Under commonality are these 2 aircraft counted as the same i know the engines are different, but do the bodies count as different manufacturers as well?
They are counted as 2 different aircraft, but I already contacted Sami about this, and it is on the list of things to do.
ty
I dont think they should count as the same, given that the 737 series is split in a similar fashion. The Avro RJ is a complete redesign of the 146, likewise the 737-300 was a complete redisign of the 737-100/200
What do you mean exactly? The Avro is just a more advanced version (new engines, new cockpit, minor aerodynamic improvements) of the BAe 146's. Is not a complete redesign. The 733 is also just a more advanced version of the 732, with new new engines and the lot!
Yes thats what I mean, a lot has been changed from the 146 to the RJ, as it was from the -200 to the -300.
Well, the 73's are devided between the classics (-300/-400/-500 fleet group) and the NG's (-700/-800/-900 fleet group), so I don't see why the Avro and Bae couldn't also be 1 group, for example: Avro RJ/Bae Systems fleet group.
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you have a 737 classic, it is not under the same fleet group as the NG or Original series. Likewise with the 146/RJ, there are too many differences to save anything on fleet commonality.
Yea it's a bit hard to combine them under the same group .. but then we should also think of md80/90 and all other nearly similar models... Opinions or true facts on this??
As the problem is that there is true commonality and then this "almost similar" .. like many boeing or McDD products which are re-developments of the 60's designs...
I think what i was getting at will the fixed maintainance costs be just as high as running 463/RJ100 as lets say for arguments sake 463/F100.
As i have plans to bring a 752 into my fleet i don't want 3 ac types just yet but want to stick with 2 for costs sake. Will adding the RJ be worthwhile or shall i keep to the 463?
Hope this makes sense? and thanks for the replies.
For now, stick with choosing the 463 OR the RJ100, so just 1 type of aircraft, because you will have to pay seperately for them. But I will try to find some good real life info on them, when I have some spare time.
thanks runner, good luck
Here's a quote from the BAe systems website:
"The Avro RJ is the short haul jet successor to the BAe 146. (...) "
Click for the site (http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/ra_avro_rj.html)
So I think this is a good argument to let the BAe and Avro RJ aircraft share operational costs.
Regards,
Runner
I think there should be SOME saving on maintenance costs. But to be honest most of the heavy maintenace parts (i.e. engines and flightdeck) have been entirely replaced. Perhaps it would be more accurate to save about 1/8th of what you would if you had say a 146-200 and a 146-300. But since we really have no accurate data on this whatsoever, I think it would be very difficult to model.
I dont like them, because they are really not "STOL" jets.
Only 600 nm from LCY in the -300
;D
Are there any Jet aircraft of a similar sizer that could fly further from there? I can't think of any.