ATR-92
 

ATR has been considering a larger turboprop for decades..
mcdonnell douglas | airbus industrie | aerospatiale | 1988 | 2536 | Flight Archive

Now PW and GE seem to be developing suitable engines, will ATR finally bite the bullit?

http://www.acam.asso.fr/photos/chron...2011-01-27.jpg

It seems the Italians are more motivated then the French side (EADS)..

Alenia boss: 'We will invest' in 90-seat turboprop

Question seems to be if the ATR72 can be stretched or if a new wing/fusealge (5 abreast) is required. It has a wider fuselage then the Q400, so more stretch potential.

ATR awaits shareholders' go-ahead for 90-seat turboprop project

It seems we are going to see a new kid in town in the 90-130 seat market.

i really hope they consider going jet..:(

I hope not! We need (more) efficient turbo-props. Maybe RYR would consider buying them. They'll be cheap to buy and operate.

A 4-row stretch of the current fuselage seems eminently doable.

DaveReidUK, the latest article says

That's big new IMO. A state of the art 5 abreast fuselage is a direct attack on Embraer and Bombardier. The first one will be a 5 abreast turboprop. The next familymember probably a stretch (120 seats) and the concept has enough space to handle e.g geared turbofans, CROR's in the future. A bigger wider fuselage, with a serious cargo bay has all kinds of future options.

IMO it could be seen as a reaction on Embraer and Bombardier putting the A318 and A319 out of business..

It's been a while since we discussed.

At this stage (2016) a stretched, re-engine ATR has become much more likely than an entirely new aircraft.

It seems Airbus is blocking development, because the ATR's are selling well. They prefer a cash cow over a moon shot..

ATR CEO Proposes Re-Engining ATR-72 | ShowNews content from Aviation Week

Earlier this year I sketched a re-engined, stretched -92 with relocated doors for better airport operations.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...psmvmqk2bj.jpg

There's very little point in putting winglets on a turboprop.

And don't call any aircraft a -800, it will only make the airlines think they need a bigger one. :O

You increasingly see them. Different ones than fast jets?

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8586/...49e1082f_b.jpg
http://www.c-130.net/g3/var/resizes/...g?m=1465064274

:ok:

Come now, Dave, they put them on Barons and 400-series Cessnas. King Airs, too. Because looks are three-quarters of the battle.

Putting larger engines on the existing ATR is not as simple as it may sound. Due to the increase in power, controllability in the event of an engine failure becomes a problem. This would require a redesign of the rudder, and as a result the large aerodynamic forces would most likely require hydraulic flight controls. And as we know one thing leads to another, so a simple re-engine can suddenly take a lot more time, not to mention money, and at the end of the day you just end up with a stretched 72. It would be much better to start with a clean sheet, and design a new aircraft using the latest technology and materials.

You mean - there's more to it than just Photoshopping a GA drawing ?

How disappointing. :O

I think the alternative is an entirely new aircraft. And while that technically would be the most optimal solution, it's not the trend. "If it ain't broken don't fix it" seems the more popular phrase.


Apart from the control issue of more powerfull engine (extra tail length helps btw) strengthening (lengthening?) of the wing & pylon, changed blade separation requirements, heavier LDG etc. rotation angle will be smaller, probably requiring (Flap?) mods too.

Still an upgrade probably beats an 8 year E7 billion full blown development program. OEM's have become risk averse, cash tight. The ATR -600 upgrade (glass cockpit, new quiet cabin, better engines/ props) seems to have pushed the Q400 out of the orderbooks lately. Little incentive to get creative..

Bombardier has been caught napping, high performance seems lowish on operator priority lists.


http://i0.wp.com/airinsight.com/wp-c...size=653%2C339

It would be nice to see this graph overlayed with the Jet A1 price...

ATR estimates costs for a ATR NEO at E 500-700mln. A new turboprop engine using of the same technology level will be more efficient than a turbo fan because of it's high BPR. But a new optimized geared turbo fan would be more quiet, reliable, expensive, acceptable.. ? ATR looked at it in the past.

A turboprop must be cheap to buy, operate and to develop. This is why ATR is succesful. Creating the next Q400 or SAAB 2000 would just ruin the cost and simplicity advantage. A stretch? Possibly useful. But don't do more than just neo it. Cruise speed is no factor on short legs.

I think you are correct. Speed, climb, service / one engine ceiling were promoted by BBD as Q400 unique selling points versus the ATR-72, but didn't really impress the airlines. Or at least, didn't translate into sales.


https://theflyingengineer.files.word...erformance.jpg

Regional Jets have become fancy, perfected, expensive, little Airbusses (and quite capable). There is so much room below them now for Turboprops.

The biggest group of people who need convincing that turboprops are the way to go are the pathetic individuals in some airlines' marketing departments. They believe they can not sell turboprop seats. Yet some operators have proved beyond all doubt that price is the only thing that matters. You can be as rude, unpleasant and awkward as you want and treat your customers with total contempt but as long as you are cheap you will have customers.

Turboprops will always have a future. The only thing in doubt is how many airframes will make up that future.

PM

C195,

the DH8D may be throttled back significantly in cruise if desired. Reducing to Long range cruise (which is the minimum allowed setting at my company) at ISA will show a bit below 50% torque and 208kIAS; fuel flow will be about 900 to 950 kg/h (compared to about 68%, 246kIAS and 1200kg/h at maximum cruise rating). This results in a TAS of 310kts versus about 360kts at maximum rated power.

I would expect a DH8D to use something between 950 and 1.000kg on such a route when using minimum power for cruise, possibly some kg less when climbing at maximum rate after departure. This of course assumes the lack of a headwind, in which case a reduction of climb IAS and cruise torque is often highly contraproductive and will increase both flight time and total burn.