She shouldn't be lumped in the category of a regional jet, but unfortunately she is. She's not the fastest girl on the team but that's due to the enourmous drag hanging out there. Apparantly the airframe is certified to go much faster than the max mach of .73 and indicated airspeed of 300 knots that we are limited to. The engine nacelles are literally what is holding us back.

I love it, the other pilots love it, jumpseaters love it (ROOMY) and probably most importantly, the folks love it!

True, maintentance is a bit more expensive, but as in any airplane the longer the plane is in service, the more reliable they become as the mechanics get better. We're doing lots of things to take care of the engines (they're very sensative) and the APU as well (so on hot days you don't board a steam box).

Hope this helps... any more questions I'd be happy to help.


AZJ

I also love the 146. It was designed years ago by Hawker to be a turbo prop. Hawker was sold to BAE and ship mission changed to pure jet. Wings could not support 2 big PWJT8's or similiar type powerplants so the 4 Lycomings were opted. Super highlift flaps allow slow approach speeds which is a good thing since the Lyc's do not have thrust reverse capability.
Trailing link suspension then softens some of those loss of lift at flare landings. I'll take that bird over any RJ out there, too bad they are shutting down assembly!

Awesome aircraft. I wish other regional aircraft manufacturers had taken more notice of the Avro design.

------------------
Addicted to airline miles? Check out: Mileage Workshop

azj
How does it compare to the Fokker? especially in regards to runway length etc.

Some people don't like ETOPS. That's use of 2 engine planes over long overwater routes. Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth.

A later question was runway length. The Avro RJ85 needs less runway than a Fokker 70 or 100.

Thanks, azj, for all the info. I have never had the opportunity to fly on the "chubby," but I have been intrigued by them ever since I saw one parked at MEM. On this and other topics posted about the AVRO, folks have had such great things to say about the aircraft. I really want to take a trip on a "chubby" one of these days.

BTW, does NW fly any AVRO routes on the west coast?

[This message has been edited by gsw (edited 05-09-2002).]

The 146/Avro has many nicknames - some official and some non official.

Bac-jet (pronounced Bawk)
Avroliner
Avro-146
Jumbolino
Chubby jet
Ken and Barbie Fun Jet
Smurf Jet
The quiet trader
The hub raider
The mini C17
Mini Jumbo

The question about the Fokkers - was that regarding the F27 Mesaba used to fly? I'm not too sure about that plane but I know the Avro is very similar to the Dash 8 that everyone who got to fly it misses. Rwy lengths required are very short for landing and takeoff although our runway charts/analysis is all based off weight.

As for us being out west... unfortunately, since NW uses American Eagle and HOrizon for their commuter affiliates out west, you will find a Mesaba chubby as far west as Aspen, CO in the winter season. March 5th we took over the former CRJ service between MSP-OKC so OKC is now our furthest city to the west. Hopefully west coast flying is in our future... but it's all up to big daddy NW.


AZJ

I love watching the Chubbies come and go at MSP. They remind me of general aviation aircraft as they "dive" at the runway on landing. Here's a link to a good example.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/192663/L/

The 146 / AVRO is also the smoothest landingest jet I've ever been on.