What if: Fokker had not developed the F50.

Yes because if they didn’t develop the F50, they wouldn’t have built a notable commercial plane for over 5 years. That doesn’t make sense.

So it seem the Fokker 50 was a good choice.

I also think it was a good choice. It’s just because Fokker was in trouble that airlines went to other companies to ensure delivery. The government messed up.

The F70 and the F100 had identical cockpits. Having said that, the F70 was available with two kinds of cockpit. The one that was identical to the F100 and another cockpit that was simplified to cater for the airlines flying to crummy airports. For instance the auto-land was less sophisticated on the simple F70.

Also, although the cockpit layout of the F70 is identical to that of the F100, some software changes had been made which made the F70 better. It was planned to introduce the same changes on the F100, but the bankruptcy prevented this. I believe Stork/Fokker (the left-overs of Fokker) offers it as a conversion but am not sure of this.

At the time the Fokkers where reasonably priced, regrettably the US Dollar was not. Therefore Fokker lost a lot of money, as was mentioned by Rekkof2004 this was one of the many factors leading to their demise.

Austrian has not only expressed an interest, but has actually decided to take a few F100s from AA. Not sure of the number but the first one(s) will be delivered not too long from now. Forgot the dates though.

The reason that the F100 is as succesful now as it is, is purely because it is dirt cheap. You can buy a F100 for the same price as a B732 I’ve been told. I probably do not have to tell you why the F100 is much preferred over the B732.

From what I have heard the F70 nowadays are not much cheaper than a new F70 back when Fokker was alive. The F70 is a really good plane that even today stands out. One of the reasons for that is no doubt the small production run. Only 64 where made (including protos) and 20 of them are now in the hands of KLM Cityhopper. And they seem to be adding more of them evey year!

The F50/F60 is completely different from the F70/F100. Comparing them would be useless.

Heres a great website
http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/

I dont think that if they hadnt built it they would still be there.How much did it cost them and did they sell enough of them for it to be succesful.Fokker aircraft to the best of my knowledge had a quiet period but look at them know they are in great demand with a number of airlines who never operated them taking them into their fleets likes Jetsgo in Canada.Austrian has also expressed interest in the Fokker 100.Maybe they were to expensive to purchase when thet were first rolled out but the second hand fokker market is doing quiet well.Do the Fokker 70 and Fokker 100 have similar cockpit and how different was the F50 to operate apart from being a turboprop?

Different airlines require different planes. The ATR is a great plane, but when it comes down to using unprepared runways the Fokker will win all the time. Similarly the ATR was less quiet and indeed economical at the time. You have to bear in mind that the new ‘500 series was not available then.

To say the Fokker is not economical is silly. Plenty of airlines use it and are happy with it. KLM Cityhopper and VLM for instance.

Also comparing the costs for the planes you mentioned by Shamrock is not that usefull. Comparing the F50 with the ATR and Dash 8 I can understand. But to add the D228, E120 and even the 737NG and A320 is stretching it a bit. They are in a completely different market and it does not take a genius to figure that out. The size, the range, they are all very different.

But that still does not answer my question whether it was a wise decision to develop the F50/60 or if Fokker should have gone with the jetline only. Personally I have my doubts about it. It is a great plane but perhaps too little too late (the original F27 lasted for god knows how long with only an occaisional stretch and minor updates on the avionics) and at too high a price for Fokker.

Err, FIND THE WORD PERFORMANCE in the dicitonnary. It has not much to do with profitability. By the way you give us Airline 5 information which is unrealistic.
Performance is speed, take off length, acceleration, crew flexibility on the type and airport compatability. These are just examples.
The difference between those types are very alike. If one type would be that good, every airline would buy that. Airlines seriously consider in purchasing one type and will take the one that suits them the best, or the one whom manufacturer conveinced them the best.

When I say at operating turboprops I was referring to airlines who hadnt operated them before.Sorry for all the spelling mistakes in that post.I say this is turning into a healthy debate isnt it.

No im not starting a war.I undertstand what you are saying about moving to a new similar product but how many airlines wanted to move from one to the other and how may airlines were looking at the time at operating Turboprops.When you look at it a new airline back in the late 80s who wanted to operate a turboprop would have been more drawn to the ATR becauses it cheaper.Maybe Im a bit modern going mad with cost cutting.operating cheap aircraft etc.I wasnt interedted in aviation then so I dont know what state it was in and if airlines were as tight with cash as they are now.

So? the DH Dash 8-300 sells well, but isn’t as efficient as the ATR!

Ok let me make another brillaint contribution to this wonderful forum.
Heres some data I found.
Fokker 50
Speed=520kph
Range=2055km
Fuel per KM=1.8
Max Seating 58
Flight deck crew=2
Cabin crew=2
Fron that data I estimate that if the aircraft is operating with a full load it costs each passenger $0.31 per KM travelled which is not too good when you look at the likes of the 738 and A320 which cost about $0.26 per KM but there is a huge difference in the year introduced

ATR 42
Speed=515kph
Range 2810KM
Fuel per KM 1.4
Max seating=50
Flight deck crew=2
Cabin crew=1
From that I estimate the ATR 42 costs a passenger $0.28 per KM slighty cheaper than the Fokker 50.Over a distance of say 300KM to break even a airline operating the Fokker 50 would have to charge $9.30 airline operating the ATR42 would have to charge $8.4us the ATR requires one less member of cabin crew.There alot of information there but over all the ATR has longer range require less cabin crew and is cheaper to operate per KM.What has this got to do with the fall of Fokker well the more ecomical ATR 42 was launched 1 year before the Fokker 50 so ATR had a good aircraft avialable before the Fokker 50.
To operate other turboprops at a distance of 300KM the costs come out as follows per passenger for the airline to break even.
Embraer120=$24
DO-228=$9.30
DHC-8-300=$9.80
So as you can see the Fokker 50 didnt perfrom better than its competiors launched around the same time it was close to a few of them but alot of the time the rest were more economical.

It wasnt a stupid post.In my opinion it is ugly not half as attractive as some of the turboprops flying around now.Fokker always made very strong cheap economic planes to fly.The Fokker 100 is miles ahead of the NG737 and A320 family of aircraft in terms of cost but the Fokker 50 just wasnt attractive.I used to see them alot here in Dublin when EI operated them but they wanted an all jet fleet.Dont get me wrong In love Fokker planes just not the 50.Sorry

HI
One of the reasons that FOKKER AIRCRAFT BV went bankrupt was because of the low $
they had about 100 Aircraft on order when they went

Regards Peter

So I didn’t misunderstand.
That was a very wrong post there. Think twice next time you post such a silly response!
Looking at performance, the F50 is great, better than the ATR 42 and all it’s competitors. It’s a great aircraft. Comfortable.

It was stuck together with glue.It was just plain ugly nothing compared to the F70 or the F100.

…using a procedure very similar to that of the DH Mosquito. That plane that every seems to love around the history forum (and for good reason).

It was stuck together with glue.It was just plain ugly nothing compared to the F70 or the F100.

Oh come on Shamrock, its looks had nothing to do with whether it was successful or not, you say it was nothing compared to a F70/100. Yeah thats because they were jet powered. As Jeanske said, grow up, and let this thread develop into a healthy debate, which was started by a very good post.

What’s that supposed to mean? Grow up! 😡 Or do I misunderstand? Sorry then.

It was stuck together with glue.It was just plain ugly nothing compared to the F70 or the F100.

Many airlines, like DAT Sabena, may have purchased F70/100’s if Fokker weren’t in trouble. If those airlines would have purchased them, Fokker probably survived.
I think the F50 was a good move, so were the pther jets. I wonder why actually Fokker got into trouble. Was interest in their aircraft so low then???
The Dutch government made a terrible mistake. If they would have invested, Fokker would be a strong company now.