I have been increasing interest for the BAe 146 lately, and I think it's a very nice looking A/C, and a very special one a well.

But how does it do compared to it's competition?
What are it's competition, turbo-props? And what is the efficiancy compared to it's competition?

I know very little about this aircraft, so any imput will be appriciated  

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Thread starter): What are it's competition, turbo-props?

Yes. But some people just feel that "jets" are inherently better, even though turboprops are just another type of jet.

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Thread starter): And what is the efficiancy compared to it's competition?

Low noise, great short field performance, rugged design.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): Low noise, great short field performance, rugged design.

Plus, how many other aircraft have five APUs to choose from?  

I'm joking, of course...I love those airplanes.




2H4

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Thread starter): BAe 146 - Here To Stay?

I doubt it is here to stay, BAe have closed the production line...  

Ok, so how many 146's are there in service? Are BAe working on any aircrafts to replace the 146?

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 4): Are BAe working on any aircrafts to replace the 146?

No, BAE has no civil aircraft capability at the moment, beyond its share in Airbus. The Bae 146 line was closed in 2002 and there are no plans for a successor.

I'm kind of sorry to see it go. I have a couple thousand hours in it, and it was one of my favorites.

If you accept that an airspeed needle starts out just about 12:30 on your dial, swings around clockwise, you take off at around 4:00, climb from about 5:00 to 7:00 o'clock and cruise somewhere around 9:00 o'clock and this is true for just about any airplane so it really doesn't matter what the numbers are behind the needle. The ones I flew did not even have a mach meter.

Once you accepted that it was not fast and it climbed about like a 1951 Studebaker pulling a horse trailer over the Grapevine, it was a pleasure to fly. A friend (flying MD-80s at the time) once said that flying the -146 was sort of like self-abuse: It might feel good at the time but it wasn't anything you want to brag about in the crew lounge.

The tail-mounted speedbrake was terrific. I called it the smart-handle. You could correct the most egregious errors in descent planning with it. You could set thrust at the final approach fix and fly an ILS with the speedbrake. For a really steep descent you could go flight idle, gear up, flaps 33 (full) speed brake deployed and maintain IIRC, 200 knots. It would give you nearly a level deck angle and you'd drop like a Simonized beer bottle, something on the order of a thousand feet per nautical mile!

I loved the overhead panel. My absolute favorite of all the aircraft I've ever flown. I just loved those rocker switches. Clean, modern, unambiguous. ON or OFF, at a glance.

I liked our instrument panel. We had the round gauges so the center panel looked very much like a 'big' airplane. Stack of four. 26 round dials on that panel alone, plus a huge annunciator panel.

Some oddities: Small point - the gear handle was not labeled 'landing gear' it said only UP and DOWN. It was shaped a little bit like a wheel though. The biggie: When you took off with the Sperry style command bars showing you had both pitch and roll commands depicted. But when you put the autopilot ON you had no pitch mode engaged even though HDG was automatically engaged. It was important to know this and it was hardly mentioned in the training. If you went A/P ON in HDG for example it would begin a pitch up and eventually (twenty seconds or so) stall the airplane if you let it go that far. If you did not engage a pitch mode like Speed or Rate of Climb you had to sit there and apply nose-down trim for about five seconds every five or ten seconds or so because the nose just kept climbing. It was a quirk and it is just good practice to assure that you have both pitch and roll modes engaged anyway when going on autopilot but there you are.

It was maintenance cost and dismal dispatch reliability that finally killed the plane. It was the most expensive airplane in the fleet on maintenance. Higher per-hour costs than thirty year old Dougs or jumbos. It was doomed by unreliable engines and electronic gremlins.

I once bragged to a jumpseater that at about 1500 hours in type I'd never had an engine failure. I had two in the next thirty days, one of them really spectacular. It has an aural engine failure system - all the passengers on that side SCREAM when a fireball shoots out the intake!

I'd still jump at the chance to fly it again though. I just wouldn't want to pay the bills.

Thanks, SlamClick. Your posts are wonderful to begin with, but descriptions of flying qualities and nuances like that are some of the most enjoyable posts on the forum, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks very much for your contributions.  




2H4

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 4): Are BAe working on any aircrafts to replace the 146?

No... The BAe 146 has been out of production maybe 10-12 years. It's 'replacement' the Avro RJ family was only in production for 8 years or so. They offered good short field operations, but were maintenance hogs.

[Edited 2006-07-24 04:11:55]

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 8): The BAe 146 has been out of production maybe 10-12 years

Try 4 - the last aircraft was delivered in 2002.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9): Quoting EMBQA (Reply 8): The BAe 146 has been out of production maybe 10-12 years Try 4 - the last aircraft was delivered in 2002.

Actually not quite 3. The production had ceased in 2002, SAS came to the rescue and bought the unsold RJs from storage in late 2003. The world's last British-built jetliner is flying as OH-SAP (E2394).

"The first production aircraft was delivered in 1993 and production ceased in 2002. The last four aircraft built, two RJ85 and two RJ100, have been leased from BAE Regional Aircraft by Blue 1 (formerly Air Botnia) of Finland. The last Avro RJ was delivered in November 2003."
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/avro_rj/


On the engines/"APUs": I recall there have been stories in the Finnish press that at least on two occasions an engine had failed in-flight with obnoxious fumes entering the cabin at the same time.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9): Try 4 - the last aircraft was delivered in 2002.

The last BAe 146 (sn:E2227) was delivered on 6/23/94.

The last Avro RJ was deliverd in early 2002. The Avro production line stopped manufacturing in 2001 and several aircraft sat on the ramp undelivered. In fact the last aircraft, yet unfinished was scrapped.

The question was BAe146, not the Avro. Although they look the same and have the same roots, they are different aircraft.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 11): The question was BAe146, not the Avro.

The official designations for the Avro series were:

Avro 146-RJ70, -RJ85, -RJ100 and -RJX

These were developed from the Avro 146-100, -200 and -300 respectively and were upgraded versions of those aircraft.

The reason for the name change was due to the aircraft production being moved from one factory to another and production taking place under license by Avro International Aerospace.

If you talk about the BAe-146 it is prudent to also include the RJ series because they were the same aircraft.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12): If you talk about the BAe-146 it is prudent to also include the RJ series because they were the same aircraft

As someone that has worked on both...not just read about it in some book, no they are not the same. Different engines, avionics, aircraft systems. They look the same yes, but that is where it ends.

I stand by what I said... the last BAe 146 was delivered on 6/1994 (backed up by airlinersfleet.com ...!! as they say the same) The last Avro RJ was delivered in 2002.

[Edited 2006-07-24 16:50:01]

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 13): I stand by what I said... the last BAe 146 was delivered on 6/1994 (backed up by airlinersfleet.com ...!! as they say the same) The last Avro RJ was delivered in 2002.

Thats comparable to saying a 747-400 is not a 747 because it has different systems to a 747-300, -200 or -100.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14): Thats comparable to saying a 747-400 is not a 747 because it has different systems to a 747-300, -200 or -100.

A 747-400 is light years different then a 747-100 and deserves to be acknowledged as such. The Avro RJ is different then the BAe 146 as should be acknowledged as such.

His question was "is the BAE 146 here to stay.?" My opinion No.!! The Avro RJ... well, maybe. They fixed a lot of the problems of the -146, but it's still a maintenance hog.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 15): A 747-400 is light years different then a 747-100 and deserves to be acknowledged as such. The Avro RJ is different then the BAe 146 as should be acknowledged as such.

So where do you draw the line? Would you think differently if the engines were identical between the 146 and ARJ? What about if the similarities extended to the avionics? What if it were the engines and systems, but not the avionics?

Perhaps, in cases like this, the two models would better be described as the same airframe, rather than the same aircraft....because, as we can plainly see, the latter is quite ambiguous.




2H4

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14): Thats comparable to saying a 747-400 is not a 747 because it has different systems to a 747-300, -200 or -100.

That's rather what I was thinking.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 15): A 747-400 is light years different then a 747-100 and deserves to be acknowledged as such.

But is it? Isn't it widely acknowledged as being a 747?

Let's call the Avro version a 146NG, then.  

Thanks SlamClick, for your insightful post. I learned alot about the 146 just reading that post!
So you are no longer flying that aircraft? Seems like many airlines have theirs in use still, like Lufthansa. When do you think they will fade out? If they have that high maintenance cost, they can't possibly make much profit having it in service.

Hope you are still up in the air in other nice aircrafts  

Quoting David L (Reply 17): Let's call the Avro version a 146NG, then

I'll go with that to keep the peace.

But I stand with what I said. You guys are being general and on that, yes they would be the same. I, as someone that is actually in the business and has worked on both aircraft, no they are two very different aircraft. Different enough that the FAA lists them independently on the TCDS.

Slamclick.. who did you fly with..? There have only been a small few US operators of the BAe 146 and only two operators of the Avro RJ.

[Edited 2006-07-24 17:52:25]

Actually, the Wikipedia on this a/c appears to be quite good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bae_146
They too say the last Avro RJ was delivered in late 2003, not in 2002!

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 18): So you are no longer flying that aircraft?

Last flight in the plane I affectionately called the 'swineliner' or the 'quadrophonic leafblower' was November 1990. However, I can still say that the smallest jet I ever flew had four engines.

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 18): When do you think they will fade out?

My mind is a black hole of business judgement. Whatever I guess will be wildly wrong. I will say that it would take a lot of minor MX faults and downtime to equal the purchase price of 85-100 seats in a modern airframe. The DC-8-73 soldiered on long after it was obsolete because it was already paid for and the cost of replacement was huge. The -146 may still be 'cheap' seats.

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 18): they have that high maintenance cost, they can't possibly make much profit having it in service.

I don't know if the MX cost is still that high. My info is very old - 1980s. One upside of high fuel cost is that it makes high MX cost less critical. It was pretty economical per seat-mile.

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 18): Hope you are still up in the air in other nice aircrafts

Last career flight was September 2004. Only been in an airplane (Lancair) once since then. It would take a very interesting offer to lure me back out to the airport. Flying Ilyushins in Africa was not enough incentive!

Quoting WSOY (Reply 20): Actually, the Wikipedia on this a/c appears to be quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bae_146 They too say the last Avro RJ was delivered in late 2003, not in 2002!

Keep in mind, Wikipedia is NOT an official source by any means. It is an open bulletin board where anyone can post any information. Fact or not....

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 22): Quoting WSOY (Reply 20): Actually, the Wikipedia on this a/c appears to be quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bae_146 They too say the last Avro RJ was delivered in late 2003, not in 2002! Keep in mind, Wikipedia is NOT an official source by any means. It is an open bulletin board where anyone can post any information. Fact or not....

Thanks for the info. But please consider this:
"Last production Avro RJ delivered
An era came to an end of November 26, when Air Botnia took delivery of the last Avro RJ produced. The aircraft, Avro RJ85 msn E2394 has been built in April 2002, making her first flight on April 24 of that year. She had then been stored, initially at Woodford and then at Filton, together with three other unsold RJs -- another RJ85 and two RJ100s. Air Botnia bought all four earlier this year, and they were flown to Exeter for customization by Flybe Aviation Services prior to delivery. The other three were delivered in late October and early November, painted in the new colors of Blue 1 -- the new name Air Botnia will adopt from January 1. To mark the end of the BAe 146 and Avro RJ production program, E3294 was flown from Exeter to BAE SYSTEMS Regional Aircraft's facilites. She first overflew Weybridge, site of the European Spares Logistics Centre, and Hatfield, home of BAE SYSTEMS Asset Management and site of the initial BAe 146 production line. She then proceeded to Woodford, where she had been built, and now home of the Customer Training and Engineering unit, and landed there. A final stop was made at Prestwick, headquarters of Regional Aircraft and centre for customer Support and Engineering. Under the command of Captain Pauli Perttula, she was then delivered to her new home in Helsinki. [2003-11-28]"
http://www.smiliner.com/news/2003.shtml#0311_4a


This corrects my earlier info on the serial number of the last plane.

[Edited 2006-07-24 18:28:44]

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): Low noise, great short field performance, rugged design.

Not that great as it turns out.

It can land really short. Taking off is another matter. The takeoff roll at sea level standard day is not markedly short. Hot and high it is pretty disappointing.

I evaluated it for a startup 121 supplemental operation out of Lake Tahoe (KTVL) shortly before any US carriers had announce any purchases. We found that the takeoff with an engine failure was not the problem, it was the full 4-engine takeoff that did not meet the needs.

By the way we determined that the operation could only be performed with one airplane; the DC-9-21 but they are the rarest of airframes and none were available at the time.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 21): It would take a very interesting offer to lure me back out to the airport

Really, are you sick of it? Like I'm sick of building houses after 4 years in the proffession  

I would imagin that as interesting as aviation is, it would be enough to keep a man busy for a lifetime, but maybe not.

Since you have been in the proffession some years I would asume, what aircraft was most enjoyable to fly? Sounds like the 146 was one of them.?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 6): The tail-mounted speedbrake was terrific. I called it the smart-handle. You could correct the most egregious errors in descent planning with it. You could set thrust at the final approach fix and fly an ILS with the speedbrake. For a really steep descent you could go flight idle, gear up, flaps 33 (full) speed brake deployed and maintain IIRC, 200 knots. It would give you nearly a level deck angle and you'd drop like a Simonized beer bottle, something on the order of a thousand feet per nautical mile!

I flew in couple this month, for the first time in about 12 years, and I'd forgotten how much it feels as though the aircraft is "hanging" by that speedbrake.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 24): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): Low noise, great short field performance, rugged design. Not that great as it turns out. It can land really short. Taking off is another matter. The takeoff roll at sea level standard day is not markedly short. Hot and high it is pretty disappointing.

I was thinking of LCY. Both climbout and approach have pretty steep gradients. Don't want to run into any skyscrapers. But hey, you've flown the Jumbolino (silliest official nickname ever for an aircraft).

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 24): By the way we determined that the operation could only be performed with one airplane; the DC-9-21 but they are the rarest of airframes and none were available at the time.

The DC-9 "Sport". A classic custom job. Only one customer lol.

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 25): Really, are you sick of it?

No, not sick of it at all. I truly enjoyed going to work, being at work (except for the crew lounge being a ghost town when compared with pre-9/11) It was 'the life' that I am tired of. I did not actually live with my wife from 1998 through 2004. I saw her as seldom as once every four months or so, normally more like once a month for four or five days.

The alternative was to move to my domiciles in cities where I have no friends, no family, no roots.

Did I mention that I hate non-revving? Especially off-line? I'd rather walk eight hours to work than ride four in the back end of airplanes space-available.

It is nice to be home.

Being home every day I have nearly doubled the value of my property by being able to work on it, building, landscaping etc. This increase in my net worth exceeds what I'd have made flying non-Part 121 so I stay home.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 28): Being home every day I have nearly doubled the value of my property by being able to work on it, building, landscaping etc. This increase in my net worth exceeds what I'd have made flying non-Part 121 so I stay home.

It shouldn't go without mention that this arrangement also provides you with time to dramatically increase the value of certain aviation-related Internet forums, too  

Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 29): Quoting SlamClick (Reply 28): Being home every day I have nearly doubled the value of my property by being able to work on it, building, landscaping etc. This increase in my net worth exceeds what I'd have made flying non-Part 121 so I stay home. It shouldn't go without mention that this arrangement also provides you with time to dramatically increase the value of certain aviation-related Internet forums, too Smile

Amen. 

Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 29): It shouldn't go without mention that this arrangement also provides you with time to dramatically increase the value of certain aviation-related Internet forums, too

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 30): Amen.

Thank you gen'mens but the fact is, at the crashpad I LIVED on airliners_DOTnet.

Or have my posts gotten better? 

Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 29): It shouldn't go without mention that this arrangement also provides you with time to dramatically increase the value of certain aviation-related Internet forums, too

  

I would stick my neck out and say that the 146/RJ will be around for at least another 20years.

The last 1-11 was only just retired , production ceased in 1979
The last Caravelle was still flying until he mid 1990's

The aircradt are relatively qiuet and designed to use remote airfields, I am sure many will find new homes in the developing world.

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 33): The last Caravelle was still flying until he mid 1990's

Gonna have to disagree with you on that one, I'm afraid.

According to the database, there were at least two Caravelle's flying well into 2001. The last (allegedly) airworthy one crashed in August 2004.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Anton Alm


View Large View Medium

Photo © The3Spotters


View Large View Medium

Photo © Jan Mogren


Cheers,
Titch

Quoting Titch (Reply 34): Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 33): The last Caravelle was still flying until he mid 1990's Gonna have to disagree with you on that one, I'm afraid. According to the database, there were at least two Caravelle's flying well into 2001. The last (allegedly) airworthy one crashed in August 2004.

I defer to your research but it does re-inforce my point

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 33): The aircradt are relatively qiuet and designed to use remote airfields, I am sure many will find new homes in the developing world.

As the BAe146 was designed as a rugged simple airliner, for use in the third world, I'm sure they'll be around for years to come!

That is nice, so at least we'll see them around. But I don't think I got the answer on how many BAe146 there are in service? Both new and old version.

I just read in Airliner World that this month Airbus wa delivering 2 A300's, and Boing 2 717-200's. Are those aircrafts still in production? Or are the just delivered through Airbus and Boeing from a company that decided to replace those aircrafts?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 6): It was maintenance cost and dismal dispatch reliability that finally killed the plane.

Apart from The Engine IFSD.What were the othe Snags that raised costs.

Surprisingly out here the 146 never arrived.Currently the A320/B737NGs seem to be Choice #1,understandably so.
regds
MEL

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 38): urprisingly out here the 146 never arrived.

I'm pretty Druk Air operates (or operated) the 146 or the Avro from Bhutan to India. Yes, I know India is a big country so you're probably nowhere close  

Here's a pic of a Druk Air 146 at DEL


View Large View Medium

Photo © Jan Mogren

by Jan Mogren. The guy seems to be everywhere  

Here are a couple more:

View Large View Medium Photo © Jan Mogren

View Large View Medium Photo © Jan Mogren

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 38): Apart from The Engine IFSD.What were the othe Snags that raised costs.

Well, not apart from the engine, rather, concerning the engine I heard and believe two stories.

1. One operator had an uncontained engine failure that put schrapnel in a passengers luggage in the overhead bin - in flight. They came very close to killing a passenger!

2. A mechanic friend once told me he reported to work to see an unscheduled engine change on the board. He asked what it was about and was told that they'd had an engine get some absurd figure like 100 hours on it with no failures so the factory was there to do a teardown analysis to find out what was RIGHT with the engine.

I had two engine failures with it. One was a seizure on takeoff roll. EGT went offscale hot. (indicating more than 999°C) I had a STARTER OPERATING light come on in flight. Problem with this is that it has four electric starters and only one warning light. It could have been any one of the four engines so as we headed for the barn there was nothing we could do of a preventive nature.

Another occasion we were standing out on the ramp watching fuel drip from the bottom of the cowling and timing the drips to see if we could fly the plane to the next stop which was a maintenance base. As we stood there it suddenly barfed a couple gallons of oil on the ramp. Debate over!

Apart from the engine:

Flap computer faults were sometimes every day occurrences. Sometimes every leg. Some of them could be fixed by crew climbing down into the wine cellar (the E&E compartment) to pull and reset circuit breakers.

The TMC or Thrust Modulation Computer also faulted with similar frequency. One malfunction gave me a high-EGT sub-idle and we had to shut the engine down with the fire handle on the way to the gate. One operator actually installed momentary power interrupt switches to the TMS to reset its computer.

I've had biffy juice leak into the E&E compartment.

APU failure maybe once a month.

But once a mechanic was kneeling in the E&E with his head just about level with the flight deck floor when a flight attendant walked in. She didn't see the open hatch and fell in - straddling the mechanic and her skirt slipped down over his head. You have to love an airplane that gives you entertainment like that.

A quirk but not, according to the manufacturer, a fault was the pack controls. When you started the APU on a cold airplane and then brought the packs on line, it took real finesse not to smoke up the cabin. BAe told us "Just set the temperature controllers at twelve o'clock and forget about them." Well, if we'd done that there would have been a passenger rebellion - they would never have stayed aboard the airplane. They'd have thought it was on fire. No such thing of course, just acrid, possibly carcinogenic, synthetic turbine oil smoke filling the cabin.

I finally developed a technique for warming them gradually but it took my full attention for about three full minutes to manage it. That is just unacceptable by US standards. Having driven a few MGs, Austins, and even Jaguars I know that traditionally the Brits set rather lower standards for creature comforts than we do.   Our passengers on the first leg of the day lobbied against the airplane.

All that aside I really did like flying it.

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 37): But I don't think I got the answer on how many BAe146 there are in service? Both new and old version.

A quick visit to airlinersfleet shows...

394- Built (BAe-146/Avro Series)
306- In service
70- Stored
8- Scrapped
10- Written Off

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 41): Having driven a few MGs, Austins, and even Jaguars I know that traditionally the Brits set rather lower standards for creature comforts than we do.

Ah yes. Brits and creature comforts. Having lived for two years in the UK, I can definitely confirm this. Drove me absolutely batty how everything was badly thought out and built at 90% of the necessary budget. In the apartment building where we stayed for a year, EVERY APARTMENT had its own how water heater/tank and cold water tank, not to mention hot and cold water pumps. We had a hatch in the bathroom ceiling. If you popped your head through it, you saw a 50 gallon tank full of water mounted right above the bathtub. I tried not to think about that while I was having a shower. Also, getting the right temperature involved safe cracking skills. Once you had the correct setting, you had about 5 minutes of hot water. Let's not dwell on the fact that if I or anyone in the neighboring pads flushed in the middle of the nights, my wife would wake up from the tremendous "MRRRRRRRNNNNNHHHHGGGGGGG" noise of the cold water pump filling up the tank.

I could mention (lack of) insulation, dampness, drafty windows, weird wiring. But I won't.

Advice to the Brits: Please take a field trip to Scandinavia to find out how houses should be built.


And now for some quotes:
"The Romans introduced central heating and the British have been resisting the change ever since."
"London is the world's largest temporary construction site."
"Lucas. The man who invented darkness."

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43): Ah yes. Brits and creature comforts. Having lived for two years in the UK, I can definitely confirm this.

When was this? Thirty years ago? We have modernised a little since then. Glass in the windows, electricity instead of gaslight, etc. Of course Hollywood still thinks London is permanently swathed in fog, and everybody either speaks like the Queen or Dick van Dyke in "Mary Poppins". Oh well...

Seriously, the plumbing style you mention is because of rather arcane building regulations.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43): I could mention (lack of) insulation, dampness, drafty windows, weird wiring. But I won't.

Good, because most old properties have long since been modernised. New builds of course have these things in spades. Actually, we think the rest of the world has weird wiring. Nothing is earthed or fused properly anywhere else.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43): Advice to the Brits: Please take a field trip to Scandinavia to find out how houses should be built.

You have a good point at last  

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43): Advice to the Brits: Please take a field trip to Scandinavia to find out how houses should be built.

Or North America, or just about anywhere else in the world. Is it still illegal to have a pressurized hot water tank in the UK? That was my favourite little medieval torture contraption. Guess they were worried about the potential for an explosion -- but I don't think I've ever heard of a hot water tank explosion in North America.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43): Please take a field trip to Scandinavia to find out how houses should be built.

I build houses in scandinavia, and I think they are some of the best houses indeed. Both solid to cope with snow in the winter, and good looking as well   Not to mension good water supply  

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 42): 394- Built (BAe-146/Avro Series) 306- In service 70- Stored 8- Scrapped 10- Written Off

Thanks for the info. I don't know how many aircrafts the manufacturers usually intend to produce, probably very different depending on production cost and how many the have to produce to make the project profitable, but this doesn't seem all that bad though.

Allthough hearing SlamClick listing the aircrafts faults, It's strange that this type of aircraft doesn't encounter more accidents. Does usually all types of aircrafts have small faults like that?
I mean, it's not that serious if the APU stops working now and then, but if they can't make an APU stabil, how can you be sure that the electonics isn't going to fail?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 45): Is it still illegal to have a pressurized hot water tank in the UK?

No, though I'm sure there are still regulations to follow if you install one! But US style boiling water on tap is considered wasteful.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 45): That was my favourite little medieval torture contraption.

If you mean the useless little "Ascot" water heaters, you don't see them much anymore.

The idea of a central source of hot water and heating, with shared costs across all apartments in a building goes against the British sense of fairness. There'd always be the suspicion that someone was using more than their share of the heat. Hence each apartment tends to have it's own boiler.

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 46): It's strange that this type of aircraft doesn't encounter more accidents.

I believe the standard explanation is that it is too slow to actually collide with anything. Anything!

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 44): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43): Ah yes. Brits and creature comforts. Having lived for two years in the UK, I can definitely confirm this. When was this? Thirty years ago? We

Moved away the second time in 2004. State of the art rental in South Kensington.Of course, our landlady was a penny pinching class A b***h. So that probably helped.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 44): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43): I could mention (lack of) insulation, dampness, drafty windows, weird wiring. But I won't. Good, because most old properties have long since been modernised. New builds of course have these things in spades. Actually, we think the rest of the world has weird wiring. Nothing is earthed or fused properly anywhere else.

My wife and I looked at 38 apartments around central London. Of these, 2 or 3 were actually "modern" and quite nice. In general landlords seem to be stingy with essential improvements. Those improvements that had been made often seemed half-assed and "on the surface" only. My buddy had the same types of problems with his place in Chelsea. He lived in an apartment which the landlord had renovated himself. This guy was obviously an avid watcher of the "MDF can be used for everything" school seen in a large number of home improvement shows. The halogen lights with all the colors of the rainbow were a particular favorite.

As for nothing being earthed or fused, newer building codes in the US and Sweden (and probably the rest of Western Europe) require earthing and fusing all over. All my fuses in both the US and Sweden have been in an easily accessible fuse box.

Hey, don't take all I say seriously. I was poking a little bit of fun. But I have seen all these things first hand. No hearsay here.

Having lived in Sweden, the UK, California, Connecticut and Italy and traveled in a bunch of places, I stand by my statement that Scandinavian houses are spectacularly well built. Even a 120 year old apartment building in Stockholm will feel solid and well designed for modern living (with a few improvements like plumbing and lighting of course).

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 47): The idea of a central source of hot water and heating, with shared costs across all apartments in a building goes against the British sense of fairness. There'd always be the suspicion that someone was using more than their share of the heat. Hence each apartment tends to have it's own boiler.

While I can understand the thinking, it still makes little sense if you think about it. The savings from avoiding free riders are far outweighed by the extra cost of individual plumbing installation and maintenance. Besides, you can always install individual water meters for each apartment and divvy up the cost that way. This would be much cheaper than the current system.

The last apartment we had in Stockholm (up for sale right now if you want it) just had lots of plumbing in the basement. The water company pumped boiling water from some station far away right to the house. This water was used for hot water and heating throughout the house. Very efficient, fixed price for the entire house, cheap and reliable. Brilliant system.