Radial engine bike by Jesse James

[Bass]

Gawd, what a saga

[Animal]

Gawd, what a saga

And so incestuous! Most of us have no idea how interwoven the corporate lineage behind the companies we work for can be.

Banzai! 300th post!

[Sully60]

The list is long, but I'll point out the most common criticisms of the breed...

They were severely underpowered. The Alison 502 engines in them were an adaptation of a turboshaft helicopter engine, converted by essentially adding a fan on the front of the compressor. Their operational tolerances were very tight, and tweaking them to stay within the parameters of the performance chart was a challenge. It didn't take much of a shift on the performance curve to fail the minimum requirements.

They featured some very old technology, which first appeared in several early British military aircraft such as Buccaneers and Canberras. The pitch control was aided by one such system, which was primitive and unbelievably Heath Robinson in it's design and application. I'll dig out some diagrams which will better explain this because it would take me hours to do so in words alone.

They had a well-deserved reputation for terrible corrosion, and operating them on short hops to sea-level airports (like those in NZ!) accelerated the rate of deterioration. We spent thousands and thousands of man-hours on corrosion management and repairs alone, making them an expensive machine to maintain.

BAe rejected the use of any universal aircraft hardware (such as AN and Mil-Spec), which meant even chuckaway items like screws and bolts had to be purchased from BAe themselves. Having a monopoly on the supply of parts meant they could charge anything they liked - and certainly did! Also, if they were out of stock on a particular part, calling up Boeing, Bombardier, Learjet, Airbus or McDonnell for an AN bolt or washer wasn't a legitimate option. Grounding a 146 while waiting for a handful of proprietory screws wasn't unusual.

The modified chopper engines had no reverse thrust capability, so braking was done through wheel brakes and those huge clam-shell air brakes on the arse. Flying into short strips like Queenstown meant generous applications of braking, so for an aircraft of the 146's size, the consumption of tyres and brake assemblies was right out of proportion. I seemed to be forever changing brakes on the bloody things.

For a 146 pilot's viewpoint, Terbang will have to be approached for his opinion.

I'll have a fossick through my library of course notes and other shit tonight, which will no doubt jog my memory on all the other things I disliked about them. They were fragile, temperamental, finickity machines, and certainly weren't a pleasure to work on.

And the Queen used one of these things?????????

[Sully60]

The list is long, but I'll point out the most common criticisms of the breed...

Abriged

I'll have a fossick through my library of course notes and other shit tonight, which will no doubt jog my memory on all the other things I disliked about them. They were fragile, temperamental, finickity machines, and certainly weren't a pleasure to work on.

And the Queen used one of these things?????????
Brave lady!

[degrom]

Computer!!! You just have to love them...

Makes even a radial engine look simple... LOL

[YOUTUBE]0T2uQYNUu6c[/YOUTUBE]

[terbang]

Fascinating stuff, CADa. Thanks
I always wondered why a jet like that didn't have reversers on it.

They didn't last that long in service (compared to the 732 and 733/734's).

I wonder wehat influenced Air NZ and Qantas to buy them in the first place.
Rock-bottom price ?

Well I'm not an engineer but I did 6000 hours on the variant. I flew the aircraft for Ansett NZ and also for a european airline. And before we go too far I'd like to put one thing straight. No aircraft is certified to use reverse thrust credit on any landing or accelerate stop calculation. Where it can be seen as bonus, the 146 never missed it and for a 100 seat 40+ Tonne jet it had absolutely fantastic short field landing performance. I never once felt insecure in it's landing performance. The clamshell on the tail was not there for landing performance, it was an airbrake for slowing or increasing rate of descent. It was open on landing for stability purposes only affecting landing distance by less than 2%. I have flown the type into Queenstown NZ, Lugano Switzerland and London City. Boeings fit Queenstown, now that they have a longer runway but wouldn't stand a shit show in the others. I fly a 737 400 at the moment. Yup the whimper jet as it was dubbed was slow.. And like most things new to NZ, it had its detractors. Well, we cruised at Mach .68 with sometimes pushing it up to .70 (overspeed at .73) and at the levels we flew at (high twenties) a quick tap of the calculator will reveal around 410-420 knots. We currently cruise the Boeing at .74 to.76 (overspeed at .82) which is around 440 Knots. So there isn't a lot in it and yet Boeing drivers still wank on about wimper jets and stuff. Hah in comparison to the Gulfstream GIV, which I flew after the 146, that cruised at Mach .87 or 520 knots, they were all slow! The 146 was a jet that could cruise over 400 knots, carry up to 115 passengers and yet it could land on a 1300m strip without an expensive leading edge high lift device and it could do it with a low noise print. The 146 was the first four engined jet aircraft to be certified for only two pilots and the only jet allowed to operate into London City (docklands). Whilst the poms may have used some old spare parts and certainly had some quality control issues, the aircraft, in its role was very effective. The engines let it down and the project barely recoverd from that issue. The origional ALF 502 engines, to allow 2 pilot certification had a thrust management system (TMS) that was supposed to assist the crews in setting thrust on 4 engines while supposedly looking after many limitations. In theory it looked good but in practice it was a nightmare and 146 pilots became like piano players shuffling thrust levers during take-off to avoid temperature exceedences ( I remember 882 C being the temp limit). And of course the famous 'rollback' in icing conditions that had a couple of aussies, mistakingly, shut down 4 engines, did a lot of damage to the aircrafts reputation as well. The 146 was a real sweetheart to hand fly though and with a fantastic, and at long last effective airbrake, it was exceptionally adept to close in type manouvring around the aerodrome or in mountainous terrain. Four engines, well they are definatly better than 2 and as a result we had lower minimas at Wellington than the Boeings. I would much rather have an engine shutdown on a dark old night in a 4 engined aircraft than any twin. Especially around the mountains or out in the yoggin. Well maybe not better than the Gulfstream, a twin that could maintain 38000 feet (clearing Mt Everest by 9000 feet) at 450 knots on one engine! I later flew the Avro RJ 100 for a company in europe. The RJ was a different beast. It was heavier at around 46Tonne and had more thrust (7000 lb per unit). The RJ used the same wing as the 146 and at 104 foot long it was the same length as the old 146-300. In fact it was hard to tell the difference from the outside. The RJ's engines, Now called the ALF 507F, were a fadec (Full Authority Digital Engine control) engine that had a modified first stage of compression to eliminate rollback. They were what the 502 should have been and were fitted with a very accurate autothrottle (eliminating the TMS). They were a dream to operate. Press a button on take-off and watch it do it for you.. The flight guidance in the RJ was the best that I have operated and leaves both the GIV and Boeing for dead. The dual, fail passive, autopilot system had full authority over the rudder as well. Another quantum leap after the old (smiths) SEP10 fitted to the old 146. We operated the RJ to Category IIIB landing minima which allowed us to autoland with a zero cloudbase and 125 m visibility. And we could do it on three engines as well. A major advantage over the Boeings I fly now, which are only Cat II (100 ft cloud and 300m vis). Overall, whilst recognising some real dorky pommy engineering, I think that it is a great aircraft from a pilots perspective and I feel priveledged to have had an association with the 146 and its variants and enjoyed every minuate I flew them. But yes I have seen a few perplexed engineers.

[nudemetalz]

That Youtube movie illustrates the master/slave conrods really well. Far better than trying to explain how it works.

[nudemetalz]

WOW !!!!
Thanks for that great info, Terbang.
So much knowledge gained on the 146's now.

[MotoKuzzi]

Interesting stuff, any more wierd and wonderful engine types you guys know about?

[pete376403]

Well I'm not an engineer but I did 6000 hours on the variant. I flew the aircraft for Ansett NZ and also for a european airline. ..... I think that it is a great aircraft from a pilots perspective and I feel priveledged to have had an association with the 146 and its variants and enjoyed every minuate I flew them. But yes I have seen a few perplexed engineers.

Like that scene in "A Fish called Wanda" where John Cleese talks a foreign language, I love it when you talk dirty like that (even though I only have avague idea what some of it means...)

[terbang]

Hmm yeah had a read and I guess it was pitched at aviators and the likes. Oh well, I liken the BA46 series to British motorcycles and landrovers. A bit out there in design and engineering that tends to piss mechanics off, but a cool machine, with lovable quirks, and fun to operate from a pilot/rider/driver perspective.

[pete376403]

The attached pic is a scan from a page in Two Wheels mag. Probably a breach of copyright, but it's too amazing not to share. Shows the engine of the Honda 300cc 6 cylinder road racer that George Beale has made replicas of. If you have (IIRC) 275000 GB pounds he'll sell you one. If I won the powerball I'd get one in a heartbeat, just to look at it.

[xwhatsit]

That is just so cool, a sleeve valve, supercharged H24.

I remember years ago that BRM made a 1.5 litre (I think) H16 that absolutely screamed and went like a cut cat but was a bit of a hand grenade.

I think the BRM I heard of was a V16: 2 V8s end to end.

[edit: ok, both v16 and H16 engines existed, but the H16 seems to have been a 3 litre.]

Richard

Finally, something I can waffle on about

RWH is right. It was a 3-litre H16.

What happened, was in 1965 F1 only allowed 1.5 litre engines. When 1966 rolled around they let them have up to 3 litres. BRM made some of the best 1.5 litre-era engines, beautiful free-revving V8s. However they were (like the other teams) caught by surprise by the new rules. Instead of building an all-new engine, they joined two of their V8s together at the crankshaft (two crankshafts, used gears to join them).

It easily made the most horsepower during '66/'67, but it was pretty unreliable. All those valves! Also, it made shit-all power at low RPM, so they had to use a 6-speed gearbox when everybody else was using a 5-speed, so there was unreliability associated with that new design too.

The worst problems though was the way it contributed to the handling of the P83/P115. It was really, really heavy -- the heaviest car on the grid. It also carried much of that weight high-up (you should take a look at the exhaust manifold!), and right at the rear axle, so it was a bit of a cruise-liner compared to the other F1s.

It made a wonderful, terrifying noise. I heard a recording of it winding up along the old Spa-Francorchamps back straight (it sounds like they're recording after Masta -- last photo I attached looks like coming up to the back section of Spa) and it is just scary. 11,000rpm red-line, 430bhp, howling roaring sound. Kind of like a Honda VFR V4, except brutal and angry and loud.

Interestingly enough, even though it was a shit idea, the same season Cosworth had the same idea and made a huge success of it. They took two Ford F2 straight fours, and made a V8 out of them. It was called the DFV (Double Four Valve), and it remains to this day the most successful engine ever used in motorsport. They used it for years in F1, up until 1985 (considering it was designed in 1966 quite impressive), made 400hp at first and 500hp eventually, and also used it in F3000, CART and numerous sportscars. It won 155 races from 262 starts in F1. It was also installed in the Lotus 49 driven by Jim Clarke and Graham Hill, which helped things of course.

[degrom]

The attached pic is a scan from a page in Two Wheels mag. Probably a breach of copyright, but it's too amazing not to share. Shows the engine of the Honda 300cc 6 cylinder road racer that George Beale has made replicas of. If you have (IIRC) 275000 GB pounds he'll sell you one. If I won the powerball I'd get one in a heartbeat, just to look at it.

Yes... Skill does not come cheap...

Just very sad that there are so few that can really appreciate it when they see it.

(10'000 GB pounds for racing springs!!!! Then again they can go for 110 hours at 15'000 RPM... )

[onearmedbandit]

So you're a pilot? And a motorcyclist? And you've always wanted to combine the two? Well now you can.

Impressive bit of engineering. Aussie engine apparently, Rotec 107hp 7 cylinder.

(Edit- turned out to be a repost doh, first search I didn't see it.)