Differences in handling qualities between ATR42 and 72
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Differences in handling qualities between ATR42 and 72
Hi ATR experienced folks!
What are the main differences to bear in mind when transitioning from ATR42-320 to ATR72-500?Taxi,Take off roll(with strong cross winds),V1 CUT,Rotation(Normal and OEI).Stalling qualities,DESCENT and deceleration characteristics, Best Holding speed and Bank angle,Go Around pitch attitudes(norm and OEI),Circle to land speeds when heavy),Microburst recovery,Normal landing.Flapless landing.normal flare,OEI flare, crosswind landings,recovery from bounces,aileron and spoiler sensitivity.Yaw damper engaged disengaged on touchdown,Torque management from 20ft and below...and any systemic qualities worth noting.
Cheers!
What are the main differences to bear in mind when transitioning from ATR42-320 to ATR72-500?Taxi,Take off roll(with strong cross winds),V1 CUT,Rotation(Normal and OEI).Stalling qualities,DESCENT and deceleration characteristics, Best Holding speed and Bank angle,Go Around pitch attitudes(norm and OEI),Circle to land speeds when heavy),Microburst recovery,Normal landing.Flapless landing.normal flare,OEI flare, crosswind landings,recovery from bounces,aileron and spoiler sensitivity.Yaw damper engaged disengaged on touchdown,Torque management from 20ft and below...and any systemic qualities worth noting.
Cheers!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The -72 just lands differently and you'll have to get used to that - that's basically it. Also it uses somewhat higher speeds, but there's no noticeable difference other than in the numbers themself. Generally the -42 seems to handle a bit nicer than the -72, (that's my opinion, some guys I know prefer the -72), but the procedures are the same and you'll fly the -72 just as you flew the -42 (I mean all the stuff you mentioned). The biggest difference you'll notice is in the electronic in the -500 (the EEC, the PEC, the MFC), which generally will make your life easier 
I'd prefer the 72 from the 42 at anytime . Much more nice to handle and it's as easy to land as the 42.
Fly the 72 as the 42 and you will have no problems. When landing the 72 reduce the power slowly towards idle from 20' ft and you will get a good landing. Always worked for me.
Fly the 72 as the 42 and you will have no problems. When landing the 72 reduce the power slowly towards idle from 20' ft and you will get a good landing. Always worked for me.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was mainly on the 42 and only occasionally the 72, but I can't recall any huge differences other than as mentioned about take-off rotation and the need to take the power down gently around 30' on landing....
Didn't have the newer electronics so can't comment, but always felt the 42 was a bit more agile with quicker control responses and hand flying was a bit easier compared to the 72 - especially on visuals....
The other thing that I remember, and maybe it was just the machine that I was working on, was that fuel burn in the 72 was higher enough to notice the difference compared to the 42 - got caught out a couple of times with that when flying unscheduled sectors around the oil and gas fields in NW Africa - but if you're working to schedules with good desptachers and planners, that shouldn't be an issue...
And although I wouldn't describe either of them as a delight to work on ( my personal favourite was the S2000 but that's just me ) both models are quite honest and reliable and if you're comfortable on the 42 you wouldn't have any trouble moving across to the 72....
Didn't have the newer electronics so can't comment, but always felt the 42 was a bit more agile with quicker control responses and hand flying was a bit easier compared to the 72 - especially on visuals....
The other thing that I remember, and maybe it was just the machine that I was working on, was that fuel burn in the 72 was higher enough to notice the difference compared to the 42 - got caught out a couple of times with that when flying unscheduled sectors around the oil and gas fields in NW Africa - but if you're working to schedules with good desptachers and planners, that shouldn't be an issue...
And although I wouldn't describe either of them as a delight to work on ( my personal favourite was the S2000 but that's just me ) both models are quite honest and reliable and if you're comfortable on the 42 you wouldn't have any trouble moving across to the 72....
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Heart of Europe
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in addition to the mentioned.
all the electronic additions make life even easier. quite smart already the 72-201/202/ series. climb sequence quite easy, turn the power management and retard CL's to 86 %.
with 500's even easier just turn knob.
For flying it never made a difference for me handflying. once i got used to 72's i startet do land the 42 the same way. other way round is difficult. while a 42 lands with the same technique a 72 does not with the technique of a 42.
72 a bit a problem with long landings in tailwind. for short strips I prefer a 42 over a 72. more reserves in flare.
all the electronic additions make life even easier. quite smart already the 72-201/202/ series. climb sequence quite easy, turn the power management and retard CL's to 86 %.
with 500's even easier just turn knob.
For flying it never made a difference for me handflying. once i got used to 72's i startet do land the 42 the same way. other way round is difficult. while a 42 lands with the same technique a 72 does not with the technique of a 42.
72 a bit a problem with long landings in tailwind. for short strips I prefer a 42 over a 72. more reserves in flare.
