BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-85

Aircraft
Name	AVRO RJ-85
Manufacturer	BAE SYSTEMS
Body	Narrow
Wing	Fixed Wing
Position	High wing
Tail	T-tail
WTC	Medium
APC	C
Type code	L4J
Engine	Jet
Engine count	Multi
Position	Underwing mounted
Landing gear	Tricycle retractable
Mass group	4
Manufacturered as: AI(R) RJ-85 Avroliner AI(R) Avroliner (RJ-85) AVRO RJ-85 Avroliner AVRO Avroliner (RJ-85) BAE SYSTEMS Avro RJ-85 BRITISH AEROSPACE RJ-85

BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-85

Description

Short range regional airliner. Avroliner 85 signifies for 85 passengers. Successor of the BAe-146-200. Production was switched to RJ 85 in 1993. The RJ85 features an improved cabin and the more efficient LF 507's. Total of 87 aircraft were built.

Technical Data

Wing span	26.34 m86.417 ft
Length	28.55 m93.668 ft
Height	8.61 m28.248 ft
Powerplant	4 x 31.15 kN Textron Lycoming LF 507 turbofans.
Engine model	Lycoming LF507

Performance Data

Take-Off

Initial Climb (to 5000 ft)

Initial Climb (to FL150)

Initial Climb (to FL240)

MACH Climb

Cruise

Initial Descent (to FL240)

Descent (to FL100)

Descent (FL100 & below)

Approach

V2 (IAS)

125 kts

IAS

155 kts

IAS

220 kts

IAS

220 kts

MACH

0.65

TAS

420 kts

MACH

0.68

IAS

250 kts

IAS

kts

Vapp (IAS)

125 kts

Distance

1030 m

ROC

2200 ft/min

ROC

1500 ft/min

ROC

1200 ft/min

ROC

500 ft/min

MACH

0.68

ROD

800 ft/min

ROD

3000 ft/min

MCS

200 kts

Distance

1200 m

MTOW

4219042,190 kg 42.19 tonnes kg

Ceiling

FL310

ROD

ft/min

APC

C

WTC

M

Range

11001,100 nm 2,037,200 m 2,037.2 km 6,683,727.039 ft NM

Edit

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving RJ85

• RJ85 / RJ1H, London City Airport, London UK, 2008 (On 21 April 2008, an Avro RJ85 aircraft was parked on Stand 10 at London City Airport, with an Avro RJ100 parked to its left, on the adjacent Stand 11. After being repositioned by a tug, the RJ85 taxied forward and to the right, its tail contacting the tail of the RJ100 and causing minor damage to the RJ100’s right elevator.)
• RJ85 / Vehicle, Gothenburg Sweden, 2011 (On 8 September 2011, a Brussels Airlines Avro RJ85 on the take off roll at Gothenburg came close to collision with a vehicle which the subsequent investigation found had been issued with clearance to enter the same runway as a result of controller error in the context of non-essential conversation. The vehicle saw the approaching aircraft just before entering the runway and stopped just clear of the runway approximately 40 metres ahead of the point at which it became airborne.)
• RJ85, Helsinki Finland 2010 (On 12 June 2010, a requested 22R runway inspection at Helsinki in normal daylight visibility carried out after a severe engine failure during the take off roll had led an Avro RJ85 being operated by Finnish Airline Blue1 on a scheduled passenger flight to Copenhagen to reject that take off at high speed. This inspection had not detected significant debris deposited on the runway during the sudden and severe engine failure. Two passenger aircraft, one being operated by Finnair to Dubrovnik, Croatia and the other being operated by Swedish airline TUIfly Nordic to Rhodes, Greece then departed the same runway before a re-inspection disclosed the debris and it was removed. Neither of the aircraft which used the runway prior to debris removal were subsequently found to have suffered any damage but both were advised of the situation en route.)
• RJ85, en-route, north of Tampere Finland 2009 (On 17 December 2009, a Blue 1 Avro RJ85 experienced progressive fuel starvation during continued flight after the crew had failed to carry out the QRH drill for an abnormal fuel system indication caused by fuel icing. Although hindsight was able to confirm that complete fuel starvation had not been likely, a failure to recognise the risk to fuel system function arising from routine operations in very cold conditions was identified by the subsequent investigation.)
• RJ85, vicinity Medellín International (Rionegro) Colombia, 2016 (On 29 November 2016, a BAe Avro RJ85 failed to complete its night charter flight to Medellín (Rionegro) when all engines stopped due to fuel exhaustion and it crashed in mountainous terrain 10 nm from its intended destination killing almost all occupants. The Investigation noted the complete disregard by the aircraft commander of procedures essential for safe flight by knowingly departing with significantly less fuel onboard than required for the intended flight and with no apparent intention to refuel en route. It found that this situation arose in a context of a generally unsafe operation subject to inadequate regulatory oversight.)