Would the BA146 be a better airplane if it had thrust reversers?

Question

I've flown in many 146's, and notice that on landing there are no thrust reversers. They have the tail speed brake instead.

Would thrust reversers make this a better plane...save on brakes etc.?

Answer 1

The 146 suffers from a major design problem that cannot be overcome by thrust reversers.  It has 4 engines.

That means it sucks gas like a hog.  While it climbs very well and is useful in mountainous areas, its overall efficiency keeps it from being more popular.

Answer 2

I was not aware that it didn't have them.  I remember when that project was on, then canceled, and then resurrected again and now it's out of production.  I found many videos of BA146 landings and you are right, it doesn't seem to have thrust reversers and instead seems to do OK with the brakes, and that air brake tail inspired no doubt by the many Fokker designs that used them.  Those things may be more effective than they appear.

.

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_B...

.

EDIT:  After further reading about the 146 it's described as a STOL aircraft so it must do fine without reversers. Apparently the spoilers play a big part in the slowing down process because one of the few accidents where the aircraft over ran the runway was when they were out of order.

.

Answer 3

From what I remember from talking to some ground school instructors in the airplane, the brakes are REALLY stout. It doesn't have reversers 'cause it doesn't really need them.