AVRO RJ70

[eastender]

I got one of these little jets from City Airport to Milan last week -
why do they need four engines? Is it for short take offs?

E.

[Flying Rat]

Post by eastender
I got one of these little jets from City Airport to Milan last week -
why do they need four engines? Is it for short take offs?
E.

it was designed that way for a number of reasons, one being redundancy
in an engine failure scenario. If it loses one engine on a steep
approach or takeoff pattern it can safely continue. That's why the RJ
was widely used by US carriers into mountain airfields for ski resorts
in places like Colorado.

It was also designed to be quiet, to use airports which are noise
restricted or close to city centres. That's why it does not have any
kind of thrust reversers on the engines. The aircraft was built for a
certain role which the designers decided needed four of those particular
motors rather than 3 or 2.

FR

[eastender]

Post by Flying Rat

Post by eastender
I got one of these little jets from City Airport to Milan last week -
why do they need four engines? Is it for short take offs?
E.

it was designed that way for a number of reasons, one being redundancy
in an engine failure scenario. If it loses one engine on a steep
approach or takeoff pattern it can safely continue. That's why the RJ
was widely used by US carriers into mountain airfields for ski resorts
in places like Colorado.
It was also designed to be quiet, to use airports which are noise
restricted or close to city centres. That's why it does not have any
kind of thrust reversers on the engines. The aircraft was built for a
certain role which the designers decided needed four of those particular
motors rather than 3 or 2.
FR

It seems to have been a successful aircraft - wonder why it was
discontinued.

E.

[Surfer!]

Post by eastender

Post by Flying Rat

Post by eastender
I got one of these little jets from City Airport to Milan last week -
why do they need four engines? Is it for short take offs?
E.

it was designed that way for a number of reasons, one being redundancy
in an engine failure scenario. If it loses one engine on a steep
approach or takeoff pattern it can safely continue. That's why the RJ
was widely used by US carriers into mountain airfields for ski resorts
in places like Colorado.
It was also designed to be quiet, to use airports which are noise
restricted or close to city centres. That's why it does not have any
kind of thrust reversers on the engines. The aircraft was built for a
certain role which the designers decided needed four of those particular
motors rather than 3 or 2.
FR

It seems to have been a successful aircraft - wonder why it was
discontinued.

Surely 4 engines on a tiny plane = expensive to buy, expensive to
maintain and possibly expensive to train flight deck crew. Not sure
about fuel consumption. But they are very cute, and seat 19A is mine!
It lines up with a window, has a tad more elbow room as the seats are
slightly offset into the aisle, and the view isn't affected much by the
engines.

Post by eastender
E.

[eastender]

Post by Surfer!
Surely 4 engines on a tiny plane = expensive to buy, expensive to
maintain and possibly expensive to train flight deck crew. Not sure
about fuel consumption. But they are very cute, and seat 19A is mine!
It lines up with a window, has a tad more elbow room as the seats are
slightly offset into the aisle, and the view isn't affected much by the
engines.

On my trip to Milan there were only 14 people on board going over and 11
on the way back. I did try and pick out the most roomy seat near the
back - not sure if it was 19A. Fabulous view of the Alps and Lake Geneva
on the way over.

E.

[Flying Rat]

Post by eastender

Post by Flying Rat

Post by eastender
I got one of these little jets from City Airport to Milan last week -
why do they need four engines? Is it for short take offs?
E.

it was designed that way for a number of reasons, one being redundancy
in an engine failure scenario. If it loses one engine on a steep
approach or takeoff pattern it can safely continue. That's why the RJ
was widely used by US carriers into mountain airfields for ski resorts
in places like Colorado.
It was also designed to be quiet, to use airports which are noise
restricted or close to city centres. That's why it does not have any
kind of thrust reversers on the engines. The aircraft was built for a
certain role which the designers decided needed four of those particular
motors rather than 3 or 2.
FR

It seems to have been a successful aircraft - wonder why it was
discontinued.
E.

no more orders. BAE developed the RJX, which wasn't taken up by the
airlines.

It's not the most economical plane out there either, the RJ100 offers
better economics than the smaller RJ70 but still not as good as a two
engined aircraft like the Embraers or Bombardiers. There are quite a few
out there on the secondhand market as well, plus since it was built some
new turboprops have appeared which are faster and more comfortable than
their predecessors with good economics too.

The 146/RJ family still ended up being the most successful British
airliner ever built.

FR

[eastender]

Post by Flying Rat
It's not the most economical plane out there either, the RJ100 offers
better economics than the smaller RJ70 but still not as good as a two
engined aircraft like the Embraers or Bombardiers.

I meant the RJ range - but are those two engined craft as good at
getting in and out of places such as London City (assuming they're jets
not props)?

Not sure I'd like to fly a turbo-prop as far as Milan - I went on one to
Antwerp last month which was fine.

E.

[Flying Rat]

Post by eastender

Post by Flying Rat
It's not the most economical plane out there either, the RJ100 offers
better economics than the smaller RJ70 but still not as good as a two
engined aircraft like the Embraers or Bombardiers.

I meant the RJ range - but are those two engined craft as good at
getting in and out of places such as London City (assuming they're jets
not props)?

Airbus have just certified the A318 for London City, and the newer
Embraers should be able to operate there too. The 170 series in
particular.
They weren't about when the RJ was being built.
Nowadays twin engine ops have proven themselves even more so the four
engines approach isn't needed. BAE were going to make a twin engined,
stretched RJ but cancelled the project.

Post by eastender
Not sure I'd like to fly a turbo-prop as far as Milan - I went on one to
Antwerp last month which was fine.

I assume it was a Fokker 50 you went on (VLM) then? They are an old
design dating back to the 1950s. The latest ones like the Quiet 400 that
Bombardier make are much more advanced. FlyBE have a fleet of those. The
Fokker 50 is an update of the 1950s era F27 and doesn't have the same
quiet engines and cabin.

TBH the biggest issue at London City is space. It's hard to turn
anything bigger than an RJ round there. Boeing have been looking at a
short-body version of the 737 as well for operating into those small
locations.

FR

[Mike Lindsay]

Post by Flying Rat
The 146/RJ family still ended up being the most successful British
airliner ever built.
FR

What about the 1950's Viscount turbo-prop?

[Flying Rat]

Post by Mike Lindsay

Post by Flying Rat
The 146/RJ family still ended up being the most successful British
airliner ever built.
FR

What about the 1950's Viscount turbo-prop?

depends on what you would define an 'airliner' to be. In unit terms, the
Viscount was more successful but for jet powered aircraft the 146/RJ was
the biggest seller.

I suppose I should have qualified it with the term 'jet airliner'. I
read (some time ago) a long, impassioned thread on an aviation site on
just that subject, wih a point of view put forward that early prop
powered aircraft were not airliners as such as they were bomber or
transport derivatives in the main. Only smooth, jet powered aircraft
could live up to the standards of comfort and speed which the word liner
evokes.

There is also another strand of debate, namely how many seats before it
becomes an airliner. In that respect the HS125 is another successful
product (or rather was before Raytheon shipped production to the USA)

FR

[Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

Post by Mike Lindsay

Post by Flying Rat
The 146/RJ family still ended up being the most successful British
airliner ever built.
FR

What about the 1950's Viscount turbo-prop?
--
Mike Lindsay

The Viscount sold more planes than the 146 series (Viscount 438, 146/RJ 391
a/c), but that was in the 1950s.
Another successful turboprop was the BAE HS748 but its successor the ATP
(which was to have been developed into the Jetstream 61) did not sell well.
Mike.