ERJ135

I was @ pwm this weekend and I saw a Mesaba aircraft parked at the gate. It was high winged with four engines. Is that the Avro RJ? I thought it was a BAE146 but the APC page says they do not have any BAE146's.

DJR_

Yes that is the Avro RJ. If im not mistaken the two aircraft are essentially the same.

I also believe that Mesaba is phasing them out of their fleet...

duvie

Avro is a company owned by the larger British Aerospace (BAe). The avro RJ series was developed from the BAe 146 series. The aircraft are basically the same. The Avro Jets are a little newer.

They are being phased out of Mesaba. Four engines in times like these just don't make sense

FlyerJosh

The airframe is the same, however there are minor differences in the interiors and avionics, IIRC.

RJ85FO

It is/was an "Avro", the RJ85 in fact. Basically the same thing as a BAE146-200, but with some improvements:
FADEC LF507 engines (the 502's on the 146 series were pieces of #@$%)
Digital Avionics and Autothrottles (EFIS screens)
Digital Pressurization
Cabin changes to provide the look and feel of more space
Weight and Drag savings over the original BAe-146

Don't let the name confuse you though. The original aircraft design was Hawker Siddeley in 1973. They couldn't make a go of it so when British Aerospace succeeded Hawker in 1978 the project was relaunched and type designated the BAe-146. In about 1993, British Aerospace transfered the marketing of an "upgrade" to the 146 to a separate BAe comapny called Avro International Aerospace. The name really had more to do with where the "upgraded" jet was built than anything else. Building took place at Avro Airfield.

The two aircraft have different type designators BAE-146 vs. AVR-146. Mesaba flies the AVR-146-RJ85A or just RJ85 in the logbook. When you receive the AVR-146 type rating, you automatically get the BAE-146 type as well. I am not sure if it works vice-versa or not.

It was a great airplane to fly. Only jet that could get in and out of Aspen, CO. The airplane can fly so slow that turning inside of the terrain in the event of a balked landing is/was not an issue.

The airplane remains very popular in Europe. NWA (largely because of scope) had the aircraft configured with only 69 seats for Mesaba. Economics of 4 engines burning roughly 5000 pph with only 69 seats did not make sense. A lot of us thought that NWA may work out something to continue to operate that aircraft with closer to the full compliment of 112 seats (85 seats is comfortable) and the aircraft would be quite profitable in that configuration and still able to serve the lucrative Aspen market.

Sad to see them leaving North America. It was a fun airplane to fly and a great airplane to ride in. I will miss her.

edik

Yea, I can relate, the plane is so roomy inside. When ever I go home GFK-MSP-SNA, I always hope I get the avro for the first leg. Its sad seeing the plane slowly disappear. I was kind of hoping some cargo company in US would buy then, but I guess is doesn’t make any sense

edik

ERJ135

yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I saw it at the gate, that it held maybe only seventy seats and had four engines. I could be off base in saying this but I thought to myself that its wonder there in bankruptcy flying small four engine aircraft that burn fuel like that. Isn't that why AWAC got rid of there BAE 146's.

flyerNy

Its sad to see them go..I thought they are a nice change from the typical low wing twin jets..cool plane

MikeB525

The Avro has really tiny engines, though. Whats the fuel burn on the Avro compared to a CRJ-700 and ERJ-170??

They were really cool looking planes. Really slick looking head on. Looked like a comfortable flight deck set up, too. I recently saw on fly over me on approach into EWR. And yea, I'm sad to see them go, as I'm sad to see everything thats happened to Mesaba recently.

RJ85FO

We used to joke when taxiing out that we had all 5 APU's running! At idle, each engine burned the same fuel as the APU (300 pph). The LF-507's are flat rated to 7000 lbs of thrust. The engine in and of itself is not a terrible fuel consumer, but when you put four of them together and hang them on an airframe that is as "draggy" as the RJ85, you get some pretty high numbers. For example here are the down and dirty rules of thumb.

In the terminal area (approach vectoring etc.) plan on 100 lbs per MINUTE.
First hour of flight (takeoff climb and initial cruise) = 6000 lbs.
Subsequent hours = 5000 lbs/hr.

With 20,640 total lbs. onboard, she was a 4 hour airplane.

Here are some real world numbers:
OKC-MSP at FL300: Burnoff = 7930 lbs (1:33 flight time) = 5116 pph
DTW-PWM at FL310: Burnoff = 7211 lbs (1:26 flight time) = 5031 pph
DSM-DCA at FL310: Burnoff = 8841 lbs (1:50 flight time) = 4822 pph
EWR-MEM at FL300: Burnoff = 12217 lbs (2:24 flight Time) = 5090 pph
DFW-MSP at FL310: Burnoff = 11021 ;bs (2:05 flight time) = 5290 pph

All averages out to about 5070 pph cruising. I have never flown the CRJ or EMB-170, But I have to imagine that their cruise burn is somewhere in the 4000 pph range give or take.

Basically when you look at numbers, the RJ85 burns roughly the same as an A319/320, goes 30 knots slower at cruise and carries half the people. The economics with only 69 seats on the jet didn't make sense.

It is QUITE comfortable up front lots of width made you feel like you were in a lot bigger airplane. Digital autopilot, autothrottles and AUTOLAND made her a sweet machine for those "long" legs. Full size flight case fits with room to spare for laptop and cooler beside you, seats go way back for lots of leg strech room (at least at my 5'9" stature). Nice wide center console made for lots of storage for reading material, suduko puzzles and sorting through the Jepp updates. GOD I am going to miss that!