Originally Posted by
barry lloyd
OK, I am going to bite on this. I get tired of every few months someone giving the ATP a good kicking. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but nor was the 747 (and many other types) when it was first rolled out. As ever when people start to complain about something, they forget or misinterpret the reasons why the problems occurred. The airframe was of course based on the 748 and intended to compete with the ATR 72. It was a similar weight to the ATR 72, and although it should have had more powerful engines, none were available at the time. Rolls-Royce were no longer interested in producing turboprops and only P&W could provide an engine which would get it airborne, albeit that it could not provide the total power the airframe needed. Coupled with this was the innovative (at the time) propeller design. The Hamilton Standard propeller supplied for the ATP had a 13'9" diameter. That supplied to the ATR 72 by the same company was 12'!!" in diameter. The ATR is of course a high-wing machine, so the ground clearance for the propellers is an entirely different story.
What was not foreseen at the design stage was that the design of the propellers brought them too close to the ground. There was a concern with the prototype, that the propeller tips were just a couple of inches from the ground and therein lay the problem, but a solution was found and applied. The aircraft was always designed to connect with air bridges and the prototype was perfectly capable of this, because the prototype was taken to Manchester and checked.
So let's have a look at the in-service performance. Airlines of Britain (BMA, Loganair and Manx) kept them flying without too many problems. SATA likewise. British Airways were able to keep them flying, too. Name me an aircraft which never fails to work when it is supposed to. I won't got into the politics of the manufacturing move to Prestwick and the re-branding into J61 - that is largely irrelevant.
KnC and condor 17 - you do the engineers at Chadderton and Woodford who designed and built the Lancaster and the Vulcan, not to mention the 748 of which 381 were built and served all over the world, a great disservice, but then having read dozens of KnC's posts, I would expect nothing less from him. He of course, to suit his purpose, completely ignores the fact of the 65 built, 30 ATPs are still flying more than 30 years later, albeit as freighters, but isn't that the fate of most older aircraft?
Now, anyone fancy giving the VFW 614 a good kicking?
Allow me to respond to the above and the post by PDR. First, my comments are based on several years hands on maintenance and then a project to reduce costs on the ATP. Secondly nobody, is disparaging other types / designers at Woodford.
The good points then. Fuel efficient, only needed about 20 ish pax to start making a profit ..correct me if I'm wrong please, the fuel drip sticks and the anti-skid in the main u/c. That's it. The aircraft came late into the market and I understand the initial deliveries to BM / BA were heavily discounted simply to get a prominent name on the tail.
In terms of maintainability however, it was labour / time intensive, even on the line, and generally poor. The O2 bottle had to be removed to be replenished, the rear doors shoot bolts froze with regular monotony, engine oil replenishment was far from simple, and the flap track gearbox motor replenishment plug was 5/16 Whit !...the galley had no ovens, only bev makers, the vibrations in flight didn't appeal to many pax and sitting at the rear you could watch the horizontal stab bouncing away. The engine. Shoe horned in to the extent I understand BM had an early engine change when a tool was dropped into the bay and couldn't be accessed to retrieve. An engine change was not a quick job not helped by the oil cooler as anybody who has changed one would testify. There were also more than a few IFSD's you will recall.
There was an extensive mod programme to embody three access panels on the right side of the nose which really should have been there originally
Please feel free to explain why, with such reliability, BAe were compelled to hold a series of "Hearts and Minds " meetings for ALL operators at Woodford ( the sandwiches were very nice I should add ) As for the build quality, a good friend was in a managerial position on the line at Woodford....you may well have known him....and his views about Chadd echoed mine.
Moving on a few years, I was engaged in a project to reduce costs across the turbo prop fleets. The 748 / J31/32 / J41 were initially put to one side when I suggested the ATP, being an orphan fleet, would be the more challenging. Enter the arcane world of Woodford procurement. I became familiar with the politics of PIK during visits to that very nice outpost at TLS as most, if not all, had come from PIK originally. Went to Billund and "Sun Air " and was fascinated to see the flaps were pristine. Notably the area under the exhaust which was more than prone to cracking and usually covered with scab patches.
There was a particular requirement for 24/7 AOG escape slides costs so we went to "British World " at Southend. They were a great bunch of hands on engineers who went out of their way to get the contract. We also went to an organisation at Stansted where the alarm bells rang at the onset. The culture was evident from the moment you entered the building, our host simply ignored me because I was an engineer and he remarked, twice " I could hold you to ransom over this " , I thought, yep, you would. Woodford procurement however were overawed by BS and slick marketing so they got the contract. British World were rejected because the airline was struggling and the facilities were basic, but very efficient. I pointed out they would be cheaper and that, being seperate to the airline, would remain solvent and could easily be sold as a "going concern " should the airline fold......which duly transpired. My forehead became sore from it's encounters with brickwalls at Woodford.
Weybridge...now there was an Aladdin's cave if ever there was one. Apart from a huge stockholding of spares, they also dealt with overhauled components and hence strip reports. Now, nobody in the offices knew I was an engineer, they thought I was procurement, so were unconcerned about me reading them. The scam, or "nice little earner" as George would say, was simple. Anything below a certain amount, pretty sure it was £5k was simply signed off by an accounts clerk. The key, as in many posts elsewhere for example, was to make the narrative plausible....so nobody would question the veracity.
Unfortunately, I don't conform to this expectation. The strip reports were classics you might say, and, funnily enough, many came from the Glasgow area. Many were memorable, but one really stood out. If anybody has ever encountered
a static inverter with an elapsed time counter inside which, strangely, showed a complete overhaul was required, please feel free to evidence this. . I also have moral principles, hence made Woodford aware.........strangely, shortly after doing so, the project was rapidly cancelled.
I am well aware that ridiculing KnC is a popular pastime for many, but, I only present facts. When it comes to the ATP therefore, I am sure by now many will have ascertained my post consists of facts and with no embellishments. Oh, and last tine I looked, there were only 18, not 30, of the heaps of junk desecrating the sky.
For the OP, here's an report on a certain nosewheel collapse you may find interesting.....
https://assets.publishing.service.go...pdf_500162.pdf