Its not widely used anymore, but from what I can see its a much better Regional Plane than the still widely used ATR Turbo Prop.

 

Was it very expensive to operate or was it killed off by the collapse of BAE rather than its decline causing the collapse of BAE.

 

As a passenger I would feel safer on an Avro than a ATR.  When I fly to Dublin a fly Ryan Air (Boeing) even though I hate them (Ryan Air)as I don't want to fly on the ATR Aer Lingus uses.

 

Only thing I can see from history was an Avro Weak Spot was its ability to stop on a wet runway.  The ATR on the other hand seems a complete nightmare to operate.

I was extremely disappointed when BAe Systems killed off the Avro RJX project. Such a unique regional jet, and the last of its kind in Britain :(

As a passenger I would feel safer on an Avro than a ATR.

 

 

The ATR on the other hand seems a complete nightmare to operate.

 

 

I don't want to fly on the ATR

 

 

 

"Keep calm and don't be a ATR" or something like that 

Seriously, ATRs feels very safe to me.

Hi.

 

I don't think BAe collapsed. I believe it was privatised and merged with Marconi to form BAe Systems. See here.

 

If Wikipedia is correct, 387 BAe-146 were built, comapred with about 1200 total ATR42 and ATR72. I guess regional props are just much more attractive than regional jets.

 

As far as safety goes (Wikipedia again) the BAe-146 has suffered 7 hull-losses out of those 387 while the ATR42 has suffered 23 out of 422 though these figures certainly include plenty of human error: I think it's usually people and not planes that cause fatalities.

 

Cheers,

D

The RJX project was basically shut down after 9/11 decimated the industry. 

 

It was certainly a shortsighted decision IMHO, although understandable given the financial situation.

The RJX looked like it would have been a good aircraft.

Not so much "killed off", as failed to remain competitive on operating costs.  Imagine the costs associated with having to work on 4 engines, for all maintenance work.  As well as more comprehensive maintenance like C-Checks, even oil changes and top ups greatly increase labour costs, due to the need to be working on 4 engines.  

Performance was lacklustre in cruise; although max cruise speed was a little higher, to balance economy almost all operators cruised at 0.70.    With jet-like fuel burn (from 4 engines), compare that with an ERJ145, cruising at 0.75 - 0.78, with a quite considerably lower fuel burn.

 

The comparison with the ATR isn't so good because it's a turbo-prop so is quite considerably slower in cruise, but with a significantly lower fuel burn and maintenance costs.

 

The Avro's real competitors were :-

- Embraer ERJ135/145

- Bombardier CRJ 100/200/700 (and now C-Series)

- Fokker 70/100

- Boing 717 (+ late MD8X's)

 

The most obvious thing being that all of these aircraft are twin-engined, versus the 4 engines of the Avro.  As you rightly say, the Avro with it's lack of reverse thrust also decreased stopping performance on all but dry, warm runways, whereas all of it's competitors have reverse thrust.

 

Saying all that, I love the Avros!!!  (in real life and in the sim), and as a customer, it's great to have the reassurance of 4 engines.     I too would choose an Avro over a T-prop any day, as a passenger.    But if I were starting an airline, I'd run a mile at the very suggestion of a fleet of Avros. :smile:    Most major remaining Avro operators have plans to replace their Avro fleets;  often with the new Bombardier C-Series.  

 

Swiss Global Airlines (Formerly Swiss European) may be the exception -  they love their Avros.