ATR vs Dash-8

[TIMTS]

I was wondering what the thoughts are about these aircraft.

Which one is the "best" one...crew friendly, cost, range etc etc

[No_Speed_Restriction]

ATR.

Am I biassed? Yes. :E


Are you torn between which type rating to go for?

[TIMTS]

Purely out of interest

I do the rotary wing thing myself..and I see both of these fly out of the airport all the time..

[No_Speed_Restriction]

I fly the ATR at the moment but have 0 experience on the Dash so cant really comment. :confused:

[In trim]

I've worked in the ground handling / operational environment exposed to both these types.....difficult call!

If you compare the 'classic' Dash 8's then my preference is with the ATR any day. However, throw the new dash 8 variant (Q400) into the equation (although they have had reliability issues!) and the ATR starts to look quite date in terms of speed, range, etc.

I still love the ATR72 though.....despite its imperfections!




(edetid for spulling)

[Alpine Flyer]

I have not flown any ATR (not even as a passenger) but Dash 8-100, -300 and -400.

The Dash 8 is a very solid airplane with lots of backup systems. There is hardly any single malfunction that you'll find very uncomfortable to "live" with. Electric and hydraulic systems both have a lot of backups built in and the flight controls are doubled.

The -100 and -300 have decent performance and good short-field capabilities (we regularly flew to a 900m field in the Aegean sea).

Handling is OK, not very sprightly.

Given the age of the design FMS/TCAS/EGPWS integration on the -300 is not very good. We flew with UNS-1C which is a decent system (yet different from normal airline designs) but there isn't much map display except for your flight plan on the -300.

The whole flight deck isn't very modern and even the -400 has lots of switches and no "dark flight deck" as DeHavilland very faithfully kept the -300 layout to ensure a common typerating.


The -400 has lots of punch and power but the control feeling is worse due to additional springs and artificial "feel" elevator. When I flew the airplane you needed a very sensitive hand on the power levers as minimal movements would send you above/below glide on approach. (Apparently this has been somewhat corrected by changing the "throttle by wire" software.)

I fly a jet now as I had the opportunity to move up within the company, but still would give a thumbs-up to the Dash 8, especially if there is a perspective of the -400.

[flybe.com]

I have to agree with Alpine Flyer, as well as adding that the layout of the ATR (ie. baggage hold adjacent flightdeck) is much more preferable to the layout of the DHC8 (all variants) where everything and everybody (caterers, cleaners, cabin crew, engineers etc) has a job to perform right outside the flightdeck door. This means that your either locked in there until everybody disappears, or you push your way through the melee and chill out in rows 3 or 4 until it all calms down.

In terms of performance however, no other turboprop comes near the eye-opening 400. Even at MTOW (29,000kgs) you can achieve climb rates lower down of 3000-4000 fpm speeds around the 200kt mark, and achieve 'off the clock' rates with lighter loads and lowers speeds. With regard to reliablility issues, most of them have now been ironed out as the type has matured.

Had Bombardier not 'dumbed down' the 400 in order to achieve a common type rating with the 200 & 300, it could have been much much better in flightdeck ergonomic terms. In this area, in comparison with the 200 & 300, the ATR, and even the F50 win hands down.

[Fokker&Sukke]

Quit a nice topic...

...except for the fact that the Fokker50 is missing here. I believe the good old F27mk50 is getting old but can still compete with the DASH and ATR.

F&S

[fortuna76]

I fly the Dash-8 myself and have done so in the last 5 years. The previous company I was working for had both atr´s and dash-8´s. There were some guys that had flown both types and seemed more or less equily happy on either one but there are some differences offcourse.

I would have to disagree with the alpine flyer on the subject of the fms not being nice integrated in the Dash-8. The ones we fly are the last 300´s to come of the line and they were fitted immediatly with all the goodies and it seems to be a nice system.

The main thing about the dash-8 I don´t like is the air conditioning system. It was designed for the dash-8 100 in the 80´s with 37 pax. So if you fly the same system on the 300 with 52 pax...well guess we all now what happens in 38 degrees or so, not pretty. Also the design was so bad that the guy in DeHavilland who made it up was actually fired (however they did not redesign the thing).

I guess it remains a close call. But if you think about the pax, well the atr-72 can take 20 more for the same price. Nice (not considering de Dash8 400 here, for I think it is a different plane alltogether). If you go for the good looks, well the dash is not the winner of the beauty contest for sure, but it will beat the atr any day hands down, hahaha.

Greetings from a turboprop jockey.

[twenty eight]

What about the Fokker 50.

:hmm:

[nightmare]

I have flown the ATR 42 and 72, as well as the Dash 8 400. From a pilot point of view the ATR is much nicer to fly and the logic of the avionics/FGS /A/P is far superior to the DAsh 8. Also the build quality of the ATR is far better than the Dash 8.
The Dash 8 400 is faster, with a cruising TAS of 360 kts, and climb rates of 2500-3000 fpm at lower levels.
Most people i know that have flown both, prefer the ATR, but the accountants like tha Dash 8.
Hope this helps answer your quesyion