I disagree - the ATR handles very well indeed. A little heavy on the ailerons, perhaps, but a good, stable aircraft that flies well, is forgiving and is easy to land well. I had some good times in them.

So we are none the wiser! Maybe the 72 handles better than the 42 or vise versa.

OK, ok - perhaps "doesn't handle that bad" had been a better choice of words :}

Indeed, Captn S, it is a joy to operate. But the 42 force harmony is a bit off the mark, and the turbulence response - well, it has a high aspect ratio, so can hardly be any better for the profile chosen. But I vividly recall the first time I flew the thing - going through a bit of turbulence with a lot of shuddering involved. I was a bit flabbergasted, had flown 8 ton aircraft that were rock solid in almost any wx - now, moving to a 17 ton a/c, I had to start working again when in manual :D.

I agree on the ease of handling, it is indeed forgiving & gives you plenty of margin for error & is easy to land. But that also applies to a C182 :p :D And skywayto... is right on the spot - a 72 for me anyday!

However, the examiner was careless enough to let me through that LST - so I might never get another crack at the ATR :(

Brgds from
Empty

I think both aeroplanes are good depending on each airline's requirements. As an ATR 42 driver the biggest advantage of the ATR 42 over the Dash 8-300 for example is the baggage capacity. Our ATR 42s have about 1700kg of baggage capacity versus about 1000kg for the D8, and in my part of the world that is the winning advantage. But I see that the Dash 400 has now got more bagage capability, I think that will make the Dash 8 more competitive. One last thought the ATRs are much lighter than similar or comparable Dash 8s.

ATR seems to be unstable in strong crossswinds.

ATR Stab.
 

The ATR is alot more unstable on the ground compared with the Dash, as mentioned earlier this is due to the undercariage positions on each Aircraft with the ATR having less U/C span than the Dash.

From flying in both the ATR in the Air is alot more stable compared to the Dash, and from a pax point of view the ATR has alot more space.

I know the DHC-8 100's and ATR42 300's have gravel cert, what about the rest?

ATR 42-500 has gravel mod also.

re the handling of an ATR. In the air fine, nothing to add to the previous comments. On the ground with a crosswind is a different matter due to the high wing and narrow track undercarriage.
It requires good coordination of aileron input, particularly if there is a handover of aileron control during the T/off or Landing ie the CM1 is pilot flying.

Actually, let me elaborate on my previous post for the benefit of the non ATR types...

There is no nose wheel control via the rudder pedals, she's tiller only, and there is no tiller on the F/o's side.
So in a x/wind scenario with CM1 as the pilot flying
- t/off roll starts with CM1 on the tiller and CM2 using aileron in an attempt to maintain wings level, or perhaps some aileron into wind in anticipation
- through 70 kts or thereabouts, there is a control handover whereby the CM1 comes of the tiller, takes aileron control, and maintains directional control with rudder only.
- the same in reverse order would occur on landing.

Its this aileron handover that has to be well drilled/briefed, because it can get a tad ugly if momentarily there is nobody on the ailerons and they neutralise, she can tend to lift a wing easily. For this reason I sometimes felt it was better to have the F/o as pilot flying in a good crosswind - if he was up to it!!!

I envied the PW 150's on the Dash 8-400. ATR also suffers for the lack of an APU. Otherwise, a great aeroplane, if not a tad ugly!

All Dash 8s have very redundant electrical systems which allow loss of any 2 out 4 generators with all electrical capability remaining. I always found that reassuring and almost as good as the -7 where you had 4 generators each :)

Also all the Dashes have more or less fully dual redundant flight controls with alternate cable runs for 1/2 elevator and ailerons/spoilers. How do the ATRs compare on that?

As for controly harmony, the -8-100 and -8-300 are quite nice while the -400 has oversensitive power levers and a rather "stiff" feel in the ailerons.

One big drawback about the -400 is that deHavilland didn't use a lot of the potential contemporary avionics technology would offer in order to keep it as close as possible to the -100/-300. The flight warning system with almost no concept of priority and no inhibition of minor alerts during critical phases of flight is definitely outdated. The Fokker 50 was better on that 20 years ago.

Does the ATR have some kind of thrust rating/automatic power setting system? The -400 has it and it works nicely but the -300 requires constant checking and re-setting of torque up to top of climb.



As for ratings, the -300 and -400 can be flown with alternating proficiency checks. At our company people get the initial rating on either type and then add the other after app. 400 hours.

Alpine..

The ATR has a "power management system". Consists of settings for T/off, MCT, and Cruise.
PL's set into a detent, the "notch", and power settings controlled thereafter by the PMS switch.
The PL's are retarded out of the notch on descent to control speed, all the way down to landing.

Re electrics, cant remember exactly, 2 DC gens and 2 ACW gens that can power DC systems via TRU's. Good level of redundancy but as to a direct comparison to the Dash - dont know.

Only DH product I've flown was the twotter, and that was BLARDY MARVELLOUS!!

The ATR 72-200 (and all -500 series) have a number of notches for CLs (Condition Levers) and PLs. Set MAX RPM on the CLs, set 101.2% torque on take-off, then retard CLs to 86% and TQ to 90% during the climb sequence. The CLs don't need to be moved for the rest of the flight. Even if not pushed to MAX RPM during before landing checks, they would go to that position on a go-around when PLs are advanced to the GA setting (ramp) provided the PWR MGT system has been set to the TO position (also part of the before landing checks).

It's an semi-autothrottle in all but name... The principle of these notches (like a lot of the design philosophy of the ATR) is quite close to the A320, designed around the same time and assembled on the other side of TLS airport.

As for the supposed "lack" of an APU, I find the H mode/prop brake on the ATR a clever design that does away with the need for, weight, extra complexity and unreliability of the Dash 8's APU and is useful to allow quick turnarounds (if obviously a bit on the noisy side - but it's only used for a few minutes until a GPU is plugged in). The ATR also makes a very good cargo feeder aircraft, with a cargo door fitted as standard and enough cabin diameter to accept cargo containers (which unless I'm mistaken, the Dash 8 can't do).

Can't comment on the Dash 8's handling, but the ATR handles just fine on two engines. When on one, then it's workout time in roll!

To correct a previous post, the ATR wasn't retroffited with vortex generators following airframe icing issues (the Roselawn crash), but with larger-chord de-icing boots to prevent a ridge of ice accumulating behind them.

Cheers :cool:

The 400 was certified for gravel runways a couple of years back. Hydro Quebec required it for their Northern ops - sorry don't know about dash 8 300's.

Gravel kit available for -300 from Bombardier. Two of our a/c were fitted a while ago.

I have never flown a ATR, so I can't compare, but the DH8 does exactly what it advertises - everytime. We currently require 10 pax to break even on most of our routes on the -300.

As PAX

Had the most uncomfortable flights ever on Dash 8s hopping around canadian ski feilds, I sat in seat 2 A every flight 7 in total and the prop vibration was unbearable.

Flown on ATRs with the "simitar" blades very smooth even when in seats adjacent engines/prop.

But if i had to fly in a turbo prop, show me the Saab any day :ok:

There's a huge difference between older Dash 8s and the Q series as the latter has the active noise and vibration suppression (ANVS).

As a passenger you can spot the ANVS system by it's small microphones/sensors scattered around the cabin (look like very small "eye" type rivets, usually brass coloured). Alternatively, look for some big lettering on the outside saying it's "QUIET" ;)

Having flown the 72-500 and observed the outstanding improvement on noise level compared to the 42-300, I was wondering about the comparison between 72-500 and the ANVS fitted Dashes.:confused:
What is the relevance of this device ?

bleeds

ATR is European (like BMW), de Havilland Q400 is North American (like Ford);

ATR is an (Airbus) airliner with props, Q400 is a Utility aircraft (Beaver/TwOtter/Carribou/Dash8/etc);

ATR has quality and finese, Q400 has muscle and performance.

ATR is a 'plastic Pug', Q400 is an impressive (but difficult) beast.