BAe146 services inaugurated

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 26 Oct 2006, 23:57

No probs DM, tbh, although I seemed to have blinded most members of this forum, that post neatly manages to avoid any mention of the differential equations usually expressed in the Laplace domain, which actually govern classical analogue control systems

On the night at university 3.5 years ago when I supposedly was meant to be revising for this module of my first degree, I actually remember visiting Victoria Wine of Portswood road, Southampton and scoring about 43% the next day, so I can genuinely back my claim, not to be an expert :roll:

Post by **MALTBY D** » 27 Oct 2006, 01:19

Here's your starter for ten...

that post neatly manages to avoid any mention of the differential equations usually expressed in the Laplace domain, which actually govern classical analogue control systems

You remind me of why I stopped at A level.
Physics: E, Maths: E, Art: E
Think an E was more like 21% :drinkers:

oh dear

Post by **MALTBY D** » 28 Oct 2006, 00:08

Found out some more info on the real 146 that explains the different opinions about the correct attitude during approach.
If anyone is still reading this thread?

With Vref landing speed eg 115kt at 35000kg
They start down the glide slope at 150kt ish with 18 deg then 24 deg flap & this is where they'll be getting the 2.5 to 3 deg nose down attitude.
Further down is flown with landing flap at Vref+10, giving a 1 to 1.5 deg nose down.
Nose is lifted level in slowing to Vref with landing made at around 1 deg nose up.

So that's why most airliners.net approach shots show a more gentle nose down attitude. Their photos are obviously more likely to be taken late in the approach.

DM

PeteP · Post by **PeteP** » 28 Oct 2006, 07:58

MALTBY D wrote:They start down the glide slope at 150kt ish with 18 deg then 24 deg flap ... Further down is flown with landing flap at Vref+10

Yes but that is under ideal conditions. If you're trying to emulate real-world practice - and presumably, that's the purpose of a VA - you'll need to maintain 160KIAS to 4DME (at all but the quiestest backwater airports) before reducing to the sort of figures you're quoting.

Pete

Post by **MALTBY D** » 28 Oct 2006, 16:25

Ok Pete, cut me some slack.
Scrub out '150 ish' & put in '160'.

The point was that the earlier part of the glide slope is flown a lot faster than Vat.
Even 4 DME is still 'miles out', so by short finals (?) it has to have slowed down from 160kt.

At a major airport they could land a lot faster with 24 deg flap, doesn't make any difference to the story though.
If you follow the glide slope perfectly with 24 deg flap - if it's 3 deg nose down at 150kt, it's not going to still be 3 deg nose down at 130kt.

DM

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 28 Oct 2006, 19:28

Pete, whilst I appreciate that what you say is correct from an ATC point of view - keeping the speed up to fit in with larger/faster type - I think the FD's should reflect what the aircraft is capable of rather than how its operated though - thats down to the simmer

I have a JEA flight manual for the 146, so I could check to see what it should really do. Sadly though, its in my old home down in the south and I am here in the midlands

:roll:

PeteP · Post by **PeteP** » 29 Oct 2006, 09:56

TobyV wrote: I think the FD's should reflect what the aircraft is capable of rather than how its operated though

Of course they should, Toby and I think you'll be hard-pushed to find anything in my post which suggests that I think otherwise.

I posted the approach speed information for the enlightenment of those who like to follow real-world practices as closely as FS will permit. Nothing more, nothing less.
PP

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 29 Oct 2006, 10:12

Fair enough Pete. Would this apply mainly to major airports like LHR, LGW and the main European centres? Presumably at small regional airports where the 146 is one of (if not the) only jet a/c or where landings are more infrequent, it would approach slower?

ivanT3 · Post by **ivanT3** » 11 Nov 2006, 03:08

Hi all,

I'm a new fella around here. What a great place you have put together. I'm a huge fan of the old British jet's so Thanks for ALL your great work!!

I flew the 146 again today and what has been stated seem's about right to me regarding approach speeds and AOA. The small town I live in here in Michigan houses Northwest and they fly CRJ's , small DC-9's and the BAE into our Airport {KTVC} with some regularity. It always seemed to me that they were {the bae-146}, nearly straight and level on short final. Looking back, my young Son and I would take the Binoculars and watch them come in. It seems the AOA would indeed decrease as speed decreased and more flaps were input. Also, they barely flared at all {or so it looked from the ground.} Strange and wonderful Bird this one.

I too dislike the SLOW roll rate it exhibits. Also, after coordinating a turn, it seems to take a life time to get the ruder put back where it wont YAW all over the place {yes, even with the Damper on. Perhaps I should try it Off.}

. In short, I don't like how it fly's and while I certainly wouldn't know from any experience, as I don't yet have a PPL, I doubt this is how it fly's.{I of course could be way off base here.}

Having said all that, I LOVE it's look and Matthias Lieberecht did an out standing job with the Panel for these plane's. I would hope that someone could work on the flight model and bring it up to speed. I know nothing about changing these files but, something tells me that if I hang around this place for a bit, I'll end up diving in at some point..

Just some notes and observations on the 146.

Thanks a bunch for what you guys do.!!

Ivan......................

PeteP · Post by **PeteP** » 13 Nov 2006, 16:14

TobyV wrote:Would this apply mainly to major airports like LHR, LGW and the main European centres? Presumably at small regional airports where the 146 is one of (if not the) only jet a/c or where landings are more infrequent, it would approach slower?

Sorry for the delay in replying, Toby - not sure how I missed this question first time around.

You're correct in your thoughts. These speeds are rigorously applied at busier airports - the sort of spacing required to maximise landing rates at airports like Heathrow can only be achieved by expert vectoring combined with speed control - but there is much more freedom at less busy airports. These procedures are published in the national AIPs - here's a couple of examples from the UK AIP:

For Heathrow
iii Speed Control: Pilots should typically expect the following speed restrictions to be enforced: 220 kt from the holding facility during the
initial approach phase; 180 kt on base leg/closing heading to final approach; between 180 kt and 160 kt when established on final
approach and thereafter 160 kt to 4 DME. These speeds are applied for ATC separation purposes and are mandatory. In the event of a
new (non-speed related) ATC instruction being issued (eg an instruction to descend on ILS) pilots shall continue to maintain the previously
allocated speed. All speed restrictions are to be flown as accurately as possible. Aircraft unable to conform to these speeds must inform
ATC and state what speeds can be used. In the interests of accurate spacing, pilots are requested to comply with speed adjustments as
promptly as is feasible within their own operational constraints. Pilots should advise ATC if circumstances necessitate a change of speed
for aircraft performance reasons.

For East Midlands:
c To facilitate these techniques aircraft should be flown no faster than 250 kts from the Speed Limiting Points and below FL100 and 250 kts-
210 kts during the intermediate approach phase. Thereafter speed should managed so as to achieve a continuous descent using as little
power or drag as possible. ATC may impose speed control if required for separation purposes

As you can see, there's much more freedom given to the pilot at East Midlands than at Heathrow but even at East Midlands, ATC have the right to impose speed control if required. Hope that answers your question.
PP