British Aerospace ATP (Advance Turbo Prop)
 

Did anyone fly or work on the BAE ATP? Just wondered what people’s opinion was of this aircraft. It didn’t appear to have much success in life, I believe the odd remaining few still fly as freighters in Scandinavia.

If you Search on the ATP you'll find a load of previous posts and threads on Pprune

Everyone disliked it IIRC

Try searching 'ATP' on this forum for a start!!

When I worked in BA in the late 80s/early 90s we schedued them on Internal German Services from Berlin to replace the budgies (HS748). Everyone hated them as they had a terrible availability record. The comment from Germany was "how did the the company that built the Lancaster build this?"

I did initially search ATP but nothing came up, however I will go back to the drawing board and search again!
Blackfriar - Thanks for your memories on this aircraft, it’s appreciated.

Well the Advanced Turbo Prop name was two-thirds correct. :O

https://www.pprune.org/aviation-hist...hlight=Bae+atp

https://www.pprune.org/aviation-hist...hlight=Bae+atp

Self-Loading-Bear. Thanks for the links, it’s appreciated.

Hi flybuy
l spent several years trying to keep the 'beast' serviceable for BRAL. The thinking behind the design was perfectly reasonable but the execution was a classic example of British over engineering.
The best comparison l can offer is that which was used by the instructor on my type course. He said " They took the 748 and design all the simplicity out of it". The fact that they are still going today though says something about them.

Although their company West Atlantic is from Scandinavia and the ATPs are on the Swedish register, they are based for maintenance at the Isle of Man, where there has been expertise on the type going back to its early days, and their principal node for freight work is at East Midlands, with other work across mainland Europe, but not much in Scandinavia.

When notifying noise abatement departures from runway 25 (now 24) at Farnborough, I had to build in a 'special' phrase to take into account the abysmal rate of climb of the ATP used by BAE as their twice daily 'shuttle' from Warton.
The only aircraft we got noise complaints on when carrying out 'visuals' to runway 07 (now 06) was the ATP.

I would politely refer the OP to my own sentiments about the biggest heap of unadulterated junk ever to gain certification contained in the links.

"execution was a classic example of British over engineering " ......I would politely disagree.....there was nothing over engineered regarding the fit only for Heinz cans or on a range somewhere ..or a coral reef, anywhere in fact other than flying heap

The door shoot bolts, were, I would agree, over engineered as were the control runs aft of the rear hold...now they really took some "imagination " but that was about it. However, credit where it's due. The dripsticks were quite good and so was the anti-skid unit location. That was it . Some of the "hand crafted " holes drilled at Chadderton were not so much over-engineered, but more "over circular ".

For a VERY short period with Birdseed, I was tasked with getting up to speed on the 80p as tech instructor. Spent a couple of days at Glasgow being mind-boggled by the peculiarities of the beast!. Very little detail remains, save for the fact that the ADF display was presented as a displacement bar on the PFD. That struck me as distinctly odd, given the irregular nature of the input. Visions of 'wobble-eyed' NPAs! Thankfully, the assignment was cancelled before 'going live'!

I seem to remember that it was designed to be a “quiet” turboprop. They did that by moving all the noise from the outside to the inside. 😊

We did that rather more successfully on the 146, I believe.;)

And they were slow! Had to position from GLA to MAN on a fairly windy day with a strong southerly aloft. An hour after take-off my colleagues at the front made a very nice PA but casually mentioned we were about to pass Carlisle.
Think I could have driven quicker.

AKA Advanced Technical Problem

Towards the end of my 16 years with Wastospace I flew a fair few hours in the company ATP (G-CORP)) as SLF between Farnborough and Warton circa 2000 -2001 (Up monday morning and back on thur night) and I didn't dislike flying in it too much (I always sat at the back well away from the props) - I certainly preferred it to the alternative - which was a hired in ATR (except that Titan did employ some lovely young trolley dollies https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif),if we were lucky we got the company 146.
As others have posted - they were not built for maintenance,quite usual for british aircraft designs of course - the british designers never seemed to even think of making aircraft easy to work on.

" (I always sat at the back well away from the props) "

Very wise. However, if anybody felt so inclined, they could, I suppose, work out the correlation of the vibration frequency of the horizontal stab to their meal vibrating across the seat table....that would keep you occupied when, as has been correctly stated, a headwind component was involved .

On a more serious note, we were always led to believe the stab vibration issues came close to negating certification .

I was also a regular passenger in G-CORP (and it's predecessors, and it's successors) - by regular I would suggest an average of 12 flights (6 return trips) per month between 1992 and the present. The previous Jetstream 41 was cramped and noisy (more so than the 18-seat J31 before that for reasons that weren't clear). For the 45-minute flight the ATP was perfectly acceptable in terms of noise and comfort. The BAe146s that succeeded it were even more comfortable - I'd happily own one of these as a personal runabout if I became a billionaire. But after the 2010 SDSR the 146s were replaced with Embraer 145s; aircraft which amply demonstrate why Brazil should be used as a nuclear missile test site. The 145s are really, really horrible. They are noisy, cramped and have oleos seemingly filled with granite. If you don't sit with your spine properly vertical during impact you will suffer spinal damage. They are also ridiculously tight for take-off weight (apparently because the short run from hampshire to lancashire is at the extremes of its range with reserves). Restrictions on carry-on baggage weight are so severe that many people decide to drive, because there is no point in flying north if you can't also bring your laptop and documents.

In a choice between the two I'd frankly I'd rather have the ATP than the 145.

PDR