Aviation MegaThread!!!!

[chazbird]

So we agree...the Piaggio kicks the Starship's ass? True, the 400LS was kinda neat, 350 kts, but around 950 pph, or you could run it at King Air like speeds at 280 kts with King Air beating fuel flow of 490pph. With fuel at $5.50 $6 a gallon I cringe when I think of even 500pph. Today's hot rods are the TBM850 or 700, and the PC12. Oh, well, I guess my screen name should be turbo-prop slut.

[CapCal1000]

Originally Posted by chazbird

So we agree...the Piaggio kicks the Starship's ass? True, the 400LS was kinda neat, 350 kts, but around 950 pph, or you could run it at King Air like speeds at 280 kts with King Air beating fuel flow of 490pph. With fuel at $5.50 $6 a gallon I cringe when I think of even 500pph. Today's hot rods are the TBM850 or 700, and the PC12. Oh, well, I guess my screen name should be turbo-prop slut.

Yes, the Avanti is a hot rod. Shame it's so loud. My buddy is buying a TBM850. I'll borrow it and let you know my impressions. Fuel didn't used to be the biggest operating cost 10 years ago, but now it tops the list so everyone is looking for ways to cut the fuel flow. In response to this I simply ask "Did you buy a plane to go slow?". Funny how owners are, they'll spend an extra million to save a couple hundred bucks an hour.

[scottcolbath]

S.C.

[Flying-D]

Originally Posted by Lornce

Interesting. Instead of what was suggested earlier about noisey Starships, it claims interior noise levels are quiet as a jet.

Was the 800lb flap system part of the 2,500lbs of FAA mandated modifications added to the original design?

Hmm...maybe quiet in the cockpit, but loud in the cabin? Or I could have been completely wrong. It's been a few years, and a few beers since those days...

I was an aviation insurance adjuster back when they were making them, living in Wichita. Beech, Cessna and Lear were my accounts for Lloyds (among others). I got to see some interesting stuff at their factories, and went to many of their incidents/accidents all over the country gathering info to defend the eventual deep-pockets lawsuits to follow. Piaggio's U.S. distributor was also there at Mid-Continent. I wasn't too fond of Wichita in general, but I was able live and breathe airplanes every day. That part was a dream come true.

I'm loving this thread...

[chazbird]

A friend who buys a TBM-850...that's better than my friends who bought Ducati 916's....
Essentially most corporate-business-personal flights carry 1-4 passengers (excepting shuttle type flights). For the typical 500 nm 2-3 passenger flight the TBM850 straight-out rocks. I'd have no qualms whatsoever about flying that single engine just about anywhere just about anytime. I think the after flaps up full use of power management is a chore, but really that's a small price to pay. I've flown a considerable number of twin turbo-props, and as a single engine turbo-prop it was the Caravan, the Pilatus PC-6, and 12, but not a TBM. Can you imagine picking up a good 90kt tailwind while truing at 315 kts on 420pph/62 gph? For small business aviation, I think that's the future. Funny, as in not HA-HA, how another US company f'ed themselves. Mooney was involved with Socata with the early stages of the TBM but bailed. (Mooney built zero airplanes last year). As was Fairchild with the SAAB 340, but Fairchild bailed too. Then there was Beech's little muck-up with the aforementioned Starship. Seems Cessna is the only one not to step on themselves.

[Mambo Dave]

Don't know if this unique commercial craft has been covered, but I flew on one once and remember being really impressed with the design. I could tell it was a purpose-built aircraft, and thought it might have been designed with military roles in mind. I was right on at least one account - that it was purpose-built.



Better pic to get a feel for the four tiny turbofans:

[dfwscotty]

Bae 146. Sweet looking plane for a 4 engine.

NW Airlines used to fly one in to DFW during the winter for the ski trip route.

[EvilGenius]

Designed for medium capacity short runways?

[Mambo Dave]

Originally Posted by EvilGenius

Designed for medium capacity short runways?

Yep.

Interestingly, my other theory was correct - it was designed with the military in mind yet, despite trying, they never sold a contract to any military for it. I was sorta thinking they were thinking unimproved runways in Africa or something, but the landing gear's ability to absorb rougher landing strips looks questionable now that I look at it.

Moreover, it's unique duty was as a side loader. Why? I have no clue. Here is a model someone made of the concept:



I can certainly see the ease with which a forklift could pull up to the side of it. Maybe they were thinking nuclear warhead transport? It would explain the redundancy of four turbofans and a small aircraft. Though it's British - they were probably envisioning tea delivery to small pockets of remotely camped soldiers in mountainous terrain with short runways.



And the real prototype 146STA:

[targa801]

The Royal Air Force has a couple of BAE 146's that are used as VIP transports, but I seem to recall that they bought a couple more for use in Afganistan.

There are also a couple of companies around that are converting them to fire fighting aircraft.

http://www.mindenair.net

There aren't any airlines around here using them anymore.

[Trixie]

lots of 146's in Europe- Used to fly them out of Zurich all the time. Quiet for a 4 engined jet.

[chazbird]

146's were more popular in Europe for a couple of reasons. Quiet. Many airports have stringent noise restrictions, and the 146 could get by at least some of the curfews. It also has great short field capability, and good high altitude airport performance, hence being used into Aspen, and was for a long time the only airplane operated into Bhutan. It was the first commercial jet to use London's close in city airport, I forget how long the runway is, but it was pretty short. Having 4 engines made high altitude airport engine inoperative performance much better, as you'd only have to calculate for 25% thrust loss, vs. 50%+

The pitfalls of the airplane, were, surprise, 4 engines - reasonably fuel efficient when it began operations, as fuel prices went up that vanished. Then there's the "two extra" engines to maintain, and the engines had lot's of troubles early on. The aircraft had no leading edge lift devices either, but to get those short field capabilities a high lift wing - this made for pretty poor cruise performance 370-390 KTS or so. Most stage lenghts in Europe are shorter than in the US, so the low speed wasn't such a big burden on those shorter lengths. On a duty day with US stage lengths the 737 could get in at least another 1 and maybe 2-3 more flights, so that adds up. For some pilots it had the derisive nick-name as the hair dryer, since it blew a lot of hot air but wasn't sexy fast.

[Hay Ewe]

Side loading door, its a whole lot easier (design and structure wise) to have a side opening door than a hinged tail or ramp of some kind.

as for its design, classic british - this is what we need lets rising something to do exactly that and no more - typical old way of thinking IMHO and I am a pom.

as for the landing gear, its quite complex with many lived parts and bolts.

they also use try-wing fasteners, doing them up is easy but undoing not so.

The engine is a derivative of whats used in the M1 Abrams tank (many years ago.

there was an URGENT AD to check some brackets on the Hor-stab about 1999. The fleet in Europe could fly to a base to get it done and until they were inspected they would be grounded. I worked on 1 for TNT registered in Spain that time

thats pretty much all i know

Hay Ewe

[jackd]

I worked on these for around 15 years - I still miss it. Compared to the Bombardier jets I work on now , they were a treat. Contrary to the claim of a previous poster, the landing gear was one of the best I've seen - Dowty Messier UK gave great support and in service repair tolerances and through proven operational testing eventually extended the overhaul times to over 22,000 cyles on many components. You can't beat that for a short haul machine.

The weak point were the ALF502's but they would always start at least..... The fuel burn of four engines, the resultant increased maintenance and the introduction of smaller regional jet liners were what spelled the end of this machine in our fleet. Airframe wise it was built like a tank and they were hoping to go for a 100K cycle airframe life limit - for all I know they might have certified it for that by now.

[CapCal1000]

Why does the Avro have four engines? Because it can't fly on three!