D328
Topic Author
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:50 am

British Aerospace ATP/J61

Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:18 am

Been googling this t-prop a bit. I was wondering why Air Wisconsin was so quick to get rid of this airplane(3 years)? Has anyone flown on one? Why and how did the ATR-72 take out the ATP/J61?
 
Viper777
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2000 5:56 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:48 am

I flew on a British World one in 1998 from SEN on a sight-seeing excursion over London. It was a very enjoyable flight I recall!
A300, A319, A320, A321, A340, A380, 727, 732, 733, 734, 735, 738, 739, 741, 742, 744, 752, 753, 762, 772, 773, 789, DC-3, DC-10, MD-81, MD-83, DHC2, CRJ, Q300, Q400, ERJ-190, ATP, RJ70, RJ100, F28, F100, S340, AT4, AT7, Rapide, G73T, PA28, C172, Twin Bee.
 
b4thefall
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:29 am

I can't answer your question, but I was lucky enough to bag 2 flights on the ATP. 1 with Manx and 1 with BA. Loved both flights! Due to the low wings, big engines, and tall gear, it was undoubtedly the closest I'll ever get to knowing what it felt like boarding one of the great prop-liners of the past. Boarding a Q400/ATR just doesn't feel the same. They sure had their detractors, and the sales figures speak for themselves , but as a passenger, I loved them!
 
Zimzam
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:38 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:32 am

When I started working as a ramp dispatcher at MAN 30 years ago the ATP was being used by BA, Loganair, and Manx. We called it The Flying Skoda because it was always going tech (Skoda wasn't the reliable brand that it is today!).
Even though it's stance looked tail heavy it was actually very nose heavy, and could be difficult to trim. They carried barrels of water ballast in the rear hold most of the time, and it was always embarrassing to have to explain to passengers (on flights that weren't busy) why they were all bunched together at the back of the plane whilst there were rows of vacant seats at the front.
It was also really noisy to fly on as a passenger, and during the approach the cabin became louder and louder as the prop pitch changed and the aircraft slowed. It could be quite alarming and was never relaxing.
But the upside was that they were really economical, using very little fuel compared to other domestic/regional aircraft at the time.
 
D328
Topic Author
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:50 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:06 am

I'm a prop fan. I'll never get to get on the ATP.. Thank you all for replies.. I've gone out of my way to get on the D328, Saab 2000, and the J41.. First non rev flight was on a B1900d PIT-FKL-PIT. Love props..
 
by738
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 7:59 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:27 am

I was on a Manx ATP at one point. The noise was deafening.
Did I read somewhere the extended high nose gear was to allow airbridge boarding?
 
djb77
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:29 am

Ah, the ATP, one of my all-time fave aircraft and most regularly frequented between 1992 and 1998. I flew on them many a time with British Airways:

    Aberdeen (ABZ) <> Sumburgh (LSI)
      ABZ <> Birmingham (BHX)
        Glasgow (GLA) <> (BHX) service that was a continuation to Frankfurt, we switched to a 737-200 in BHX. (I always tried to get 06A on this flight as 06A was on the emergency exit row on the ATP and it was also the first row of economy on the FRA leg, meaning that one had only two seats in a row (06B on the 732 was half a Club seat) - as the BA5160 service was a through-service, one only received one boarding pass for both legs of the same journey. Full hot breakfast offered from GLA>BHX, lunch on BHX>FRA, those were the days!)
          Edinburgh (EDI) <> Manchester (MAN) service that was also a continuation to Frankfurt, switching to a 737-300 or 737-400 in MAN.

          If I remember correctly, the aircraft was very loud irrespective of where one sat, it was fractionally quieter if you were sitting right at the back, and yes, if the flight wasn't full, we were moved around for load and balance reasons. For a turboprop, I always thought it was "sporty", and seemed to climb well. If one was sat further back of the aircraft, it really tended to swing on take-off, something I have only really noticed to the same extent on the A320, it must be to do with the wings being relatively far forward, in relation to the total length of the aircraft). At the time, the ATP seemed a quantum leap head of the Hawker-Siddley 748 (which it replaced in BA's fleet) in terms of technology and comfort but I do remember lots of reliability and operational problems, particularly when operating to Sumburgh in the winter. I seem to think that on approach at low speed but in high side-winds, the ATP wasn't nearly as stable as the 748 was.
           
          skipness1E
          Posts: 4465
          Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:36 am

          The aircraft was massively over engineered, had Andover parts and the initial tranche sat with their nose in the air needlessly as it turns out jetbridges could be lowered to meet then after all. Known as the “80p” as it was worthless or “Skoda” or “BAT plane”’on ATC due the three letter code on the flight plan was BAT. BA bought a few but they were hellishly unreliable in comparison to the older HS748s they replaced. The relaunch as the Jetstream 61 sold exactly none and the project was buried with 63 ATPs build at Woodford and a single J61 assembled and flown at PIK. When BAe’s tie up with ATR was proposed, there was no room for the ATP, and so the program was closed, that and no one serious ever bought any after the BA debacle. The remainder of the Airlines of Britian fleet toured round MANX and Loganair and even back to Midland before end of days flying in BA colours.
          Good riddance to a shocking design, the Fokker 50 and ATR outsold it by many times.
           
          oldannyboy
          Posts: 2316
          Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:54 am

          I always loved the 'big aircraft' stance that the ATP had. It looked beautiful in Manx and BA landor colours! I always thought it looked so much more "grown up" than the high wing ATR.
          I am surprised to read that the cabin was very noisy -- I thought BAe at the time were using the word 'passenger comfort' an awful lot when marketing the ATP....?
          So, how exactly did it measure against the old HS748 with the whiny high-pitched RR Darts?? Was that actually quieter inside than the ATP??
           
          User avatar
          JannEejit
          Posts: 1292
          Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:47 am

          I flew on it several times, mainly Glasgow to Stornoway and Belfast City too. I can't honestly recall it being excessively noisy, yes not quite up to the competition but a uniquely British piece of aviation that sadly never quite cut the mustard for various reasons. Funnily enough I took a visit to Prestwick last week and their solitary J61 fuselage is still lying out in the open near the new Bristow SAR hangar, fully exposed to the elements. It can be seen here beyond the RAF Hawk...

          Image
           
          Max Q
          Posts: 7545
          Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:26 am

          Is anyone still flying them ?


          I seem to recall some were converted to freighters and used in Europe
          The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


          Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
           
          Bobloblaw
          Posts: 2406
          Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:50 am

          All these posts and no one answered the OP question. Just a bunch of reminiscing by brits.

          United Express never had ATRs so they werent done in by them. It was more likely the CRJ that replaced the ATP. Most ATP segments from ORD were rather short under one hour. I think with 64 seats the plane was quite fuel efficient per seat but it was slow. ZW must have gotten a good deal on them in the early 1990s.
           
          User avatar
          GCT64
          Posts: 1706
          Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:56 am

          Max Q wrote:
          Is anyone still flying them ?
          I seem to recall some were converted to freighters and used in Europe


          West Atlantic are still using 15-20 ATPs (not sure of the exact number) as freighters.
          There might also be a couple active in Kenya and a couple more in Indonesia.
          Flown in: A21N,A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,(..55 more types..),VC10,WESX
           
          skipness1E
          Posts: 4465
          Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:56 am

          The last passenger operator collapsed last year, they were Scandinavian from memory so only freighters from now.
          The fact that there was more aircraft in an ATP than an ATR also helps to account for the sales differential. I remember seeing a line up at EDI one day of ATR72, ATP and Fokker 50 and you could see the ATP was just too much aircraft.
          The British Aircraft industry was dead and buried for a reason. Only 54 VC10s built in 8 years, 10 Concordes over around 8 years, 63 ATPs in 8 years. Ouch.
          The world class design myth perpetuates but we couldn’t sell the product to market in good numbers
           
          emiratesdriver
          Posts: 263
          Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:04 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:56 am

          skipness1E wrote:
          The aircraft was massively over engineered, had Andover parts and the initial tranche sat with their nose in the air needlessly as it turns out jetbridges could be lowered to meet then after all. Known as the “80p” as it was worthless or “Skoda” or “BAT plane”’on ATC due the three letter code on the flight plan was BAT. BA bought a few but they were hellishly unreliable in comparison to the older HS748s they replaced. The relaunch as the Jetstream 61 sold exactly none and the project was buried with 63 ATPs build at Woodford and a single J61 assembled and flown at PIK. When BAe’s tie up with ATR was proposed, there was no room for the ATP, and so the program was closed, that and no one serious ever bought any after the BA debacle. The remainder of the Airlines of Britian fleet toured round MANX and Loganair and even back to Midland before end of days flying in BA colours.
          Good riddance to a shocking design, the Fokker 50 and ATR outsold it by many times.


          The first civvy pax Aircraft I flew after leaving the mob, ATP = Advanced Technical Problem.
           
          f4f3a
          Posts: 527
          Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:06 am

          It’s a shame it didn’t succeed . Wasn’t it a replacement for the 748 which was a success?
           
          User avatar
          Ty134A
          Posts: 496
          Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:09 pm

          I only for the ATP made a trip to Sweden. So I flew on one... Since I am used to acft changes of exactly those planes I want to go on, I booked three legs on the ATP with NextJet... And ended up with one cancelled flight, one Saab 340 and at least one flight on the ATP.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDh8fUQy1k&

          NextJet at the time had onle three operational frames left, all of them were a bit different cabin wise, since they came from different operators. I would say that they vompare a bit to the AT7, the old ones, not the 5 bladed ones, from a cabin noise point of view. I felt very comfortable on them, of course I am a nerd and feel very well on AN4s as well. I dislike DH4s and ATRs. The ATP to a non enthusiast felt very old already and didn't have a great standing with the crews I talked to. Working on them, they said, was great, but pax usually complained about the acft more than about the SF3s. It more or less is an old gen prop with a big galley and still some focus on pax comfort.

          I always enjoy the details on those exotic planes, and the ATP hat to offer a lot of this. My flight was from ARN to Örnsköldsvik. Since I flew with pretty much everything that has wings, I like to point out that the loss of the ATP is a big one to the community. Unfortunately, flying the IL-114 does not compare a bit to the ATP.

          I also workd on a few ATP freighters as a load master, but that is another story...
          flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,
          AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,77W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,
          142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH...
           
          User avatar
          knope2001
          Posts: 2919
          Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:39 pm

          D328 wrote:
          Been googling this t-prop a bit. I was wondering why Air Wisconsin was so quick to get rid of this airplane(3 years)? Has anyone flown on one? Why and how did the ATR-72 take out the ATP/J61?


          They were only with Air Wisconsin a few years because United split the airline up. UAL bought Air Wisconsin a few years earlier and in 1993 or so they split up and sold them. The 146's stayed "Air Wisconsin" and that entity was bought by holding company CJT Holdings, who I think is still their parent today. The ATP's division was split off and sold as United Feeder Service to Trans States (or whatever their company/parent was called at the time.) UFS flew the ATP until about 99 or '00 if I recall correctly. This is all from memory so there may be slight variation but this is essentially it.

          So the ATP's did stay in service 10+-ish years under United Express. I don't personally recall any strong feedback on them being particular underperformers, hangar queens, etc. but even if they were great performers by the late 90's props were rapidly falling out of favor in the US. Even if the ATP did well, invariably small/orphan fleets are increasingly difficult and costly to support as time passes. Given the situation I don't think the ATP run with UA* was too bad, though I wouldn't mind seeing one again for old time's sake.
           
          User avatar
          northstardc4m
          Posts: 3228
          Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:39 pm

          f4f3a wrote:
          It’s a shame it didn’t succeed . Wasn’t it a replacement for the 748 which was a success?


          Not a replacement, it was evolved from the HS748, but was larger overall so not really a good replacement.
          Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
           
          oldannyboy
          Posts: 2316
          Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:50 pm

          Ty134A wrote:
          I only for the ATP made a trip to Sweden. So I flew on one... Since I am used to acft changes of exactly those planes I want to go on, I booked three legs on the ATP with NextJet... And ended up with one cancelled flight, one Saab 340 and at least one flight on the ATP.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDh8fUQy1k&

          NextJet at the time had onle three operational frames left, all of them were a bit different cabin wise, since they came from different operators. I would say that they vompare a bit to the AT7, the old ones, not the 5 bladed ones, from a cabin noise point of view. I felt very comfortable on them, of course I am a nerd and feel very well on AN4s as well. I dislike DH4s and ATRs. The ATP to a non enthusiast felt very old already and didn't have a great standing with the crews I talked to. Working on them, they said, was great, but pax usually complained about the acft more than about the SF3s. It more or less is an old gen prop with a big galley and still some focus on pax comfort.

          I always enjoy the details on those exotic planes, and the ATP hat to offer a lot of this. My flight was from ARN to Örnsköldsvik. Since I flew with pretty much everything that has wings, I like to point out that the loss of the ATP is a big one to the community. Unfortunately, flying the IL-114 does not compare a bit to the ATP.

          I also workd on a few ATP freighters as a load master, but that is another story...

          Thanks for your contributions -- they are invariably among the very best of the best!
          Great video: I somehow do not find it that noisy? Seems better than a standard -340, no? and certainly better than the DH8 or the HS748??
           
          User avatar
          SheikhDjibouti
          Posts: 1716
          Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:47 pm

          northstardc4m wrote:
          f4f3a wrote:
          It’s a shame it didn’t succeed . Wasn’t it a replacement for the 748 which was a success?

          Not a replacement, it was evolved from the HS748, but was larger overall so not really a good replacement.

          Yes, a replacement.
          (unless you really want to quibble over an 8.7% increase in MTOW, and 64 pax instead of 58) :roll:

          As regards noise; if there is anybody on this planet who considers a pair of PW126s to be even close to the ear-splitting noise of a brace of RR Darts, I give up.

          If the interior noise levels were comparable it could only be down to the old 748s being layered with Axminster carpets and heavy chintz curtains. :lol:

          (I confess my memories may be a bit vague on account of it was a very long time ago when I crossed the channel in a HS748 run by the world's first low cost airline....) :o
          Nothing to see here; move along please.
           
          User avatar
          northstardc4m
          Posts: 3228
          Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:44 pm

          SheikhDjibouti wrote:
          northstardc4m wrote:
          f4f3a wrote:
          It’s a shame it didn’t succeed . Wasn’t it a replacement for the 748 which was a success?

          Not a replacement, it was evolved from the HS748, but was larger overall so not really a good replacement.

          Yes, a replacement.
          (unless you really want to quibble over an 8.7% increase in MTOW, and 64 pax instead of 58) :roll:

          As regards noise; if there is anybody on this planet who considers a pair of PW126s to be even close to the ear-splitting noise of a brace of RR Darts, I give up.

          If the interior noise levels were comparable it could only be down to the old 748s being layered with Axminster carpets and heavy chintz curtains. :lol:

          (I confess my memories may be a bit vague on account of it was a very long time ago when I crossed the channel in a HS748 run by the world's first low cost airline....) :o


          Config to config it's more 70 vs 58 or 64 vs 44/48... running a HS748 with 58 passengers requires that the forward baggage hold be small and no galley and was very rare. Most airlines ran either a 44 or 48 seat configuration with the full baggage hold forward. Similar config for the ATP with a small forward hold would give the full 70 seat capacity certified on the Jetstream 61.

          The ATP used a lighter wing to bring it's MTOW down a bit, but it is longer than a 748 by a good margin 85' vs 67' and sits higher... very few airlines looked at it as a 748 replacement and BAe didn't really market it as such (they went after the Viscount, BAC 1-11 and YS-11 replacement market a bit more in literature, mostly though it seems they wanted to crack new ground with it in the same market as the ATR72).

          So no, I wouldn't call it a replacement.

          As for noise, I've only experienced 2 flights on 748s both with 40 seat configs and full cargo combi sections forward with bulkheads, they are pretty much on a par with Dash 8-100/300s or ATRs IMHO... bit slower sure but the ride a bit smoother as well from my experiences. Never flew on an ATP so cannot compare them.

          Outside nothing beats 2 Darts at full throttle except 2 Darts at idle :P
          Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
           
          User avatar
          SheikhDjibouti
          Posts: 1716
          Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:44 pm

          northstardc4m wrote:
          Config to config it's more 70 vs 58 or 64 vs 44/48... running a HS748 with 58 passengers requires that the forward baggage hold be small and no galley and was very rare. Most airlines ran either a 44 or 48 seat configuration with the full baggage hold forward. Similar config for the ATP with a small forward hold would give the full 70 seat capacity certified on the Jetstream 61.

          Okay, you got me! :lol:

          Outside nothing beats 2 Darts at full throttle except 2 Darts at idle :P

          Are you sure that shouldn't be "nothing beats 2 Darts at full throttle.... except 4 Darts at idle"?

          And here are those four Darts, on a Viscount most probably crossing the threshold of 28R, although I can think of two good reasons why they definitely had not just flown in from Miami Beach, B.O.A.C....." :shakehead:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS5_EQgbuLc
          (This 2018 re-mix seems to have muted the original engine sound. :cry: )

          Nothing to see here; move along please.
           
          User avatar
          Ty134A
          Posts: 496
          Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:08 pm

          oldannyboy wrote:
          Ty134A wrote:
          I only for the ATP made a trip to Sweden. So I flew on one... Since I am used to acft changes of exactly those planes I want to go on, I booked three legs on the ATP with NextJet... And ended up with one cancelled flight, one Saab 340 and at least one flight on the ATP.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDh8fUQy1k&

          NextJet at the time had onle three operational frames left, all of them were a bit different cabin wise, since they came from different operators. I would say that they vompare a bit to the AT7, the old ones, not the 5 bladed ones, from a cabin noise point of view. I felt very comfortable on them, of course I am a nerd and feel very well on AN4s as well. I dislike DH4s and ATRs. The ATP to a non enthusiast felt very old already and didn't have a great standing with the crews I talked to. Working on them, they said, was great, but pax usually complained about the acft more than about the SF3s. It more or less is an old gen prop with a big galley and still some focus on pax comfort.

          I always enjoy the details on those exotic planes, and the ATP hat to offer a lot of this. My flight was from ARN to Örnsköldsvik. Since I flew with pretty much everything that has wings, I like to point out that the loss of the ATP is a big one to the community. Unfortunately, flying the IL-114 does not compare a bit to the ATP.

          I also workd on a few ATP freighters as a load master, but that is another story...

          Thanks for your contributions -- they are invariably among the very best of the best!
          Great video: I somehow do not find it that noisy? Seems better than a standard -340, no? and certainly better than the DH8 or the HS748??


          noise is such a thing... i have a feeling it is highly individual and of course non of us enthusiasts can interpret noise correctly. to me sound of props is just a side note. they all sound a bit the same. saab 2000s are different, AN-140s are a lot different, AN-24s are a bit different during taxi... ATP is just like an ATR or DH8 to me, a bit like the SAAB 340s and the J32s as well (volume wise). frequency is a different story. they make this "washing" sound, bearable and nothing annoying, such as the humming noise the navigation computer of the IL-114 makes (forward rows) or the acoustic madness of the AN-140 (that one is HELL!!!).

          what makes a plane attractive to me, and the ATP is very attractive, is a unique appearance. first there is the forward boarding of the high situated cabin. then you feel adequate space in it. additionally there is a certain airliner feel to it (for me), and a whole lot of things from better days of flying. i very much enjoyed the aft galley as well as the forward one. and all those unique pictograms... and to me very important: the smell. i always loved the certain smell of russian aircraft, they all have THIS smell... you know it if you've smelled it once (by the way, nobody even in russia knows where it is from, not the crews, nor maintenance, it is just there, always was, always will). ATP had the same kind of smell the early BAe's had (162). I love that very much. other than that it was a very normal flying experience, with a wonderful, friendly and open crew, that very much shared the love for this prop as i did.

          i would put the ATP into a league with Fokker 50 and maybe old ATRs, and well, IL-114. for me it would have been bad to have missed it.

          if you seek noise, one of those is left in ukraine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiDg042U74c this very aircraft with it's pilots (same ones) crashed a few days later. https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20140810-0
          flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,
          AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,77W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,
          142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH...
           
          opticalilyushin
          Posts: 676
          Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:00 pm

          I flew the ATP, IL-114 and HS-748 many times, and in my opinion the first and last were very noisy, but the -114 seemed very quiet when sat behind the wing. The HS-748 was special though, the sound of the engines!!
           
          User avatar
          usxguy
          Posts: 1697
          Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

          Re: British Aerospace ATP/J61

          Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:26 pm

          Air Wisconsin had a great relationship with British Aerospace, as I believe they were the launch customer for the 146. ZW was even able to convince United management to relax the scope with the pilots union and allow them to fly 5 100 passenger (sounds like a dream now) - 300s; the carrot dangled was Aspen.

          The ATP was to help compete with American Eagle's growing ORD presence and I think they only got 10. As someone mentioned, UA/ZW flew them to MSN, CWA, MKE, GRB, AWO, SBN, PIA, MLI, FWA for the most part. When UA split up ZW, Trans States (operation named United Feeder Service/UFS) got them and kept them pretty much on that network, less MLI (that was all 146's and an occasional 737-500). When they'd fly, they did quite well until winter time. UFS had a few engine out problems, including one flight to CWA where *BOTH* engines flamed out. United/UFS started to phase things out once ACA got their CRJ 200s and started ORD service (AVP & SGF were the first markets, I believe). They were in fact maintenance queens towards the end, with UFS only flying 7 lines with 1 spare and 2 in the hanger in FWA. But they were flown short & hard, doing 6 to 8 trips a day ORD/SBN, ORD/FWA, 5 a day ORD/PIA, and then a mishmash with the other markets.

          Here's a video found on YouTube of the UFS ATP ops:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRJJYCxvOQw
          xx

          Popular Searches On Airliners.net

          Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

          Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

          Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

          Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

          Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

          Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

          Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

          Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

          Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

          Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

          Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

          Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

          Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

          Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

          Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos