BAe ATP. What was wrong with it?

[squeaker]

I think the most damning verdict on the appearance of this aircraft was heard by a friend of mine on ATC at Aldergrove.
On giving a BA flight a conditional line up on a landing ATP, the read back he got was "Roger, after the landing Penguin, line up runway 25".

[chevvron]

Incorrect phraseology; should have been 'behind the landing penguin' not 'after'.

[rightbank]

As a result it needed to carry nose ballast when empty

I'm not sure about the cargo version with all the seats removed, but for the pax version it was tail ballast required when empty, around 500kg of it IIRC. I believe the J61 (partly?) overcame this problem by moving the toilet from the front to the rear.

Compared with it's competitor the ATR it seemed to be overweight with a corresponding reduction in payload. Anecdotal evidence but someone told me that the aircraft was originally designed for a new engine from Rolls of around 3000shp but they decided against developing it and so the best alternative was the PW126 which was in the region of 2600shp. Can anyone from RR confirm this? The J61 had PW127 which had a bit more power (100shp?).

[WHBM]

In the bad old days when this market sector was mainly a BAe748 -vs- the Fokker F27, it was high wing -vs- low wing. Low wing meant a more resilient undercarriage without overlong legs, more suitable for rough strips (hence the late life third-hand success of the 748 in Canada). High wing meant you could have bigger props and easier cabin/freight access, but more of a nuisance to maintain the engines. Fokker normally outsold the 748 by 2 to 1, some years more. Notably the two better sellers of recent years, the ATR and the Q400, are both high wing, which probably helps with ever more powerful engines and thus ever bigger props.

Closest to the ATP was the Saab 2000, which was also a bad seller, but generally seems well regarded. I took one a few months ago from London City to the Isle of Man, where it taxied in beside several rather down at heel ATPs that the sole remaining large (cargo) fleet operator of them maintains there. It was a bit of a contrast looking at the state of the two different types, built in the same year, from the terminal ...

[Herod]

BAe ATP. What was wrong with it?

In short, it wasn't an F27.

[India Four Two]

more suitable for rough strips (hence the late life third-hand success of the 748 in Canada)

My one and only 748 trip was a jump-seat ride on my company's 748 from Calgary to an ice-strip on the river in the Mackenzie Delta.

Two things stand out, apart from the ice runway. One was the loadmaster keeping an eagle eye on the forklift driver, to make sure he didn't back into the prop and the second was seeing the northern lights to the south of us on the way home.

Slightly drifting the thread further, why didn't the Dart Herald do well?

[Herod]

India Four Two: Search for the thread "Handley-Page Herald and F27" There is a lot of informed comment on there, including from some very experienced pilots who flew both.

[Krystal n chips]

" the best alternative was the PW126 "

Ah, yes, add engine oil replenishment to the aforementioned lists and original question.

[India Four Two]

Herod,

Thanks. Found it:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...age+Herald+F27

[old,not bold]

why didn't the Dart Herald do well?

Do you want the full 1,000 reasons? Thread drift apart, it's an old and well-worn story. Let's just say botched design, too heavy, dreadful performance, not even Keegan could turn it into a commercial possibility. And of course the fact that the F27 was better on every single important parameter.

And now back to the 748. I need a drink to recover from being reminded about the Herald.

[Herod]

India Four Two. On that thread there are a few comments by UK 019. A very experienced operator of both, who can give you a balanced view. (I think there are a few inputs from me as well)

[barry lloyd]

Well since my name has been mentioned in dispatches and since I confess to being responsible for selling a number of ATPs, I suppose I should say something.

We (in the sales dept.) became aware of the ATP's shortcomings as it began to enter service. Fortunately Manx, in particular, were the most adept (initially) at locating and dealing with the problems which the type suffered. The sobriquets which were attached to the aircraft have been done to death; this is not the first time the issue of the ATP has been debated on this forum and there is little more to be said. I do not disagree with many of the comments regarding its operating difficulties, but I certainly disagreed with the decision to move production to Prestwick; this had more to do with politics than practicality.

As we know, 65 were built, two were lost, which leaves 63. Of those, some are 'stored', and approximately 40 (depending on whose information you trust) are still operational. More than 30 years have passed since the first flight and if it was such a huge disaster, how come 2/3rds of them are still operating, albeit largely as freighters, but then don't many airliners end their lives as freighters anyway?

[Krystal n chips]

with the decision to move production to Prestwick; this had more to do with politics than practicality.

Must have come as a somewhat unwelcome surprise for those in that little outpost in Toulouse to find themselves relocating back from whence many came.....it was quite an idyllic little location really.

[Planemike]

Of the 65, how many were Prestwick built............???

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Planemike

Of the 65, how many were Prestwick built............???

2.5



Aircraft 2001-62 were built at Woodford. 2063 was the first Prestwick one, sold to Seoul Air (no, me neither) of Korea. BAe got it back after 6 months and it fell into secondhand usage. 2064, flown in 1994 but never managed to sell it, scrapped 1997. 2065 followed more than a year later, never even painted or interior finished, scrapped still in green condition in 1997.

That was it.

[barry lloyd]

Originally Posted by Krystal n chips

with the decision to move production to Prestwick; this had more to do with politics than practicality.

Must have come as a somewhat unwelcome surprise for those in that little outpost in Toulouse to find themselves relocating back from whence many came.....it was quite an idyllic little location really.

Indeed. Several of my ex-colleagues suffered that fate, but said they were becoming a little tired of being served cold shoulder every day.

[TCU]

Barry, what was the anticipated market of the ATP? I assume there was a business plan with a target sales projection?

[Preon]

Noah
Thanks for asking this question I travelled for many years on the ( BAR) ATP aircraft and often wondered about it's design genesis. From a pax perspective it replaced 1-11's on domestic routes so initially pure jet regulars on the MAN-GLA and BFS etc weren't very enthusiastic about 'props and vibration'.
Maybe someone could unveil it's dispatch punctuality figures that could be compared to other short haul types?

I must have travelled well into triple figures on the Belfast and Glasgow route over the years and usually sat at the rear where there seemed less noise vibration and occasionaly on the 'door- mounted' jump seat courtsey of the BAR flight crew who with the cabin crew certainly gave great customer service.
I can still remember some of their names , Fiona, Jan, Steve and Cormac many thanks you really were a lovely bunch as for the aircraft someone said earlier there are still many operational so it must have some positive points?

I once owned a Citroen 2CV which was a cold, noisy uncomfortable critter but I now look back at it now as the most fun motor I ever owned perhaps with the passage of time my feelings about the much maligned ATP have softened?
As a footnote to turbo prop design heritage maybe the Woodford Avro Museum will one day be able to add a 748 / ATP to it's collection?

[barry lloyd]

Originally Posted by TCU

Barry, what was the anticipated market of the ATP? I assume there was a business plan with a target sales projection?

Well, they expected a similar sort of take-up to the 748, based on the fact that the ATR72 was a year behind the ATP in terms of development. Knowing that Fokker were not going to develop the F50, there were many who thought that the ATP would have a clear run. The Dash 8, (for reasons which I never fully understood, but perhaps based on the relatively poor sales of the Dash 7*) was never considered as a serious competitor initially. The focus was always on the ATR.

* Has this ever been discussed on this forum?

[Harry Wayfarers]

The Dash 8, (for reasons which I never fully understood

Would it have been because the DHC8 was to be a miniature DHC7, i.e. the -7 was a 50 seater and the -8 a 36 seater, then the -8 became a 50 seater, then something like a 60 seater and it took a lot of years before it became something like a 70 seater.