PDA

View Full Version : ATR 72 600 and 900


discus2
21st Oct 2007, 20:41
Hi there,
Just back from TLS on recurrent and heard that ATR would come up with a 600 model which would be full glass cockpit and a streched version 900 for 90 pax.
Any website or mock up you ve heard about or is that just a rumour ?
Cheers.

Lexif
22nd Oct 2007, 09:44
At least the ATR 42-600 and 72-600 are confirmed by this ATR press release:
http://www.atraircraft.com/public/atr/html/press/releases-details.php?aid=796

A-line ATR
23rd Oct 2007, 18:08
Got to go down to TLS for my sim check in a few weeks will see what I can find out and will take my camara.

I think ATR are on to a winner if they can reduce fuel burn / weight and operating costs still further. The currant ones are already better than the Q400 by miles in this respect. All I hope for is Thales make a good job sorting out a decent auto-pilot mode control panel :ugh:.

Looks like you'll get an extra 300kgs useful load with the new ATR72-600 (about 3 adult males plus hold luggage) or at least a bit of extra go high and hot. seems a bit mean as the Dash Q400 beats our ATR72s hands down in that respect. But I suppose that's the climate we are in now trying to make flying as eco-friendly as possible.

jumpdrive
24th Oct 2007, 21:17
cant wait to see it
& jump on it
finally someone did it
now sit back & wait 3 years

Rwy in Sight
24th Oct 2007, 22:15
I did attend the ERA conference last week where there was a presentation. It seems it is a gradual implementation package starting immediately I think with some interior modifications and ending with the new engines in 2010. The aim is to improve the hot and high perfomance.

I will look at my papers to see if anything else of substance was said.

Rwy in Sight

looseobject
24th Oct 2007, 23:21
you mean l 'Avion Totalement Raté.:ugh:

Lexif
25th Oct 2007, 01:18
This article describes ATR's plans to launch a larger successor to the ATR42/72 familly around 2015:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/23/218828/atr-studies-new-larger-turboprop-family.html

It would be in the 80-90 passenger range.


Formica says: “The most important thing is the engines. We are discussing with Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce about a new-generation engine able to power this next generation of turboprop.
“If we want to be competitive in [the 80- to 90-seat] segment, we have to maintain the 30% [cost-saving] gap and to keep the gap we would need new technology.”
ATR has just launched its new -600 series. Formica says around 11 airlines, primarily from the USA, have expressed an interest in the -600.

matoto
25th Oct 2007, 12:27
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/02/217648/picture-atr-launches-600 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/02/217648/picture-atr-launches-600)

The ATR 42-600 "will feature an enhanced cockpit equipped with upgraded avionics instrumentation"

Captain Planet
15th Nov 2007, 16:39
The 900?A stretched 72?Wow!!

I don't know would that physically work though. The 72 is a stretched version of the 42. The 42 is perfectly balanced and the stretching of the 72 throws it off slightly,making for interesting load sheets.
I think they would have to completely re-design the structure to make it work but it would be fantastic to see a 90 seat ATR fly.

CP.

kiwilad
15th Nov 2007, 18:28
The new designs are the 700 to replace current 72-500/600 and the 900. They are new designs with the same general configuration, but loading underfloor and the use of all available tech gains from A380/350 projects.
Will be interesting to watch. The 600 is an increase in takeoff/MCT power only and 200kg heavier. Not ideal as the 22.8t 500 is not a climb performer at all.
Time will tell it always does.
Cheers

ZFT
16th Nov 2007, 00:40
The Cebu (and I believe Bejaya) ATR 72-500 aircraft being delivered from 2008 will be equipped with PW 127M engines (same engine as next generation ATR –600) because the 100 % TRO take off operation, as opposed to 90% for the PW 127F) required for 900 mtr runway operation has to be counted for maintenance operation as it reduces the engine life.

powerstall
3rd Jan 2008, 10:25
ZFT.... you're on the dot my friend. Found out from very respectable person that most of the 72-500's flying out from TLS starting January will be using PW-127M engines.

Cebu will be one of the first to fly with these engines, heard they're very good on hot and high.

Cheers. :ok:

mcgnuggitt
10th Nov 2008, 19:42
Sure, ATR is flogging that they have upped the MTOW by 300Kg...but they've also added height with all the new equipment they've added over the years (reinforced cockpit door, new elctric air conditioner etc...) and not accounted for in their marketing numbers. If you look, their OWE has gone up by 300kg too. Net effect ZERO.:confused:
Dontcha love who they tout their increased lift, without mentioning the downside?? Shady marketing if you ask me.
I still love the Q400. Carries a lot, and gets you there fast. Donno if anyone here has seen the Q400 NextGen interiors brochures, but damn, it looks sweeeeeeet. Can't wait to seeif any of our option aircraft come in as those.

zedelex
12th Nov 2008, 19:58
Hello all,

I've seen that there's quite an intense rivalry btn the proponents of the ATR and Q400 respectively. The ATR is abviously a relatively old design (1989), and the general consesnus from what I've seen is that the ATR is a slower but more rugged. The Q400 is faster..As for the relative quietness..the opinions vary vastly re. the ATR; but most agree that the Q400 is quieter.

What i'd actually like to know is what the current TOC (total OPS cost/BLK Hr) for the ATR and or Q400 is. It's been a while since I last visited this site; so I don't know if i'm asking a redundant, tired old question. Pls forgive me if i am. I've actually been in the ATS field for 4 years here in sunny South Africa; however, I believe i may have identified a potential market for a 400nm sector. it's obviously dependant on what the TOC would be. What i am sure of beyond any doubt is that a T-prop is definitely the way to go.

I would appreciate any figures you can get me. CASA (Civil Avaiation Safety Authority) of Australia listed the 2007 TOC for the ATR at 2500 USD p/blk hr. Based on an 80% load factor (56 seats filled), the break-even would've been USD 44.00. I'd appreciate a break down is poss. esp for ANSP fees, Airport Tax, crew, insurance and monthly payment costs. I believe with our local airspace design, and aerodrome layout that there is a way to save bucks without compromising safety.

The most popular LCA's currently flying this sector are using MD82/3/7's (and seemingly profitably at that)..Last i checked according to ICAO, these birds burned up 780 (SEVEN-HUNDRED AND EIGHTY) gal of A1 p/blk hr. the ATR burns 214 (TWO-HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN). I'm not an airline analyst or an OPS whizz, but I strongly believe that based on the fuel burn figures alone that the ATR should be a viable choice for this sector.

Thanking you for your response in advance,

zedelex

andrasz
12th Nov 2008, 21:09
The two aircraft are built for very different missions, and operating cost will depend greatly on the stage-length used.

The ATR 72 is the lightest airframe in existence on a per-seat basis, which means that it will have low MTOW driven costs (airport & navigation fees) coupled with a low fuel consumption. This will show it's full advantage on short routes 700kms or less) in a high airport/atc cost environment (eg. Europe). However as it has a low cruise speed, on longer routes its advantage will disappear due to the increased crew and maintenance costs which tick on a flight hour basis.

The Q400 on the other hand has a higher mtow, but almost jet-like speed coupled with turboprop fuel econimics. On routes between 1000 and 1500 kilometres it has unbeatable seat-economics (route costs of a Q400 match that of a CRJ-200, but it has 20+ seats).

The most important message is that you cannot compare two aircraft on an average cost basis. You need to look at specific routes to get a meaningful comparison. There is an optimum for every aircraft, and even this depends on the cost regimes of the particular region.

zedelex
13th Nov 2008, 12:10
Hi andrasz,

Thanks for the response. Your comments make irrefutable sense. Let me enlighten you a little more on the particular sector i'm speaking of:

Basically I intend to operate a 350nm leg (600km) from an ATZ (controlled tower environment with non-coupled TMA above), which will make the landing fees and airport costs a lot lower than opareting out of the busy int'l airport nearby; which has a CTR with a coupled TMA. The only problem is during LVP conditions where both my dep/dest aerodromes are closed (no ILS), and I'd have to divert to the nearest ILS-equipped CTR with copuled-TMA aerodrome as stated above (15nm away).

I'm still gathering en-route fee data from THE COMPANY, but our weather here is generally good. I'm not a pilot, and I don't know how the crew would take to departing VFR in an ATR72 out of an ATZ, and climb IFR beyond the TMA to save ENR costs. Again, I'm not a pilot, but everyday we see PRM1/LJ45/BE20's often come out of dirt strips using VFR DEP, and IFR change enroute; so I think it's feasible to do that. Still investigating the insurance implication also.

The arrival into both airfields could also be executed VFR below controlled airspace. The ATR72 is big, but I think the crew would be able to fly a visual circuit into an ATZ. These are the ways in which I'd like to reduce ENR costs.

The cruise level for the ATR is about F220-F260. I dont think the savings in ENR costs of flying below class-C airspace. i.e. below F200 (uncotrolled airspace) would outweigh the benefits of cruising in the F220-F260 band. Either way, this sector is very uncongested upto F 290.

I hope this puts it into better perspective. I hope you have some valuable input again. Personally, mu gut feel is for the ATR, not the Q400.

Thanks, Zedelex

fernandeztv
13th Nov 2008, 13:14
ATR Vs Dash8 Q300/400 has been an oft repeated debate and till now I have never been satisfied with the explanations given by the various parties coz quite often it turns out people have experienced operating only one of the two above said aircraft types.

As for me i am baised towards the ATR 72-500 for obvious reasons. From the operators i have heard that it is a pretty economical aircraft for short sectors with QTAs. ATR 42/72 currently happens to be the only successful turboprop operating in India with various airlines. The Dash 8 Q series has never made an appearance in India.

However it is with great interest i watch a head on contest between both the aircraft types in the Philippines. Cebu Pacific operates brand new ATR 72-500s whereas PAL express operates a mix of Q300s and Q400s (By the way the Q400s are the Ex SAS aircrafts). The aircrafts often compete on the same routes and from what i heard both the types are load penalised to a particular destination (Caticlan) due to restricted runway length and obstacles in the vicinity.

Late 2007 i heard about the PW-127M for the Cebu ATRs which suppossedly would be the answer to address the issue at the said airport but still the aircraft is load penalised. (and so is the Q300/400!) ATR is right in saying that a lot depends on the engine manufacturers for its new variants/models -700/900.

zedelex
13th Nov 2008, 19:31
..Sorry, I mixed up the cruising alt. band for the ATR. After double-checking it, I've realised that the ceiling's upto F210. It's good news, because it means all my flightsweill be conducted outside controlled airspace in the cruise (albeit with a FIS service provided by an ATCO to keep my aircraft from bumping into another one).

This means virtually NO enroute fees payable for us, as no ANSP charges are applied for traffic outside of controlled controlled airspace; despite the fact that an ATCO will be providing an Information Service. In this country, the service is excellent, and I'm very confident of my A/C's safety outside Class A.

I'd enquired earlier this week from a friend who is a former Eurocontrol ATCO. He reckons that for a simliar length (350nm) sector in Europe, an acft would have on avg. 15 (fifteen) frequency/ANSP changes..Each time you change ANSP's, a brand-spanking new fee is applied to you. So flying in Europe in terms of NAV is very expensive compared to here, and I think this makes for an even more compelling case for the ATR in Africa.

Your comments are welcome

FougaMagister
15th Nov 2008, 01:10
FL210? :confused: Depending on the route, we sometimes cruise at FL250 on the ATR freighter!

Cheers :cool:

zedelex
15th Nov 2008, 17:28
Hi FougaMagister,

Thanks for correcting me there..It's always a dicy business collecting accurate, real-world data when one isn't an operator of the equipment for which the information is being gathered in the first place.

Would you be able to grace me with any accurate cost figures at all in your experience with the ATR? I have pages and pages of data fm manufacturers, state organisations, analyst etc. but still I find myself standing still for the most part when it comes to getting accurate, current cost figures. I think here are very few people would be able to tell me better than the driver of the machine himself. I'd appreciate any scraps at all that you can throw my way.

Thanks,

Zedelex

kontrolor
15th Nov 2008, 17:46
here is the pic of the cockpit (http://avijacija.net/slike/razno/cockpitnuit%20_web.jpg)

zedelex
15th Nov 2008, 18:44
..That's a nice pic. Is is the new -600 cockpit? I was reading about itsnew PW127M the other day. They say there's a 5% improvement in power. Can't wait to catch a glimpse of it when it's eventually released.

keesje
3rd Dec 2008, 11:10
I think the workname "-900" is a project name for an all new family.

New fuselage, new wing, engines, everything.

Being a new family it will probably build up out of various capasities.

80-100-120 seats? A different segment also, directly entering the Emb 190 / CSeries segments. Maybe it will be 5 abreast.

GE and RR are working on new engines in the 5000-8000 shp category. I think most people feel fuel will pass $100 as soon as the current storm lower and OPEC re-unites.

This will lead to fuel economy and operating costs climbing higher on the priority list then e.g. speed, range and comfort.

For your entertainment; not so long ago I did a simple sketch on a fast 100 seat Turboprop with GE38 engines, Thompson seats and scimitar blades, a kind of SuperSaab ;)


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Centiliner01-1.jpg?t=1228302435

discus2
3rd Dec 2008, 13:30
Zedelex,
Something that could be interesting to your route comes to my mind.
If you have an access to ATR FCOMs, particularly the performance part, have a look a the climb section.
You ll find out that an ATR is quite limited in CRZ level.
It has to achieve 300 ft/min for operational ceiling.
On hot days, ISA+10 and max weight, you only can achieve FL210 or so.
Regards.

zedelex
5th Dec 2008, 08:12
Thanks discus2,

I'll keep searching for that FCOM. Thanks for the heads-up.

zedelex