Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3861 posts, RR: 5 Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4728 times:
After the launch of the ATR72 in the late 1980s, there was a lot of talk about a further stretch of the ATR42/72, called the ATR92. As we all know, plans never materialized. I was wondering what the reason was - were there technical problems that made it difficult to stretch the ATR further - or was there simply no interest in such a large turboprop at that time (that's my educated guess)?
I am asking because ATR is now looking at a larger turboprop again, obviously as a reaction to a further Dash 8 stretch, but my understanding is that it would not be a simple stretch of the ATR72, but a new family of large turboprops with initially two members. One explanation could be that the ATR design cannot be brought up to Q400 speeds.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4632 times:
There was a plan for the ATR-82, which would have been a 78 pax stretch of the ATR-72, but that was ditched when ATR joined forces with BAe to form AI(R) in 1996. AI(R) was to develop a 70 pax jet, but the consortium broke up in the late 90s. BAe decided to focus on a new version of the BAe-146/Avro RJ instead and ATR continued with their ATR-42 and ATR-72, although rumors of an ATR RJ stuck around for a number of years afterwards.
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4531 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): The proposed ATR-82 would never have been able to compete with the different Barbie Dream Jets (the RJs)
From a pax standpoint perhaps, but as far as economics go, definitely disagree. An AT8 or AT9 could definitely be a more than suitable competitor to jet planes on short hops under 200-300nm, be it vs CR7s, or even mainline planes. On routes like, say, ATL-BHM, the economics of prop usually are far better than those of a jet.