anything
AirNav RadarBox
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: BAE 146  (Read 16045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chris11

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
BAE 146
« on: September 11, 2010, 03:54:18 PM »
When is a BAE 146 a B462, B463 or RJ85?

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33510
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2010, 04:26:50 PM »
Chris

B461 British Aerospace 146-100
B462 British Aerospace 146-200
B463 British Aerospace 146-300
RJ85 British Aerospace 146 RJ85
R1TH British Aerospace 146 RJ100

Alan

Yellowshrek

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • RadarBox Mid Devon 12NM from EGTE
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2010, 04:36:59 PM »
  Chris,
       the 462 is a 146 series 200 and 463 is a 146 srs 300, an extended version with approx 100 seats. Bae System remodeled the 146 with new avionics and a new engine, orginally an ALF 502 to an ALF 507 and remarketed the aircraft as a Bae Regional Jet (RJ) with the number giving an approximation of the available seats. So a RJ85 is the later version of the Bae.146-200 (Bae 462), the RJ75 is the later version of the 146 srs 100, and RJ100 is the later version of the 146 srs 300 (B463).

  If you see any close up count the windows between the front passenger door and the beginning of the wing and you will learn to note the differences.

 Hope this helps
So many trails not enough time!

ACW367

  • Guest
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2010, 04:48:10 PM »
Chris

B461 British Aerospace 146-100
B462 British Aerospace 146-200
B463 British Aerospace 146-300
RJ85 British Aerospace 146 RJ85
R1TH British Aerospace 146 RJ100

Alan

Slight error it is RJ1H  for the RJ100
There is also the RJ70

There is a good production list which details them here
http://www.planelist.net/bae-146.zip

Construction numbers are four numbers starting with an E.  The second number is the mark no.

E1 = 146-100 or RJ70
E2 = 146-200 or RJ85
E3 = 146-300 or RJ100

The last three numbers are the sequential construction number.  They changed from being 146s to Avro RJ from airframe number 222 (full C/N E3222, a B463). Airframe number 223 is a RJ70 (full C/N E1223)

Therefore c/n E1199 is a B461, but E1225 is a RJ70.
E2046 is a B462, but E2314 is RJ85
E3126 is B463 , but E3387 is RJ1H

Hope this helps
ACW367
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 04:52:33 PM by ACW367 »

DaveReid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
    • Heathrow last 100 ADS-B arrivals
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2010, 05:05:41 PM »
Not forgetting a further warmover of the design towards the end of the programme, which produced the RJX85 (one example only) and the RJX100 (5 airframes, not all completed).
This post has been scanned for any traces of negativity, bias, sarcasm and general anti-social behaviour

ACW367

  • Guest
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2010, 05:11:59 PM »
On the C/N front there are two anomolies before and after airframe 222 changeover.  Airframe 221 SE-DSO (E3221) is a RJ1H and airframe 227 YR-BEA (E2227) is a B462.

Chris11

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2010, 05:20:41 PM »
Thanks for a very comprehensive answer

Chris11

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2010, 08:21:39 AM »
Large number of errors in the database - I might just delete them all and see what they repopulate as

ACW367

  • Guest
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2010, 02:05:50 PM »
Large number of errors in the database - I might just delete them all and see what they repopulate as

Yes the original 2 year old Navdata is about 50% out on having the correct tie-ups.  I agree it is best to delete them from the Navdata a let them repopulate from our work.

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2010, 02:18:04 PM »
Yes the original 2 year old Navdata is about 50% out on having the correct tie-ups.  I agree it is best to delete them from the Navdata a let them repopulate from our work.

The problem some of us have is that we've made lots of updates to navdata to include our own data.  For example, I've added Tornado GR4s seen on the bombing range.  And I've used GAS Populate to correct thousands of other aircraft.  If I delete everything to pick up the work you've done, then I lose the work I've done.

That brings me to a question.  Can you provide a list of the ModeS hex codes that have been updated by the database team?  We can then use that list to only delete the aircraft that will be repopulated from your work.

And another question.  In your opinion, is the GAS database more (or less) up-to-date than the work of the database team?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 02:19:47 PM by tarbat »

ACW367

  • Guest
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2010, 02:23:28 PM »
Tarbat

I am just suggesting this for the 146 where there are alot of errors in the original Navdata in releation to whether they are B46* or RJ**. 

Until Airnav fix the issue with the ICAO codes it is not recommended from us updaters to do bulk deletions of other data that you have manually changed from the original old NAVDATA.

DaveReid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
    • Heathrow last 100 ADS-B arrivals
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2010, 02:29:43 PM »
If AirNav continue to drag their feet over releasing an updated NavData.db3, then I seriously think we should prevail upon the updaters team to release their own version. 

After all, it contains the results of all their hard work, and if AirNav aren't prepared to put their stamp of approval on it that's no reason why RadarBox users shouldn't get the benefit of it.

As things stand at the moment, for anyone using RadarBox without an Internet connection and relying on the NavData, all the updaters' work has been a complete waste of time.
This post has been scanned for any traces of negativity, bias, sarcasm and general anti-social behaviour

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2010, 02:39:58 PM »
Agreed Dave.  I wonder what, if anything, is stopping someone in the updaters team releasing an extract of their work?

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2010, 07:57:04 PM »
Agreed Dave.  I wonder what, if anything, is stopping someone in the updaters team releasing an extract of their work?

What, and blow the best part of several months efforts?

We, as a team , have a pretty good, totally independant working routine to try and achieve what we set out to do.

To be fair, AirNav have left us alone to decide how and what we do. We disagree with each other, and regularly with AirNav, despite what a fair few people seem to think?

However, one thing we all have in common is a desire to try and make this work to the best of our ability.

I'm not going to debate if using a team of volunteers is the correct option, as it basically isn't - however it's where we are at the moment.

Unfortunately, we have lives outside of this task, so as I'm sure you'll all respect, we can only afford to give up the time we feel appropriate.

We're very lucky in that we have one member who almost operates 24-7 manning the "update request" thread.
The rest of us generally work away in the background, checking and improving etc, trawling production lists, other forums for info etc etc.

We're also aware of a "target" database that would be worth releasing, and at the moment, we're not there - or near for that matter - so maybe we need to gauge peoples opinions as to what is acceptable, before any new Navdata file is released?

We are also equally frustrated with some areas of our work not "getting through", and are currently banging on about this with AirNav. This is obviously the main point of contention with this thread. We've been in discussion with AirNav today, before this thread went this way, regarding this very issue, so believe me, our frustrations are just as, if not more fraught than others.

However, that said, we're not just going to suddenly throw our toys out of the pram and do what people seem to want us to do.

There's absolutely nothing stopping us "releasing an extract "of our work .We have the tools to do it, but why would we just throw it all up in the air in such a way.

Believe me (and I'm sure many won't!) , but we as a team are as near as damn it to a "user voice" to shout at AirNav on these things, and shout we certainly do!

Sometimes we feel frustrated, particularly as we have to come on here almost daily, answering on AirNav's behalf, primarily as we as a team know full well the issues of the way all this hangs (or not) together, only for no fixes or answers!

However - saying all this, we are not going to jeopardise what we are doing for the benefit of all users, just because a few people are voicing their frustrations! Everyone at the time had an equal opportunity to get involved - to be brutally honest, the silence was deafening!!

We will bat on regardless, and will bang on at AirNav regardless as well, for answers and solutions..........and I can see the responses now "but you're wasting your time" "you shouldn't be having to do this for AirNav" etc, etc, all stuff that's been heard a million times before.

I'll no doubt get slaughtered for this on here and elsewhere, but only thought it right that everyone knows where we're at.

If anyone wants to throw any questions our way, we'll do our best to honestly answer them, but please please respect what we're doing,and not compromise the position we are in. There's absolutely nothing to gain at all for anyone in that?

Thanks for reading

Regards

Rich


 

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2010, 08:03:43 PM »
At this time we are in direct contact with our Database Updaters team regarding the points above.

They are doing an excellent job: thanks to them RadarBox is still the only Virtual Radar with included database updates (both aircraft and callsign) integrated into the provided software for free. As everyone knows, with RadarBox you don't have to rely on paid/external addons to something that is already included on the main application.

After we discuss some of the suggestions above with our Updaters team we will be back with more information. They know better than anyone what is good for the users.