External Differences between 146-200&300 and RJ85 &

amo · Post by **amo** » 15 Jul 2006, 16:54

TobyV,
Are there any major external differences between BAE146-200/300 and RJ85/RJ100 for drawing purposes?
Cheers
amo

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 15 Jul 2006, 16:59

Not that I am aware of

(Hopes that someone doesnt come and point anything out).

Post by **Garry Russell** » 15 Jul 2006, 17:29

Yep..the 146 often has BAe 146 painted on the side.........

Seriously I've have never been aware of anything and if there is it is minor......... perhaps the odd panel or something but nothing that shows in a drawing.

All the changes are systems, engines and perhaps structure....an engineer will probably tell you they are completely different

Garry

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 15 Jul 2006, 19:40

There are a few changes in structure in the -100 series (and possibly the 200) on all aircraft built after the -300 prototype. This consists of reinforcement around the centre fuselage section, permitting a greater load to be carried. The RJ's main differences are the FADEC equipped LF507 engines which feature an additional stage, a slightly cooler primary zone combustor temperature, better icing protection, improved lubrication systems and a slightly higher compressor pressure ratio and the EFIS equipped flightdeck, which I think was an option on the 146-300.

The changes on the RJX were more marked, with the Honeywell AS977 engine having a much longer nacelle and a new pylon. The engine itself was quite different and this was evident (visually) from the frotn fan blades and spinner which look much more liek a scaled down version of what you see on Airbuses and B777s these days.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 15 Jul 2006, 20:09

There was an undercarriage change in the 146 as well.

When JEA/BE were screwed by the cancellation they were on TV saying how desperate they were to get a standard fleet. At that time two of their 146 had different undercarriage to the rest to the point where separate stores had to be kept.

They were looking forward to replacing the 146 with a standard new fleet.

BAe offered to build their order but as he said what of the future for support and additions. They wanted something they could be involved with for the foreseeable.

So they went elsewhere and I bet they enjoyed telling BAe no thanks

Garry

alan cottrill · Post by **alan cottrill** » 15 Jul 2006, 20:51

The visual difference externally between the 146-100/200/300,is the number of windows,forward and aft of cent fuse section,where the extra fuse plugs where fitted.
If i remember correctly,the rj85 was the same as the 146-200 externally
and the rj100 was the same as the 146-300 externally regarding the fuselarge,rj85 and rj100 just refered to the max number of pax carried due to a bigger seat pitch,giving more leg room over the 146-200/300
they also had an uprated engine,but you could not tell from looking at the cowl,they just increased the thrust from them.
in the cockpit they had efis instrumentation on the rj85/100.
I worked on the 146-100/200/300 at hatfield and woodford,the later 146`s started to have efis instruments fitted,just as i was leaving in 1990.
I also went to dothan alabama,for a month with bae before i left,this was to help inspect and do systems function checks,on a 146-300f freighter for tnt,and a 146-200QC for princess air,ie seats on pallets,and overhead bins,so the aircraft could operate as a pax by day,and freighter by night.
hope this info helps.
regards alan.