Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
bradleybygrave
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:30 pm

British Aerospace ATP

Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:05 pm

Hi All,

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this for me. I am trying to work out when production of the British Aerospace ATP switched from Woodford to Prestwick.

My understanding is that some time in 1992 production moved to Prestwick and the ATP was subsequently relaunched as the 'Jetstream 61' in October 1992.

Does anyone know which MSN was the last built at Woodford and the first to be built at Prestwick? I assume they completely stopped at Woodford & then Re-started at Prestwick and didn't have a dual production line for a short period?

Hopefully someone can help!

Thanks, Bradley :)
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:50 am

Don’t think any were built as the Jetstream 61.
It was an idea that never took off, excuse the pun.

EDIT, I stand corrected. Apparently 4 were built to Jetstream 61 spec,
All the info you require is in here

https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/ ... tstream-61

October 92 was the last Woodford built frame. Then everything was shipped up to PIK.
 
User avatar
vfw614
Posts: 4068
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Thu Sep 30, 2021 9:39 am

The link says:

"Passenger capacity was increased from 64 to 70 seats."

How was that done?

Too bad none of the 4 Jetstream 61s entered service as they were scrapped. Don't really understand why - did BAe produce white-tails and were really unable to find takers? Or did they want to avoind long-term support for the new variant, for whatever reason.
 
MO11
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Thu Sep 30, 2021 2:59 pm

vfw614 wrote:
The link says:

"Passenger capacity was increased from 64 to 70 seats."

How was that done?


Oddly, the EASA data sheets shows the maximum seating capacity (including crew) to be 77 (regardless of serial number). In the US, the maximum was 68 passenger seats.


vfw614 wrote:
- did BAe produce white-tails and were really unable to find takers? Or did they want to avoind long-term support for the new variant, for whatever reason.


Choice #1.
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:46 pm

Also consider that the ATT72 which many consider superior, first flew 6 years prior to the J61.
In reality, BAe systems were just playing catch up with an inferior product.

However, ask any avgeek, they’ll all say flying on an ATP is more fun than flying on an ATR.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12417
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:03 pm

MO11 wrote:

vfw614 wrote:
- did BAe produce white-tails and were really unable to find takers? Or did they want to avoind long-term support for the new variant, for whatever reason.


Choice #1.

I don’t think they really actively marketed those white tails, I’m not sure they were all even fully completed.


One important piece of information is missing in this thread. In January 1995 BAe and ATR announced a JV, making the J61 completely redundant to the more successful ATR42/72 and hence it’s cancellation. I believe the JV fell apart before it even began though (or it got folded into EADS’s/Airbus’s share, things get a little confusing at this time in European aviation history)
Last edited by Polot on Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
EBT
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:04 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:35 am

Polot wrote:
MO11 wrote:

vfw614 wrote:
- did BAe produce white-tails and were really unable to find takers? Or did they want to avoind long-term support for the new variant, for whatever reason.


Choice #1.

I don’t think they really actively marketed those white tails, I’m not sure they were all even fully completed.


One important piece of information is missing in this thread. In January 1995 BAe and ATR announced a JV, making the J61 completely redundant to the more successful ATR42/72 and hence it’s cancellation. I believe the JV fell apart before it even began though (or it got folded into EADS’s/Airbus’s share, things get a little confusing at this time in European aviation history)


Aero International (Regional) was the consortium which effectively brought together the marketing of the Jetstream, Avro and ATR range of aircraft into one player. The regional aircraft market was pretty fragmented at the time, with Fairchild Dornier still kicking around, and Boeing even looking at a 70-seat spinoff based on the MD95/B717, while Bombardier had launched the Q400 series. Very different to our consolidated market now.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12417
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:30 am

EBT wrote:
Polot wrote:
MO11 wrote:



Choice #1.

I don’t think they really actively marketed those white tails, I’m not sure they were all even fully completed.


One important piece of information is missing in this thread. In January 1995 BAe and ATR announced a JV, making the J61 completely redundant to the more successful ATR42/72 and hence it’s cancellation. I believe the JV fell apart before it even began though (or it got folded into EADS’s/Airbus’s share, things get a little confusing at this time in European aviation history)


Aero International (Regional) was the consortium which effectively brought together the marketing of the Jetstream, Avro and ATR range of aircraft into one player. The regional aircraft market was pretty fragmented at the time, with Fairchild Dornier still kicking around, and Boeing even looking at a 70-seat spinoff based on the MD95/B717, while Bombardier had launched the Q400 series. Very different to our consolidated market now.

Saab was also still active at this time. I think they were considering getting them to join the JV/consortium too but never happened. Plan was to basically create a regional aircraft focused version of Airbus.
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:10 am

What exactly made the ATP/J61 inferior to the AT7. I mean, it is hard to build something inferior to an ATR on purpose, let alone by accident...

I always wondered why the ATP was not more popular. I flew on one once. Of course it was very pleasant, and I felt it was a real aircraft, not something like the ATR.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 5039
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:20 am

2063 was the last Woodford built ATP
2064 was the first Prestwick built Jetrmstream 41 G-JLXI
2065 was almost completed at PIK
2066-2067 were semi complete PIK
2068-2069 fuselages only

The design was a dog sadly, slow, underpowered, over engineered and more importantly, unreliable. ATP = Another Technical Problem.
 
b4thefall
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:28 am

Ty134A wrote:
What exactly made the ATP/J61 inferior to the AT7. I mean, it is hard to build something inferior to an ATR on purpose, let alone by accident...

I always wondered why the ATP was not more popular. I flew on one once. Of course it was very pleasant, and I felt it was a real aircraft, not something like the ATR.


I agree.I bagged 3 flights on the ATP. 3 on Manx Airlines and 1 on BA connect.

It is probably the only experience I will ever have that will come close to what it must have been like to board one of the classic propliners due to it's height off the ground and low wing.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2561
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:47 pm

Ty134A wrote:
What exactly made the ATP/J61 inferior to the AT7. I mean, it is hard to build something inferior to an ATR on purpose, let alone by accident...

I always wondered why the ATP was not more popular. I flew on one once. Of course it was very pleasant, and I felt it was a real aircraft, not something like the ATR.

How is the ATR that inferior product? It's not fast, but that's by design. It's quite rugged, has decent range and passenger comfort and obviously makes money for the airlines to like it and keep buying it.
 
highflier92660
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:50 pm

A glance into history of what might have been. The ATP was a very capable regional turboprop that was never given the chance with American Eagle. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
 
User avatar
armagnac2010
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:45 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:09 pm

What exactly made the ATP/J61 inferior to the AT7. I mean, it is hard to build something inferior to an ATR on purpose, let alone by accident...

I always wondered why the ATP was not more popular. I flew on one once. Of course it was very pleasant, and I felt it was a real aircraft, not something like the ATR.


The ATP was the Max of the turboprop - a stretch too far.

The airframe was heavy. Its systems were outdated. It was underpowered and had very slugish perfromances.

It was one of the final nails in the coffin of the defunct independent British aerospace industry. From the 80s BAe was a corporate disaster, with projects like Nimrod Jetstream 146 ATP being abysmal technical and commercial failures, one after the other.

The venture with ATR was doomed from the start - BAe was desperately seeking to divest from the regional airliners business, while the French/Italians were seeking a partner to expand it.
 
diamondchap
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:31 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:03 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:

It was one of the final nails in the coffin of the defunct independent British aerospace industry. From the 80s BAe was a corporate disaster, with projects like Nimrod Jetstream 146 ATP being abysmal technical and commercial failures, one after the other.


While I agree with your general point, the Jetstream 31 was pretty successful with almost 400 sold.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 5039
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:21 pm

diamondchap wrote:
armagnac2010 wrote:

It was one of the final nails in the coffin of the defunct independent British aerospace industry. From the 80s BAe was a corporate disaster, with projects like Nimrod Jetstream 146 ATP being abysmal technical and commercial failures, one after the other.


While I agree with your general point, the Jetstream 31 was pretty successful with almost 400 sold.

That was a Handley Page product that landed before it's time, BAe never designed and built a succesful airliner. (The 146 was Hawker Siddley)
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 6:36 pm

diamondchap wrote:
armagnac2010 wrote:

It was one of the final nails in the coffin of the defunct independent British aerospace industry. From the 80s BAe was a corporate disaster, with projects like Nimrod Jetstream 146 ATP being abysmal technical and commercial failures, one after the other.


While I agree with your general point, the Jetstream 31 was pretty successful with almost 400 sold.


Though an updated Handley Page design, it was extensively updated aside from engines. The 146/RJ series also were successful by any reasonable measure. Decent length of production and sales. It too originated from an early 70’s design from HS, however unlike the Jetstream which flew in the 60’s, the original 146 never went beyond the mock up stage.
Certainly both beat the Mercure. If we are talking corporate airliner makers, of course like BAe, Dassault had it’s other divisions to save them, plus almost unlimited government support, at least compared to BAe.
In both cases the military one, where the Hawk basically finished off the Alpha Jet by the mid 80’s in the market.

Though operated away from LHR, I never heard of any bad stuff about the ATP in BA service.
Aside from it’s lack of popularity elsewhere, personally it seems like something of a rush job, for all the comparisons with ATR, BAe, like Fokker, who both had long running and successful RR Dart twin airliners, seemed to be caught off guard by new entries from the specifically formed ATR tie up, also to a degree the Dash 8.
If you recall, while it did better than the ATP, the Fokker 50 did not sell anything like the company hoped, or were depending on, if the ATP paled in comparison with the 748, even more so with the F50 compared to the F27.

So I think, stripped of any proper context BAe are being unfairly maligned. (And if the ‘Nimrod’ is the AEW.3, you might be interested to know that early on BAe warned the Ministry of Defence that the airframe was too small for the new radar systems, suggesting a RR powered A310 version, true this was around the time they were formally re-entering Airbus).
 
skipness1E
Posts: 5039
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:12 pm

Sorry but if you never heard anything bad about the ATP with BA you were way out of the loop. The despatch reliability was off the scale poor, spares support was appaling. The crosswind performance in KOI/LSI was borderline dangerous in comparison to the HS748. Both BA and Loganair came close to rolling into the ground due wing strikes on departure.
The launch customer took three then palmed then off to sister companies sharpish. It had the most ridiculously extended nose gear so it could use airbridges which gave it the appearance of a tail dragger. Both Loganair and BA used to check in on ATC reporting aircraft type as a "Skoda". They really did. Wings West didn't even take their ordered examples.
BAe took a sound Avro design and added so many complexities to it, no engineering dept could recommend purchase!
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 9:52 pm

highflier92660 wrote:
A glance into history of what might have been. The ATP was a very capable regional turboprop that was never given the chance with American Eagle. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


It was unreliable in the extreme.

United Feeder Service (UFS) flew them out of ORD. UFS itself was part of Trans States/Hulas Kanodia's family of companies. I think that United owned the aircraft and operated them on a separate certificate from TSA.

Everyone referred to the ATPs as "Another Technical Problem." They were just the wrong airplane at the wrong time.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:44 pm

skipness1E wrote:
Sorry but if you never heard anything bad about the ATP with BA you were way out of the loop. The despatch reliability was off the scale poor, spares support was appaling. The crosswind performance in KOI/LSI was borderline dangerous in comparison to the HS748. Both BA and Loganair came close to rolling into the ground due wing strikes on departure.
The launch customer took three then palmed then off to sister companies sharpish. It had the most ridiculously extended nose gear so it could use airbridges which gave it the appearance of a tail dragger. Both Loganair and BA used to check in on ATC reporting aircraft type as a "Skoda". They really did. Wings West didn't even take their ordered examples.
BAe took a sound Avro design and added so many complexities to it, no engineering dept could recommend purchase!


If I recall BA got aircraft intended for another customer, yes as stated we were not involved, or ‘in the loop’, the same applied to the helicopter division, you did not hear of issues until something like the 1980’s BV234 crash, put it like that.
One of the main advantages BAe pushed for the ATP was the ability to use air ridges, sounds like a case of letting that idea override more basic considerations for an aircraft in that category. Probably searching for something distinctive entering the market a bit late, again like Fokker, they should have been looking at replacements/major updates for their Dart twins sooner, with BAe they clearly prioritized the BAe-146 and J31 in their civil portfolio.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:48 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
highflier92660 wrote:
A glance into history of what might have been. The ATP was a very capable regional turboprop that was never given the chance with American Eagle. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


It was unreliable in the extreme.

United Feeder Service (UFS) flew them out of ORD. UFS itself was part of Trans States/Hulas Kanodia's family of companies. I think that United owned the aircraft and operated them on a separate certificate from TSA.

Everyone referred to the ATPs as "Another Technical Problem." They were just the wrong airplane at the wrong time.

Air Wisconsin flew those particular ATP’s first for United out of ORD. UFS was much later on.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:20 am

SWADawg wrote:
Air Wisconsin flew those particular ATP’s first for United out of ORD. UFS was much later on.


Interesting.

I flew with UFS guy once and asked "Why did UFS go away?"

The answer was "well, because we sucked."
 
ZuluTime
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:23 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:14 am

The core of the British Airways ATP fleet was ordered by BA and delivered to it. One or two other aircraft (G-BRLY springs to mind) were non-BA build aircraft but were provided by BAE to British Airways to maintain the fleet strength during the post-delivery mod programme, notably to shorten the nosegear leg.

As a few others have said, the aircraft was a complete and utter dog. Heavy dry operating weight, slow cruise speed, maintenance nightmare even to get basic tasks carried out. On the earliest ones, replacing a galley hot jug required the front two rows of seats to be removed. BAE completely over-engineered an HS748 stretch and design update.
 
sk736
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:47 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:21 am

I flew on an early BA example from JER to LHR. I remember the Captain telling passengers they shouldn’t be fooled by the propellers and that we were on board a state of the art airliner!
 
Max Q
Posts: 9124
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sat Oct 02, 2021 10:22 am

GDB wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
Sorry but if you never heard anything bad about the ATP with BA you were way out of the loop. The despatch reliability was off the scale poor, spares support was appaling. The crosswind performance in KOI/LSI was borderline dangerous in comparison to the HS748. Both BA and Loganair came close to rolling into the ground due wing strikes on departure.
The launch customer took three then palmed then off to sister companies sharpish. It had the most ridiculously extended nose gear so it could use airbridges which gave it the appearance of a tail dragger. Both Loganair and BA used to check in on ATC reporting aircraft type as a "Skoda". They really did. Wings West didn't even take their ordered examples.
BAe took a sound Avro design and added so many complexities to it, no engineering dept could recommend purchase!


If I recall BA got aircraft intended for another customer, yes as stated we were not involved, or ‘in the loop’, the same applied to the helicopter division, you did not hear of issues until something like the 1980’s BV234 crash, put it like that.
One of the main advantages BAe pushed for the ATP was the ability to use air ridges, sounds like a case of letting that idea override more basic considerations for an aircraft in that category. Probably searching for something distinctive entering the market a bit late, again like Fokker, they should have been looking at replacements/major updates for their Dart twins sooner, with BAe they clearly prioritized the BAe-146 and J31 in their civil portfolio.




BP Davies, who I’m sure you know, recorded four separate podcasts in a biographical account of his flying career. If you haven’t heard them I can’t recommend them enough


He described the ATP as an ‘absolute heap’ ! unfortunately the recording was cut off in the editing process right after that statement, I’d like to have heard him elaborate



On a different aircraft he tested he disliked it so much he stated :


‘Entry to this aircraft is difficult, it should be made impossible’
 
User avatar
vfw614
Posts: 4068
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sat Oct 02, 2021 10:25 am

IIRC, it was quite a drama to find takers for the last six or so produced ATPs. Some of them were stored for five years before they could be dumped on some unsuspecting customers (British World and Sun Air). Not sure what made British World choose them for oil charter contracts (other than an extremely sweet deal) given the know issues with the type on Shetland runs (maybe Scatsca was a bit more forgiving than Lerwick?).

BTW, it appears that Sun Air operated one of the three ATPs in a 50seat layout - any idea how it looked like? Proper business layout or just very generous pitch?
 
shankly
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:25 pm

Max Q wrote:
GDB wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
Sorry but if you never heard anything bad about the ATP with BA you were way out of the loop. The despatch reliability was off the scale poor, spares support was appaling. The crosswind performance in KOI/LSI was borderline dangerous in comparison to the HS748. Both BA and Loganair came close to rolling into the ground due wing strikes on departure.
The launch customer took three then palmed then off to sister companies sharpish. It had the most ridiculously extended nose gear so it could use airbridges which gave it the appearance of a tail dragger. Both Loganair and BA used to check in on ATC reporting aircraft type as a "Skoda". They really did. Wings West didn't even take their ordered examples.
BAe took a sound Avro design and added so many complexities to it, no engineering dept could recommend purchase!


If I recall BA got aircraft intended for another customer, yes as stated we were not involved, or ‘in the loop’, the same applied to the helicopter division, you did not hear of issues until something like the 1980’s BV234 crash, put it like that.
One of the main advantages BAe pushed for the ATP was the ability to use air ridges, sounds like a case of letting that idea override more basic considerations for an aircraft in that category. Probably searching for something distinctive entering the market a bit late, again like Fokker, they should have been looking at replacements/major updates for their Dart twins sooner, with BAe they clearly prioritized the BAe-146 and J31 in their civil portfolio.




BP Davies, who I’m sure you know, recorded four separate podcasts in a biographical account of his flying career. If you haven’t heard them I can’t recommend them enough

He described the ATP as an ‘absolute heap’ ! unfortunately the recording was cut off in the editing process right after that statement, I’d like to have heard him elaborate

On a different aircraft he tested he disliked it so much he stated :

‘Entry to this aircraft is difficult, it should be made impossible’


It was DP Davies, and he retired from the CAA in 1982, four years before the ATP's first flight. I believe the comments you refer to were made about the ATP predecessor, The HS 748

The "Entry to this aircraft...." quote is often misrepresented and was first made in relation to the Blackburn Botha.....which first flew in 1938, when Mr Davies was just 18

Agree, his interviews are superb as is his classic book "Handling the Big Jets"

If anyone thinks Boeings problems are recent, his stance on refusing to initially certify the 707 and then 727 to the UK register until significant modifications were made, are oddly disturbing, when viewed against the more recent Boeing history
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:14 pm

shankly wrote:
Max Q wrote:
GDB wrote:

If I recall BA got aircraft intended for another customer, yes as stated we were not involved, or ‘in the loop’, the same applied to the helicopter division, you did not hear of issues until something like the 1980’s BV234 crash, put it like that.
One of the main advantages BAe pushed for the ATP was the ability to use air ridges, sounds like a case of letting that idea override more basic considerations for an aircraft in that category. Probably searching for something distinctive entering the market a bit late, again like Fokker, they should have been looking at replacements/major updates for their Dart twins sooner, with BAe they clearly prioritized the BAe-146 and J31 in their civil portfolio.




BP Davies, who I’m sure you know, recorded four separate podcasts in a biographical account of his flying career. If you haven’t heard them I can’t recommend them enough

He described the ATP as an ‘absolute heap’ ! unfortunately the recording was cut off in the editing process right after that statement, I’d like to have heard him elaborate

On a different aircraft he tested he disliked it so much he stated :

‘Entry to this aircraft is difficult, it should be made impossible’


It was DP Davies, and he retired from the CAA in 1982, four years before the ATP's first flight. I believe the comments you refer to were made about the ATP predecessor, The HS 748

The "Entry to this aircraft...." quote is often misrepresented and was first made in relation to the Blackburn Botha.....which first flew in 1938, when Mr Davies was just 18

Agree, his interviews are superb as is his classic book "Handling the Big Jets"

If anyone thinks Boeings problems are recent, his stance on refusing to initially certify the 707 and then 727 to the UK register until significant modifications were made, are oddly disturbing, when viewed against the more recent Boeing history[/quote

Presumably accounting for the ventral fin on BOAC's 707-436's?
 
trintocan
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 6:02 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:35 pm

I have never flown on the ATP. Of note one flew to POS in the early 1990s to be demonstrated to BWIA. The plane flew across to TAB as well. In the end BWIA did not purchase the type and continued to use the MD83s on a much-reduced domestic airbridge service (15 minute flight duration) until start-up Air Caribbean took over the route in 1993. The last time I saw one was in DUB in 2004 as it prepared to fly to IOM. It has been interesting to learn why it did not succeed in the market. I do recall the ability to use jetbridges was a major selling point - alas that was not relevant to either POS or TAB at that point (POS's 2001 terminal has them).

Trintocan.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9124
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Tue Oct 05, 2021 7:14 am

shankly wrote:
Max Q wrote:
GDB wrote:

If I recall BA got aircraft intended for another customer, yes as stated we were not involved, or ‘in the loop’, the same applied to the helicopter division, you did not hear of issues until something like the 1980’s BV234 crash, put it like that.
One of the main advantages BAe pushed for the ATP was the ability to use air ridges, sounds like a case of letting that idea override more basic considerations for an aircraft in that category. Probably searching for something distinctive entering the market a bit late, again like Fokker, they should have been looking at replacements/major updates for their Dart twins sooner, with BAe they clearly prioritized the BAe-146 and J31 in their civil portfolio.




BP Davies, who I’m sure you know, recorded four separate podcasts in a biographical account of his flying career. If you haven’t heard them I can’t recommend them enough

He described the ATP as an ‘absolute heap’ ! unfortunately the recording was cut off in the editing process right after that statement, I’d like to have heard him elaborate

On a different aircraft he tested he disliked it so much he stated :

‘Entry to this aircraft is difficult, it should be made impossible’


It was DP Davies, and he retired from the CAA in 1982, four years before the ATP's first flight. I believe the comments you refer to were made about the ATP predecessor, The HS 748

The "Entry to this aircraft...." quote is often misrepresented and was first made in relation to the Blackburn Botha.....which first flew in 1938, when Mr Davies was just 18

Agree, his interviews are superb as is his classic book "Handling the Big Jets"

If anyone thinks Boeings problems are recent, his stance on refusing to initially certify the 707 and then 727 to the UK register until significant modifications were made, are oddly disturbing, when viewed against the more recent Boeing history



You are mistaken, I’d suggest listening to Davie’s podcasts, he specifically mentioned the ATP in his criticism. His opinions were still relevant and quite valid after his retirement


The abysmal sales record of the ATP clearly backs up his opinion !
 
armadillomaster
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:14 pm

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Tue Oct 05, 2021 7:59 am

For all it's issues and problems it was a good looking aircraft. Takes me back to being a young spotter.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 6014
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:49 am

skipness1E wrote:

Wings West didn't even take their ordered examples.


In fairness, Wings West had been purchased by AMR before delivery, which did not see the need for an aircraft of that size in the role AA had in mind for Wings. Cancelling the order was part of the purchase agreement at AMR's insistence.
 
fras444
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:49 am

Re: British Aerospace ATP

Tue Oct 05, 2021 1:54 pm

Just to think that around 95/96 Mount Cook Airlines were looking at their Hs748 replacement and were looking at ATP... There was even a ATP with what would have to have been the very last "new" aircraft with the Mount Cook lily painted on the tail that did a few promotion flights around New Zealand...
Ended up going with seven new ATR-200s, end of an era under the Mount Cook Airlines titles and the Mount Cook lily as Air New Zealand "link" brought them completely under their umbrella with the new arrivals...
Fast forward 25 years and 29 ATR 72-600s later....

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