Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

Bae ATP nose landing gear

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Bae ATP nose landing gear

Old 18th Aug 2020, 07:58
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 111
Are there any pictures with a long and a short nosegear around? It seems so strange to design two different gears.
washoutt is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2020, 11:33
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by Jay Doubleyou View Post
In ATC we developed a habit of referring to ATP's as SKODA's! The habit was caught from certain aircrew who announced their aircraft type on initial contact as "Skoda of the Skies" That practice diminished after, it was rumoured, Michael Bishop announced that any Midland pilot doing so faced "instant dismissal!" Any truth in that?
No truth at all. SMB wasnít interested in aircraft, all that interested him was the bottom line. Once you understood that and made your decisions accordingly Midland was a pretty good company to work for.

YS
Yellow Sun is online now  
Old 18th Aug 2020, 17:35
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,075
Originally Posted by washoutt View Post
Are there any pictures with a long and a short nosegear around? It seems so strange to design two different gears.
Can't help with photos, but the ATP Type Certificate quotes a difference in overall height (i.e. top of the fin/rudder) of 9", which suggests around a 7" difference between the lengths of the pre-mod and post-mod NLG.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 18th Aug 2020, 18:32
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by barry lloyd View Post
KnC, you understand incorrectly that the aircraft sold to the Airlines of Britain Group were heavily discounted. I was the person who did that deal - yes I will now confess that I was on the sales team at Woodford. However, I too deal in reality and there was no major discount. What we did (reluctantly) agree to do was to take the Viscounts stored at MME in part exchange, because Mike Bishop had retired them and wanted them off the books. I cannot speak about the BA deal because I was not involved in it, however, as we both know, even the much-loved Boeing offer discounts on their products if they are trying to promote a new type.
I flew on it many times, but was never aware of any vibration above the norm for a turbo-prop. With regard to your litany of complaints about the aircraft and the support it received, I can only put the side of the story I know. I also sold the aircraft to SATA and made regular visits there, but rarely heard a complaint about the aircraft from their engineers. We did of course have a product support engineer who lived on the Azores and worked with them, as we did for all operators.
One other point which should be mentioned is competition. Before you spray your drink of choice over the screen, allow me explain. I knew a few of the salesmen in ATR and initially at least there was great concern about the ATP. Selling aircraft can be a dirty business and ATR wasted no time in looking for every opportunity they could to disparage the ATP. They didn't have to work too hard, but the story about the airbridges was a classic. In the early days of selling the 146, Air UK were told by Fokker that the sill on the 146 was too low for the airbridges at AMS. We knew they weren't - we'd already done the sums. It took us three months and the intervention of the British Embassy to get permission to use the airbridges at AMS for a trial and prove that we were right. The fact that Fokker were based at Amsterdam was purely a coincidence of course...
If you want to know more about how competitive selling aircraft is, feel free to order a copy of my book, 'Wings for Sale'.
I thoroughly enjoy threads like this. Book ordered
OpsSix is online now  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 08:06
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 111
Dave, thanks. Was there an operational need for the redesign? Prop-ground clearance perhaps?
washoutt is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 08:40
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Angular - apparently!
Posts: 641
Originally Posted by washoutt View Post
Dave, thanks. Was there an operational need for the redesign? Prop-ground clearance perhaps?
Yes. That's precisely why it took place.
barry lloyd is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 10:34
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 339
I worked with BAC Commercial from the mid 1960s and throughout the 1970s. We had great respect for the sales and marketing teams of Boeing, Douglas and .... Fokker.
oldchina is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 10:40
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,075
Originally Posted by barry lloyd View Post
Yes. That's precisely why it took place.
The mod mentioned in the TC (JDM30039B) was to shorten the nose leg, so that one wouldn't have improved the prop/ground clearance. Presumably a prior mod had lengthened it from the original design.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 11:36
  #29 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 977
Originally Posted by barry lloyd View Post
KnC, you understand incorrectly that the aircraft sold to the Airlines of Britain Group were heavily discounted. I was the person who did that deal - yes I will now confess that I was on the sales team at Woodford. However, I too deal in reality and there was no major discount. What we did (reluctantly) agree to do was to take the Viscounts stored at MME in part exchange, because Mike Bishop had retired them and wanted them off the books. I cannot speak about the BA deal because I was not involved in it, however, as we both know, even the much-loved Boeing offer discounts on their products if they are trying to promote a new type.
I flew on it many times, but was never aware of any vibration above the norm for a turbo-prop. With regard to your litany of complaints about the aircraft and the support it received, I can only put the side of the story I know. I also sold the aircraft to SATA and made regular visits there, but rarely heard a complaint about the aircraft from their engineers. We did of course have a product support engineer who lived on the Azores and worked with them, as we did for all operators.
One other point which should be mentioned is competition. Before you spray your drink of choice over the screen, allow me explain. I knew a few of the salesmen in ATR and initially at least there was great concern about the ATP. Selling aircraft can be a dirty business and ATR wasted no time in looking for every opportunity they could to disparage the ATP. They didn't have to work too hard, but the story about the airbridges was a classic. In the early days of selling the 146, Air UK were told by Fokker that the sill on the 146 was too low for the airbridges at AMS. We knew they weren't - we'd already done the sums. It took us three months and the intervention of the British Embassy to get permission to use the airbridges at AMS for a trial and prove that we were right. The fact that Fokker were based at Amsterdam was purely a coincidence of course...
If you want to know more about how competitive selling aircraft is, feel free to order a copy of my book, 'Wings for Sale'.
First, my apologies for the delay in replying.

Thank you for qualifying the deal with BM, however, I remain "open minded " as to the one with BA given the obvious marketing value of a tail / brand of the national flag carrier.

I think it would be safe to say, even if not or ever involved in sales, most of us would be aware of inducements and competitor disinformation. However, there was no need to be disparaging because the aircraft did that all by itself.

I have, strangely enough, also flown in other turboprops. I used to make a point of sitting at the rear whenever possible, unless jumpseating which was far more interesting of course, and I can assure you the vibration of the stab was "disconcerting " to watch, as was a meal tray crossing the table. Always open to being informed otherwise, I understand the vibration level caused some "concern " during certification.

I am not being disparaging for the sake of it, but, as an engineer, the maintainability and product support was, politely, abysmal. The hyds have been justifiably mentioned, now lets have a look at the belly access panels. They may have fitted, but, they were far from simple to remove and refit. Also, the location of components within the belly. Now I can't recall if it was the airframe or engine anti ice module, but one of them, replaced all too frequently, was located so far forward of the hatch you could lose an awful lot of time just trying to access it. The baggage hold...hardly spacious and even less so with all the external locks and restraints inside. The A/P..."Smiths " I believe, expensive, and had a few issues which the drivers may wish to comment on. I understand WestAir replaced this item. Gust locks...another area and I'm sure there was an incident in Scotland on take off which came close to ending the run there and then involving said locks.

Then there was the afterthought of a reinforcing external patch opposite the props due to ice ....yes, I know, this is not uncommon on props. And Loganair hold perhaps the most unenviable record for IFSD..dep Woodford on two, arr MAN on one. .

I appreciate your perspective and support for the aircraft, but, I'm hardly alone in having a factually based opinion as to the poor standard of the aircraft.

Finally, if any former "British World " engineers are reading this and recall the AOG evac slide provision requirement, all I can say is you did nothing wrong and were a credit to yourselves with the efforts you made to get the contract. Unfortunately, Woodford procurement were "impressed " with BS and pretty ./ glossy advertising. I loved your APU test rig by the way.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 13:06
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 339
If you want to know more about how competitive selling aircraft is ...

... don't believe anything anyone tells you about discounts.
oldchina is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 13:15
  #31 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 56
Posts: 6,903
Thought it was spelled "Viscounts"...?
treadigraph is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 15:08
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Angular - apparently!
Posts: 641
Originally Posted by oldchina View Post
If you want to know more about how competitive selling aircraft is ...

... don't believe anything anyone tells you about discounts.
Are you saying that I'm telling lies about the BMA deal? Anyway it's not just about discounts and that is the point I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to make. The competitor(s) will use every trick in the book to try to wrest the sale from you. In one case the competitor put the accident record of the aircraft we were trying to sell in front of the president of the airline the day before we were due to sign the contract. In my world it's difficult to have respect for people like that. KnC is entitled to his opinion, but if you were in BAC Commercial, then you would know that discounts don't always mean money per se. It can mean additional equipment or spares, a part-exchange deal, a longer contract for the product support engineer(s), the list is virtually endless. You will also be aware that not everyone wants to pay with money, so discounts are somewhat difficult to calculate when you're trying to work out how many pineapples/barrels of oil or cu. m of gas to buy in exchange for the aircraft!

Anyway, KnC has made his points and the record speaks for itself. I shall not comment further.

Dave Reid:
The mod mentioned in the TC (JDM30039B) was to shorten the nose leg, so that one wouldn't have improved the prop/ground clearance. Presumably a prior mod had lengthened it from the original design.
That's correct. I can't quote the details, because I was not directly involved, but I do remember that the prop to ground clearance was a problem in the initial design stage.

barry lloyd is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 13:01
  #33 (permalink)  
zfw
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 140
I refer my honorable gentleman to the images below, i was but merely a humble dispatcher, and the ATP was a nightmare to trim, starting index was somewhere around 64, and we can therefore see that the kitchen sink had to be loaded in the back to make this thing fly. I did the 1st Manx one when it turned up and i and my compatriot were stunned to see the loadsheet, the Captain was adamant that he was not going to go unless all the pax sat in the rear seats that they were allocated. Under no circumstances was anyone to be in the front. Also explains why BA ones carted around 200 kgs of water ballast in the rear hold all the time.
From what i remember if it had 64 pax on board and they were all male it couldnt fly. Top quaility stuff from Woodford, a brand new plane having to have water ballast in it so that it could fly. Whereas the Monarch 757 loadsheet started in the middle and loaded a 3rd front and 2/3rds in the back flew down the middle like a dream.




zfw is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 14:53
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 884
I once knew a skipper who had flown both the Viscount and ATP within a fairly small time frame. He told me the Viscount was 'beautiful...lovely to fly' and, pointing to the ATP parked on an adjacent stand, 'a bloody sight better than that thing there'.
Mooncrest is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 09:33
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: N . Daarset
Age: 67
Posts: 191
Barry Lloyd , sorry mate not doing disservice just light hearted banter , with a modicum of truth . Same as ... anywhere East of Pennines , go in late come out Early . Go in broken , come out Mended ! Anywhere West of Pennines reverse occurs !
KnC , even to a pilot a lot resonates as truth . 4 day old a/c fuel seeps from wing tank rivets ! Mmm.... say I , engineer we'll just fuel stick / wax pencil to stop it . Would you have accepted that from a new car , even in 1990 ?
Doors freezing at alt. Thus unable to open at destination , didn't Woodford know it get down to -20C in Germany , and that's on the ground . I suppose Lancs and Vulcans weren't designed to stop in the Fatherland , just drop the ballast and return . Speaking of ballast , ATP was not a clean sheet design , so yes the 1st 20 pax HAD to sit at the back , if less than 20 then ballast was carried . 10kg bags of shingle sitting around in baggage carts at ATP destinations .
ZFW , you had it right , however your example of a 757 was correct very easy to trim ..about the easiest I've flown on . 73s in their varieties could be , more imagination was needed ..
Just unfortunate tha 'PF' was 1st out of the mod program . Boss was at hearts and minds meeting when he was called to the 'fone ...'' PF is heading north up the Southern corridor , and 'Drew has just shut no. 1 down . He's declined an East German field as not ''suitable'' , so carrying on to TXL '' .

''''Built like a brick outhouse, and can’t think of anything I’d rather take into a (certainly not greater than...) max crosswind onto a short runway. Always had the confidence that I could plant it on speed exactly where I wanted in the worst conditions without breaking it. someone at Avro did something right.

you should never go back for another go though. It wouldn’t be the same.''''

Timesread84, fully concur . And way up North max was 'wot you were comfortable with .'' so the boss said '' .

rgds condor .
condor17 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.