ATR vs Dash 8
Those ATR's with full EFIS flightdeck would be nice to see... but if my memory serves me right, A310 has CRT EADI and EHSI, flanked by EM circular ASI, ALT, RMI and VSI and that's exactly what we have on ATRs since the first one took off from TLS. Now as 3yr ATR f/o I've always envied Dash8 drivers for their APU. And if some guy can confirm that dash's loo can be used on the ground, engines stopped, I'll just go green with envy...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandestino, I can indeed confirm that the Dash8 loos can be used on the ground with APU or GPU on - that's usually where the CPT can be found on turnaround...
The Dash, while it has excellent performance (very close to some RJs), still has reliability issues - they do go tech quite often. While I don't work on ATRs, those that I see on turnarounds here don't ever seem to go tech (but I'm sure it must happen every now and then).
The Dash8Q-400, as has been said, can be quite tricky to trim properly with the tail compartment empty and/or a light PAX load (even using compartment 5 by the front galley), so sometimes we may have to put on ballast.
Cheers
The Dash, while it has excellent performance (very close to some RJs), still has reliability issues - they do go tech quite often. While I don't work on ATRs, those that I see on turnarounds here don't ever seem to go tech (but I'm sure it must happen every now and then).
The Dash8Q-400, as has been said, can be quite tricky to trim properly with the tail compartment empty and/or a light PAX load (even using compartment 5 by the front galley), so sometimes we may have to put on ballast.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandestino, ATR toilets can also be used on the gound - 72-212 onward. Not sure about 42's - certainly not -300, but I am sure -500's you can.
The reason there's no APU is simply weight & balance. The tailcone was originally designed to hold an APU, but they found you couldn't trim it out. Hence H mode.
The reason there's no APU is simply weight & balance. The tailcone was originally designed to hold an APU, but they found you couldn't trim it out. Hence H mode.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Captain Stable, first time I hear this!
I have some difficulty in believing it, althought you certainly know what you are saying.
ATR difficult to trim with some added weight on the rear?
Isn't the real reason economical?
H mode is a bright idea to save money.
Just request parking into the wind, if strong!
I have some difficulty in believing it, althought you certainly know what you are saying.
ATR difficult to trim with some added weight on the rear?
Isn't the real reason economical?
H mode is a bright idea to save money.
Just request parking into the wind, if strong!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Quahog
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used2flyBoeing,
I think that the demonstration that you saw of the plane landing on a baseball field was a DHC-5 Buffalo which has a spectacular short field performance. Never flew a DHC8 but you just can't convince me that it can do what the buffalo can
Same manufacturer tough
Quagmire
I think that the demonstration that you saw of the plane landing on a baseball field was a DHC-5 Buffalo which has a spectacular short field performance. Never flew a DHC8 but you just can't convince me that it can do what the buffalo can
Same manufacturer tough
Quagmire
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quagmire
You're correct, it was a Buffalo. It was in the early '70s I think and there was a demo in New York of what they would do in a major emergency.
DeHavilland Canada sent a contingent, landing a Buffalo in a baseball stadium and taking off again (impressive since home plate to the outfield fence is just over 300 ft!). They also had a Twin Otter land on a dock.
Another DHC stunt was landing a DHC-4 Caribou on an iceberg. Probably the most dangerous one they tried.
The DeHavilland pilots would demo short field performance by putting the props into Beta (reverse thrust) on approach and come in very steeply. You had to time it just right to get the energy back up for the flare. The famous Buffalo crash at Farnborough was an example of getting it wrong.
The real controversy about that one was that 3 people ran out of the aircraft - the pilots had taken a pax! I heard the Captain was later seen scratching a living by ferrying single engine Cessnas across the Atlantic.
You're correct, it was a Buffalo. It was in the early '70s I think and there was a demo in New York of what they would do in a major emergency.
DeHavilland Canada sent a contingent, landing a Buffalo in a baseball stadium and taking off again (impressive since home plate to the outfield fence is just over 300 ft!). They also had a Twin Otter land on a dock.
Another DHC stunt was landing a DHC-4 Caribou on an iceberg. Probably the most dangerous one they tried.
The DeHavilland pilots would demo short field performance by putting the props into Beta (reverse thrust) on approach and come in very steeply. You had to time it just right to get the energy back up for the flare. The famous Buffalo crash at Farnborough was an example of getting it wrong.
The real controversy about that one was that 3 people ran out of the aircraft - the pilots had taken a pax! I heard the Captain was later seen scratching a living by ferrying single engine Cessnas across the Atlantic.
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi gents,
Excellent debate - much more civilsed than the A vs. B slaggeing matches that sometimes erupt
The ATR toilets can be used on ground w/ external DC power or in H-mode, either from factory (72-212 onwards) or as a retrofit (also avbl. for the 300/320 series.)
The FWD RH cargo compartment is only found on the -211, along with the LH airstair door. V. handy configuration - but the airstair contraption I've seen leaves much to be desired. It's not part of the door, but rather fixed to the fwd LH bulkhead (where the FWD F/A seat slides into locked position when not in use). The stairs are a bit heavy & cumbersome for the lightweight F/As, but can be extended/retracted in less than a minute once you get used to work with it
On a 20-min. turn-arounds with a full plane-load of pax, it's a nice thing to be able to disembark & embark through 2 doors i.s.o. 1.
Finnair have found the perfect use for the FWD LH door - have an adapter on the airbridge and a small gantry with handrails that extend from the bridge & onto the cabin floor
The Dash - have only flown it as pax, but cabin looks a bit more modern, though noise levels are a tad higher, especially in the -300's. The APU concept is nice from an ops point of view, though it obviously adds to maintenance costs. Re APU - well, if mass & balance was a factor - why is it then that you - with even pax distribution in cabin - get a desireable trim if you split the bags 1/2 and 1/2 after putting the 1st 250 kg. in the aft hold??? 250 kg. sounds like exactly what a decent APU for an ATR would weigh. But then again - you could probably not get away with that while in the 50-seater configuration, where volume in the FWD hold leaves much to be desired
Oh yeah - and on that note - why don't all ATR's come with a TRU as standard
Brgds from a (hopefully) ex-ATR dude
Empty
Excellent debate - much more civilsed than the A vs. B slaggeing matches that sometimes erupt
The ATR toilets can be used on ground w/ external DC power or in H-mode, either from factory (72-212 onwards) or as a retrofit (also avbl. for the 300/320 series.)
The FWD RH cargo compartment is only found on the -211, along with the LH airstair door. V. handy configuration - but the airstair contraption I've seen leaves much to be desired. It's not part of the door, but rather fixed to the fwd LH bulkhead (where the FWD F/A seat slides into locked position when not in use). The stairs are a bit heavy & cumbersome for the lightweight F/As, but can be extended/retracted in less than a minute once you get used to work with it
On a 20-min. turn-arounds with a full plane-load of pax, it's a nice thing to be able to disembark & embark through 2 doors i.s.o. 1.Finnair have found the perfect use for the FWD LH door - have an adapter on the airbridge and a small gantry with handrails that extend from the bridge & onto the cabin floor
The Dash - have only flown it as pax, but cabin looks a bit more modern, though noise levels are a tad higher, especially in the -300's. The APU concept is nice from an ops point of view, though it obviously adds to maintenance costs. Re APU - well, if mass & balance was a factor - why is it then that you - with even pax distribution in cabin - get a desireable trim if you split the bags 1/2 and 1/2 after putting the 1st 250 kg. in the aft hold??? 250 kg. sounds like exactly what a decent APU for an ATR would weigh. But then again - you could probably not get away with that while in the 50-seater configuration, where volume in the FWD hold leaves much to be desired
Oh yeah - and on that note - why don't all ATR's come with a TRU as standard
Brgds from a (hopefully) ex-ATR dude
Empty
Looks!
I have been interested in the ATR developments recently. Seeing alot of the ATR aircraft in Dublin they look like more of an aircraft than the Dash, maybe its because of its larger width of the fuselage that gives it very 'curvy lines' (very important!)
Alot of comments aswell as mentioned above as it being very Pilot friendly.
The Dash Q400 though dispite its introductory problems offers a more jet like service but in a turbo prop.
-Good to see a proper topic being discussed-
Alot of comments aswell as mentioned above as it being very Pilot friendly.
The Dash Q400 though dispite its introductory problems offers a more jet like service but in a turbo prop.
-Good to see a proper topic being discussed-
Last edited by Captain Stable; 7th May 2005 at 17:38.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also seen a video of a Buffalo breaking in two, trying to do the same...
"Still a bit late on the flare, old chap..."
A chunk of Hamilton Standard landed in an unoccupied car hundreds of metres away.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Azores
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q400 is also able to carry a little more payload, 8747kg while ATR72 carries 7350kg
If you can get a full payload in it, maybe the dash can make more money.
SATA Air Açores witch now flies 4 ATP and a Dornier 228 (used to fly to Corvo, witch has a 800 meters runway) Is thinking about changing is fleet to a mix of different size dash8s. The ATR was also on the run, but for some reason the company is more likely to go with the bombardier aircraft.
The typical SATA flight is a 25-35 minute jump, these flights usually carry lots of cargo, and some of the islands have quite short runways 1300 to 1400 meters.
Maybe the dash is better fitted to this kind of operation, but as far as I know, no decision was made yet
RM
If you can get a full payload in it, maybe the dash can make more money.
SATA Air Açores witch now flies 4 ATP and a Dornier 228 (used to fly to Corvo, witch has a 800 meters runway) Is thinking about changing is fleet to a mix of different size dash8s. The ATR was also on the run, but for some reason the company is more likely to go with the bombardier aircraft.
The typical SATA flight is a 25-35 minute jump, these flights usually carry lots of cargo, and some of the islands have quite short runways 1300 to 1400 meters.
Maybe the dash is better fitted to this kind of operation, but as far as I know, no decision was made yet
RM
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown Dash 1/300 and am now on the Q400 in Japan. I've never flown the ATR, so I won't try to compare. Here's my 2 yen:
Q400 balance - here we regularly have 74 pax and 100lbs freight, so we fly with about 3000lb ballast in the aft baggage compartment, and that solves all the balance problems.
Q400 reliability isn't bad, but it needs quite a lot of attention and preventative care from maintenance, especially compared to the earlier models.
Dash 100 has good field performance (200 is even better), but isn't quite STOL. A critical field is about 2500ft.
All dashs are tough to land nicely. You have to be perfectly aligned with the runway and put it down gently to be smooth (a wet surface helps a lot). However, once you've got it on the runway it sticks, and stops quickly.
Q400 balance - here we regularly have 74 pax and 100lbs freight, so we fly with about 3000lb ballast in the aft baggage compartment, and that solves all the balance problems.
Q400 reliability isn't bad, but it needs quite a lot of attention and preventative care from maintenance, especially compared to the earlier models.
Dash 100 has good field performance (200 is even better), but isn't quite STOL. A critical field is about 2500ft.
All dashs are tough to land nicely. You have to be perfectly aligned with the runway and put it down gently to be smooth (a wet surface helps a lot). However, once you've got it on the runway it sticks, and stops quickly.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
I can only give my views as a cabin crew/pax perspective. I work on the Q400, but have positioned on both the Q300 and ATR-72.
I love the Q400, but I'm going to try and give an un-biased view! I find that the Q300 is much quieter than the Q400, but find the ATR-72 noise levels higher still, I guess that this is due to the fact that the -72 I have flown in did not have any kind of noise attenuation system. The Q400 though has a very different feel to the Q300 in that it feels like a more 'going places' aircraft rather than the 'short hop' feel of the earlier Dash/ATR models. I guess this is down to the powerful engines and resultant higher cruise speed. It also has better cabin service facilities like a full-size rear galley and fwd galley facilities allowing for a proper 2-crew cabin service operation. The rear pax door and built-in steps also makes boarding/disembarking much quicker. The cabin is also very modern looking and has several nice touches.
I do think though that the ATR has a better undercarriage for smoother landings but I've heard the wider wheelbase of the dash undercarriage makes for more stable crosswind conditions. Bumpy landings in the Q400 are commonplace!!
I personally think also that the Dash has nicer lines, although I did say I'm slightly biased!
There are probably many great points about the ATR of which I have no knowledge, so would welcome any other views about the ATR from a cabin point of view, I'm not interested in a slagging match!
Happy flying, whether it be Dashing or ATR'ing!
p.s. I believe DHC once landed a DHC-7 in a stadium then took off again, I'm sure I have a picture somewhere. Bear with me...
I can only give my views as a cabin crew/pax perspective. I work on the Q400, but have positioned on both the Q300 and ATR-72.
I love the Q400, but I'm going to try and give an un-biased view! I find that the Q300 is much quieter than the Q400, but find the ATR-72 noise levels higher still, I guess that this is due to the fact that the -72 I have flown in did not have any kind of noise attenuation system. The Q400 though has a very different feel to the Q300 in that it feels like a more 'going places' aircraft rather than the 'short hop' feel of the earlier Dash/ATR models. I guess this is down to the powerful engines and resultant higher cruise speed. It also has better cabin service facilities like a full-size rear galley and fwd galley facilities allowing for a proper 2-crew cabin service operation. The rear pax door and built-in steps also makes boarding/disembarking much quicker. The cabin is also very modern looking and has several nice touches.
I do think though that the ATR has a better undercarriage for smoother landings but I've heard the wider wheelbase of the dash undercarriage makes for more stable crosswind conditions. Bumpy landings in the Q400 are commonplace!!
I personally think also that the Dash has nicer lines, although I did say I'm slightly biased!
There are probably many great points about the ATR of which I have no knowledge, so would welcome any other views about the ATR from a cabin point of view, I'm not interested in a slagging match!
Happy flying, whether it be Dashing or ATR'ing!
p.s. I believe DHC once landed a DHC-7 in a stadium then took off again, I'm sure I have a picture somewhere. Bear with me...
Excellent debate - much more civilsed than the A vs. B slaggeing matches that sometimes erupt
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandestino,
Yeah, know where you come from - hopefully able to call meself a 737-pilot come tuesdays LST 
However, I liked the ATR quite a lot (but wouldn't describe myself as emotionally attached
) - it's a tough plane that will allow you to operate into & out of a lot of interesting places. Doesn't handle very well, mind you, but in a strong gusting x-wind on a 30-m-wide wet rwy, it does what it says on the tin & allows you ample margins for operation in marginal conditions. So a fan all the same.
And I hope not to get emotionally attached to the Boeing either
Brgds,
Empty
Yeah, know where you come from
- hopefully able to call meself a 737-pilot come tuesdays LST However, I liked the ATR quite a lot (but wouldn't describe myself as emotionally attached
) - it's a tough plane that will allow you to operate into & out of a lot of interesting places. Doesn't handle very well, mind you, but in a strong gusting x-wind on a 30-m-wide wet rwy, it does what it says on the tin & allows you ample margins for operation in marginal conditions. So a fan all the same.And I hope not to get emotionally attached to the Boeing either
Brgds,
Empty
