The aircraft would be larger than the current ATR 72-600, he said, with a longer fuselage and the possibility of stowing luggage under the floor.
A number of new components - including the turbine and combustion chamber - are in development by P&WC's sister company Pratt & Whitney for its PW1000G geared turbofan, itself sharing a common core with the 1,000lb-thrust-rated PW800. These, and a separately-designed compressor, are likely to find their way onto any new P&WC turboprop, said Bagnato.
ATR forecasts a market over the next 20 years for around 3,100 regional turboprops: 500 in the 50-seat range, 1,000 90-seaters and 1,600 with 70 seats.
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6326 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 10898 times:
If it happens NZ will order this I am sure. Eventually just ATR42s/72s and these for the domestic prop fleet. Ideal for a number of routes they currently operate which do not warrant a 737 but do need more than the 66 seat AT7.
Could even be used on routes such as AKL-NLK, AKL-NOU range/etops permitting
fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 755 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 10808 times:
Actually if they move the luggage and cargo under the floor, they don't really need to add that much to the fuselage at all and will give them a front pax door that can be used for jetways, like Dash8's can. I think it will be the real winner if the efficiency stays as good as it is now on ATR's, especially for European markets.
Personally I love the ATR's. It is a very robust product. Sure it's slower than the Dash, but it also burns quite a bit less fuel, and on short hops, the extra speed doesn't really matter all that much...
fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 755 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 10655 times:
Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 10): There is absolutely nothing under the cabin floor now? Just vacant space or lots of wiring 'n stuff?
Yep, acctually if I rememeber correctly, all wiring is in the ceiling, but there are some hydraulic lines for the landing gear and some electrical cables that are landing gear related, but that's about it... But don't get me wrong, there isn't much room there... they will have to raise the floor or have a bigger fuselage cross section.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 10505 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2): The efficiency of the engines will be key. The PW127 is more for simplicity than efficiency. Oh, they're not bad engines, there is just quite a bit of technology missing from them.
Will ATR try to increase range and cruise speed and sacrifice some fuel efficiency?
Q400's higher range and speed hasn't helped it much against ATR. Could it help ATR against regional jets on sub-800nm missions.
sandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 869 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 10424 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12): Q400's higher range and speed hasn't helped it much against ATR. Could it help ATR against regional jets on sub-800nm missions.
With the cost of fuel still rising I think that there are a lot of missions that a new 90 seat prop could take from the Q400 and RJs up to even the ERJ175. On most UK & European domestic segments the slower cruise speed wouldn't impact much on flight times.
BE opted for the Q400, but it burns almost twice (?) that of the current ATR family. Ok, the ATRs are a bit slower but there is some wriggle room for a new air frame that competes on speed whilst still offering a efficient fuel burn.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 10298 times:
My question is will they finally have the a/c go 6 across versus the current 4, if they can get that done the a/c does not have to be that long to accomodate the 90 pax, I honestly think the Q400 is too long and slender.
If you stretch the ATR72 3.5 meters for 5 more rows, with stronger keel beams and larger landing gear, the final product, let's call it the ATR-92, will be approximately 1.5 tons heavier.
If they hang the same PW150 engines as on the Q400 under its wings it will get another 0.5 tons heavier at most.
The ATR92 would then be 2 tons heavier than the ATR72, but still 1 ton lighter than the Q400.
This means essentially that weight wise, there's no reason to explain why the ATR92 shouldn't be able to fly at the same speeds as the Q400, given same shaft horsepower and less weight to push forward.
Now, this is where the wings can be a problem.
The Q400 wing is optimized to cruise at 350 knots. They have swept wings where ATR's are essentially straight wings.
The Q400 fuselage is not as efficient as the Q400's, because the landing gear stowage and the big vertical stabilizer cause a detectable amount of additional drag.
Considering that, the ATR92 may not be able to cruise at 350kts but perhaps it could make it to 325kts with 90 passengers, with the same fuel burn as the Q400.
The market exists and it's bigger than one can imagine at first thought.
The ATR92 wouldn't only compete against the regional jets in this seating capacity, it can open up to new markets that are not accessible with regional jets and where rail is inconvenient.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 9858 times:
Found an article which lays out a new turboprop by PW. Don't know if PW has made any progress since the announcement. The article suggests a focus on fuel efficiency, and not on cruise speed targeted at sub-500 nm missions.
As GTF is expected to provide 15% plus lower fuel burn, one would think that a 15% lower fuel over current turboprop is achievable.
Pratt & Whitney Canada has launched an all-new turboprop engine for regional aircraft to replace the 1,800- to 5,000-shp PW100 series. It expects to run the core demonstrator in the second half of next year.
P&WC president John Saabas said the new engine will be “at least” 10 percent more fuel efficient than the PW100 series, which he claims is “still the most economical turboprop in its class.” There is, however, a demand for a “double-digit” fuel burn improvement, which can be met, he said, by using technology developed for the company’s latest small turbofans, in particular the new PW1000G geared turbofan powering the Mitsubishi MRJ and Bombardier C Series regional jets.
alangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2091 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9107 times:
"However, Bagnato said that it will not neglect its core market. "We have to be competitive over the next 20 years with the 50- and 70-seaters," he said." - from the Flightglobal story, so the 50 and 70 seater markets will still be important. Will ATR create a 90 seater that will have lower costs per airframe to operate than their own ATR72? So an ATR92 would break even with the same number of seats filled?
If the 50 seater and 70 seater markets are addressed by putting ATR92 technology onto the smaller planes - the
ATR72 NG would be an impressive hot and high aircraft.
I would expect the ATR92 will use London City Airport - I wonder if it will get into Toronto Island Airport? Right under Bombardier's nose.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4249 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8907 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12): Will ATR try to increase range and cruise speed and sacrifice some fuel efficiency?
I hope not. The point for them against CRJ900, E175, E190 is efiiciency. There they cannot sacrifice one percent. speed only is important at longer distance, so you have to increase speed and range and both cost efficiency.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8401 times:
Quoting alangirvan (Reply 20): Will ATR create a 90 seater that will have lower costs per airframe to operate than their own ATR72? So an ATR92 would break even with the same number of seats filled?
If one goes by Wilson's numbers, ATR92 will be about 18-20% heavier than ATR72. Will new engines and wings of ATR92 make it possible to nearly match the trip fuel burn of ATR? I doubt ATR92 will end up with lower trip fuel burn than ATR72.
Quoting doug_Or (Reply 23): Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):As GTF is expected to provide 15% plus lower fuel burn, one would think that a 15% lower fuel over current turboprop is achievable.
Not really sure how this would be related. TPs have been geared for a while.
I see your point. Perhaps achieving 15% lower sfc with a new engine is going to be difficult.
25 JoeCanuck: I don't think ATR is going to have a free lunch with the weight. To get even close to the speeds of the Q, they will have to increase the strength, w
26 r2rho: If ATR gets it right, this can only be a winner. There is definitely a market for an all-new, efficient, new generation 90-seat prop. RJ's beware! Thi
27 BMI727: They don't need to be worried too much about speed anyway. Just don't let the new plane be slower than the 72 and they'll be fine. Speed isn't stoppi
28 zkncj: I would say we could see this happening on the AKL-NLK route soon as the -600 arrive. The friendships back in the day operated AKL-NLK. I'm pretty su
29 PlymSpotter: It's good to see they won't be neglecting the 50-70 seat market, but I wonder if that will mean sticking with the current offerings for that range and
30 LAXDESI: Link in OP suggests that the fuselage will be longer than that of ATR72. I don't think you need a longer fuselage if ATR92 is built on a 5-abreast pl
31 lightsaber: I do not see the concern for speed in the sub 500nm market. This will be about cost per butt-mile. Just the wrong thrust, no other reason. As you note
32 PPVRA: Very cool. Will be interesting to see how it turns out and how well it does. Best of luck to ATR!
33 queb: Is ATR has the money to launch a brand new airplane ($ 1.5-2.0 B minimum)? With annual sales of $1.3 B, I don't think so and it's probably the reason
34 joelyboy911: The half of ATR that was Aerospatiale is now owned by EADS - I doubt they will have too much trouble sourcing extra financing. I expect they've been
35 bjorn14: IIRC the -600s have glass cockpits that can handle all navaids. I would love to see a ATR32 or 36 as they would own that market to replace all the 12
36 PlymSpotter: Yes they have glass cockpits, but I think they already have that EMB-120/SF340 replacement market cornered without needing a shortened aircraft. The
37 queb: Sure, but EADS (or Finmeccanica) will not fund a project if it is not profitable. In addition, ATR has just introduced the -600 series which must hav
38 PlymSpotter: That depends where ATR are heading with this. Are they looking at a 90 seater clean sheet design with the intention to create a 120 seat stretch, whi
39 parapente: Quoting r2rho (Reply 26): This is not a stretch. It's all-new, ATR have said it several times. Thank you. Lightsaber Well lets see it then.This articl
40 r2rho: A 70-seat shrink of the 90-seater would work, but a 50-seat shrink would be too far. So it's either two separate families, or sacrifice the 50-seat m
41 parapente: Re this all 'new design'.for the sake of clarity...... ATR boss: ‘We will invest’ in 90-seat turboprop By AviationBrief Published: May 11, 2011 Al
42 alangirvan: Part of the discussion might be where is the sweet spot where a Jet takes over as more efficienct than a TP? Some years ago when Dornier was producing
43 zkncj: Not if you ZK- register them =), and ZK registered aircraft can operate domestically within Australia. Australia's 1-36 ratio is a bit over the top,
44 joelyboy911: Off topic, but how many FA's on JetConnect 738s? Do they operate to the minimum standard - or have the same service levels as mainline QF?
45 gemuser: Who's Friendships did this and when? gemuser
46 zkncj: Some stage in the 1980s, I have only seen photo's don't have dates. They only have 4
47 alangirvan: The F-27s were used between Auckland and Norfolk Island until about 1983. Then AirNZ introduced 737-200s, about the time East West started using F-28s