ATR72 Climb speed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATR72 Climb speed
There're 2 climb speeds for ATR72 established in FCOM, 170 and 190 KIAS
I've done calculating time and fuel with both climb speed and the result is quite the same (+/- 1 min, 20 kg of fuel)
Could anyone clarify me what are these 2 speeds for?
kind regards,
I've done calculating time and fuel with both climb speed and the result is quite the same (+/- 1 min, 20 kg of fuel)
Could anyone clarify me what are these 2 speeds for?
kind regards,
Join Date: May 2005
Location: u.k.
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think thats correct,the dash8 classic series had a type 1 or type 2 climb which equated to approximately the same speeds.
Although from memory;you are lucky if the atr climbs at all in icing,its tends to prefer aerobatics?
Although from memory;you are lucky if the atr climbs at all in icing,its tends to prefer aerobatics?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also think that 170 is the optimum climb speed (close to best of climb speed), but I don't think 190 is the cruise-climb speed or I'm not clear with this term.
An example, at weight 21,000kg, isa cond, max altitude for 170 is 23396 and 190 is 20607.
Kind regards,
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
My 2 eurocents' worth - a full 72-200 does not produce anything impressive in the way of ROC above FL160 anyway - and that's at 170 KIAS. The 190 sounds like cruise-climb at lower altitudes, and a good bet in a strong headwind - but beyond that, my guess is it's there for academical reasons.
Just for fun, try to compare time and fuel to FL240 - my guess is there'd be a noticable difference in the both figues (along what Galahad found above).
Cheers fm
Empty
Just for fun, try to compare time and fuel to FL240 - my guess is there'd be a noticable difference in the both figues (along what Galahad found above).
Cheers fm
Empty
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw in my sixpence worth:
At max weight in the 200, red bug was 170 knots exactly. I used to use 190 knots initially to give a buffer over red bug, particularly in turbulence. Don't know what red bug works out as in the other versions.(?) I was always told 190 knots was a cruise climb speed.
Incidentally, the 42 FCOM gives tables for 160 Kts and 190 knots for the climb also. To me, this would suggest that ATR have arbitrarily picked 190 knots as their cruise climb speed for both models.
Apart from the latter stages of the climb, where 190 knots just won't work, either speed gives almost identical performance (fuel used and time) for the whole route sector flown.
Regards,
CP
At max weight in the 200, red bug was 170 knots exactly. I used to use 190 knots initially to give a buffer over red bug, particularly in turbulence. Don't know what red bug works out as in the other versions.(?) I was always told 190 knots was a cruise climb speed.
Incidentally, the 42 FCOM gives tables for 160 Kts and 190 knots for the climb also. To me, this would suggest that ATR have arbitrarily picked 190 knots as their cruise climb speed for both models.
Apart from the latter stages of the climb, where 190 knots just won't work, either speed gives almost identical performance (fuel used and time) for the whole route sector flown.
Regards,
CP
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: TLV
Age: 50
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
probably has to do with deck angle as well.
we used to have short hops of less than an hour flight, so the FA would start service during the climb.
anything more than 5 degrees up and the sevice cart would start rolling toward the back..
we used to have short hops of less than an hour flight, so the FA would start service during the climb.
anything more than 5 degrees up and the sevice cart would start rolling toward the back..
