ATR vs Dash 8
 

As an aspiring ATR pilot I was wondering what determines whether an airline buys ATR's or Dash 8's in terms of operational performance as opposed to the best financial deal at the time?

I would be interested in any particular pro's or con's with either aircraft.

cheers

MJR :}

ATR=Money making machine.

Dash, notso.

Quite a lot of factors really...

Just in terms of size, the ATR-42 falls between the Dash 8 -200 and -300. The ATR-72 is similar size to the -400, but the -400 is quite a bit faster.

So it depends on the airlines route / fleet mix really.

pourquoi? can you elaborate

ta

MJR

Are the Dash-8 family all one type-rating on the licence that can be operated simply with alternating base checks in the same way as the ATR's?

Dash - 8 is one of the safest turboprops ever made - it has fantastic short field performance, I witnessed a demo at Yankee stadium where a D-8 landed on the diamond,periouted & took off again outof the stadium. THe ATR was initially plagued with aileron / icing problems hence the addition of vortex generators to "patch" the aileron effectiveness when iced up.. That being said - the newer ATR's are much improved with composite materials & noise cancellation technologies. Most thought the turboprop would have been a dead issue by now because 1) public perceptions of safety of jets over turboprops & 2) the comparable cost of jets IE 737s, A320 & MD-80s can be had for a song after the collapsing asset values following 9-11. However, with the new Embraer ERJ-170 - a mini-777 for 24 million - I wonder how long turboprops can hang in there ..... smashing bugs ..??

There are still a lot of fields not long enough for jets, are certified but with hard to achieve conditions (LCY), or not allowed RJs for political reasons (YTZ).

Dash8-400's runway length is on the longer side compared to earlier Dashes but since it carries 70 pax not surprising. Both it and ATR42 had various issues on entry to service so I doubt either manufacturer can get much mileage on that score.

Where Q400 scores is speed, at 360kt it's 75kt faster than the Q200/300 (q400.com) because of the PW150A engines. Bombardier claim a negligable difference in range over 60 minutes between Q400 and RJ85/735 and a 25,000 ft ceiling.

ATR42-500 manages 300kt cruise at 17,000ft (from ATR's website) with PW127s.

You don't want either of them!! fly a Jetstream 41 fantastic bit of kit!!!

HFS:ok:

I suppose the regional jet "boom" is coming to end and turboprops will be more common again. It is a clear fact that even newest small regional jets simply can't achieve as low operating costs as turboprops on shorter sectors. In fact, turboprop market has shown already signs of better future. Many regional jet operators, especially in the US can blame only themself of the current poor economical situation, as they got rid off very economical turboprops and acquired new ERJ145/CRJ200s few years ago just to notice that those good old turboprops were much more economical.

I have experiences as a ground crew of ATRs and Dash 8Q400s... In my opinion ATR and especially the new -500 series is a little bit better product than Q400. The ATR is a real workhorse, extremely reliable even in harsh winter conditions (-200, at least) and very economical. The biggest advantage of especially ATR72 is that it has two cargo compartments. If the flight seems to be tail heavy you can easily put some cargo/baggages to front cargo compartment to achieve better C/G and stay inside the envelope.

In case of Q400 the biggest issue is with payload and C/G limits. It is quite long aircraft and the only cargo compartment is in the back. This means that there is huge moment arm and you are easily out of the acceptable C/G envelope. If the plane is full it is hard or almost impossible to get all the luggages in due the C/G restrictions. You can't even think about to put some mail or cargo in there!

The other disadvantage of Q400 is the APU... it is perhaps the most unreliable APU what I have seen. Therefore many airlines use rather ground power as power shortages from APU are too common. The Q400 had a lot of technical problems earlier and airlines blamed that Bombardier was too slow to correct those quirks and offered too little help for the airlines... Same thing was with CRJ700. However, Bombardier has now achieved to fix most of the problems and reliability is far better, but I'm not too impressed even today of Q400 reliability especially in winter conditions... The advantages of Dash are slightly better range and cruise speed.

As a pax point of view, I prefer ATR72-500 over DHC8 Q400 anytime altough both are good aircrafts. Slightly less vibration and noise in ATR cabin.

I'm also under impression that the operating costs of ATR72-500 are lower and it is slightly more economical than Q400, but I could be wrong...?

Best Regards,
-AM-

Thanks for the replies.

Will an increase in fuel prices, improve the viability of regional turbo-prop operations?

cheers

MJR

Unducted fan is always more reliable than the ducted fan that is characteristic on jets ..but then there is the blade out concerns, passenger perception of throttle perturbations, noise & vibration ..

used2flyboeing

<<I wonder how long turboprops can hang in there>>

With +48 ATRs sold in 2005 already including 10 with a new full EFIS flightdeck, quite a long time I would suggest.

Q400s also seem to be selling well.

the only cargo compartment is in the back. - Dash 400.

Not so. There is a cargo compartment up the front, opposite the Port side airstair door, which comes as an option. Many Airlines have taken that option due to the C of G probs you mentioned, with out it.

:ok:

Hi ZFT, I can't find any picture on the web about this, but I'd like very much to see this... could you provide us more info?
thanks

Hi holyflurkingschmitt,

I have just sent you a PM regarding the J41.

Cheers

LEM

The Turkish aircraft will have a full EFIS flightdeck similar I believe to the A310 layout. It’s still at the design stage, but 6 EDUs seems to be the favoured design.

ATR's are good for cargo. Have the large door already and some :} fancy a 3 m cargo conversion door.

ATR = less fuel but also less speed

DASH = faster, higher

ATR probably more into the cargo business and short flights while the DASH is more the passenger aircraft and can sustain slightly longer distances.

TURBO PROPS
Try to fly from EDDK (Cologne-Bonn) to LSGG (Geneva) with 40 PAX and a burn off of more or less 1 ton in a Jet.

If fuel prices will continue to go up - and IMHO there is no reason for them not to we may see some very nice flying offices with full EFIS advanced noise reduction etc. in the future.

used2flyboeing

Do you have a link to that story?

Well I fly the Q400 and am regulary flying with Captains that used to fly the ATR. Virtually all of them regard the ATR as the better machine (much to my disgust), usually with reference to the flightdeck, which is apparently more 'pilot friendly' on the ATR with Airbus style switchlights and a radar that works properly! However they all concede to the superior performance of the Q400!

Thanks for correcting me, that is a good solution for those balance problems indeed. Unfortunately some airlines have found it better to use that space as a coat room for business class passengers :uhoh:

Best Regards,
Approaching Minimums

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...

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 :cool:

Clandestino, if I remember correctly the loo thing was an issue on the 300 and 320 only.

Working nice on the 500 and 700. ;)

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.

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? :confused:

Isn't the real reason economical?
H mode is a bright idea to save money.

Just request parking into the wind, if strong! ;)

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 have also seen a video of a Buffalo breaking in two, trying to do the same... :}

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.

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 :ok: 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 :D

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 :yuk:

Oh yeah - and on that note - why don't all ATR's come with a TRU as standard :{ :rolleyes: :confused: :{

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-

That would be Farnborough, early 80's IIRC.

"Still a bit late on the flare, old chap..."

A chunk of Hamilton Standard landed in an unoccupied car hundreds of metres away.

debris on runway
 

DHC-5D Buffalo Farnborough '84

And those rugged Canadians all walked away from it.

Yeah, learned it the hard way when was new to the type :}

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

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.

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! :ok:

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...

IMHO there are not many of us who get emotionally attached to either ATR or dash as these birdies are seen just as first steps into airline careers, not something we'll fly till retirement. Just wait and see our posts when we move into flying something heavier.

Clandestino,

Yeah, know where you come from :D - 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 :p ) - 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

NOT true.

LEM

it is true.....the thing handles dreadfully

aero:ugh: