Hello FolksIs the BAE 146 (real one) known as a gas guzzler? It certainly seems to be in FS9 (my versions are nearly all the Murchison models) I found that in a cargo version one flight was close to its max range and needed max fuel load ,and that left little left for cargo if not to go over max weight.PS those Murchison models are very nice if you fancy a freeware 146.cheers Andy

... one flight was close to its max range and needed max fuel load...

By definition max range, requires max fuel otherwise it wouldn't be the max range :wink:How much cargo/pax capacity remains depends on the ZFW+Fuel and MTOW / MLW.

By definition max range, requires max fuel otherwise it wouldn't be the max range :wink:How much cargo/pax capacity remains depends on the ZFW+Fuel and MTOW / MLW.

Yes sir.But! My original question.Is the 146(real) considered a fuel guzzler?cheers Andy

Yes sir.But! My original question.Is the 146(real) considered a fuel guzzler?cheers Andy

As far as I can tell the fuel burn is about 2500-3000kg/hr. For a 4 engine aircraft, this is pretty OK I guess.It has a limited range (appr. 1700nm) so appearantly they traded in fuel capacity/range for pax/load.The real power of the BAE's are their STOL capabilities and not range. They come at airports where others can't.

I think the above answer is the right one. The airline I flew for "back in the day" evaluated the 146 as a possible purchase. Obviously, the issue of having four engines on a short haul aircraft was seriously discussed. But as I recall, the total fuel burn was well within our criteria in comparison to the other contenders which were all twins. I think the answer is that it was designed for small airports and difficult terrain (thus four engines to give max engine-out safety) and was intended for short-haul routes.

The real 146 can get thirsty if it's being held down by ATC, which is quite common in congested airspace as the aircraft is slow and climbs like a xxxxx at high altitude and holding up other, faster aircraft.The service ceiling for most 146s is about FL300/FL310 due to a weak pressurisation system and (unless retrofitted) non-RVSM compliant avionics. A downside of that is the anti-ice will have to be cranked up more often as the aircraft cannot out climb the weather, which obviously adds more to the fuel bill. the 146 burns about 2 tonnes an hour.The 146 was designed for excellent short field and hot & high performance, at the expense of cruise performance and maintenance costs associated with 4 engines. The reason for this was that the Brits wanted to sell more airplanes to Mao Zedong and the CAAC flew the Tibet routes with the HS Trident but needed a smaller aircraft with more than 2 engines. It became unstuck when Nixon visited China and American competitors entered the Chinese aviation scene with more capable aircraft. CAAC did eventually buy 10 146s.

Thanks GuysAvantineYou obviously have invested in an original copy of the tech specs manual."climbs like a xxxxx at high altitude and holding up other, faster aircraft."I hadn't thought about its short take-off capability (these aircraft fly from London city airport which i believe has a very steep approach (take-off) which presumably uses more fuel (at least initially)I suppose if an aircraft of this type is used for short haul ,but large payload then it makes sense.Most flights in the Airsource VA selection are of course short haul.I might check again ,but I am sure if it flies to its maximum range there isn't much if any cargo /passenger carrying ability left before exceeding weight limits.Perhaps a brace of fleeing mid east dictators.Thanks Andy