Quote: Chief executive Filippo Bagnato showed a slide during the airframer's press conference in Toulouse on 23 January, depicting an outline of the future aircraft.
It featured a wing with upwards-angled winglets and engines with eight-blade propellers.
The illustration also showed a classic T-tail, with the horizontal stabiliser mounted on top of the fin. On current-generation ATR 42 and 72 aircraft, the fin extends above the horizontal stabiliser.
Their timing might be pretty good. With the CSeries and Lear 85 hogging resources, BBD might not be in a position to challenge them. The flipside to that is the Q-400 seems to me like it would be an easier plane to stretch. 'Both Pratt and GE say they will or have engines suitable for the planes.
How soon can we expect one or both of these large props?
spantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 270 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13426 times:
Great news. I hope that a new era of big turboprops à la Electra, Viscount.... is on the making. With an amazing CASM, STOL capabilities and noise reduction tricks this could open a lot of new routes or even offer the possibility of a "turboprop LCC model". At least here in Europe short hops are being lost quickly in favour of high speed trains and big turboprops could, maybe, change somehow the game.
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6324 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13294 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter): How soon can we expect one or both of these large props?
Well ATR seem to be the only ones interested in future new design props, and it is ATR still gaining customers and new orders for their current aircraft. I think ATR have pretty much signed off on a design tbh, maybe with an EIS 2015-2017. I see the ATR92 as one size up, possibly 5 abreast, and ideal for many markets which need additional capacity but dont have infinite gate space and runways which don't allow for jet services. In fact, keep the fuel burn down and the payload reasonable/good this aircraft could well be taking away orders/business from EMB170s and 190s
A stretch of the already stretched and ungainly Q400 I don't believe would provide the right aircraft to compete with this.
B6WNQX From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13249 times:
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 2): I see the ATR92 as one size up, possibly 5 abreast
If they were to move to a 5 abreast, how many additional seats would it provide (I'm not sure how many rows on the current ATR72)? Could they possibly offer two models of 5 abreast one base and then a stretch to give more flexibility and the possibility for a business class, premium economy and economy?
point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1959 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13127 times:
Just from this quick read I'm kind of puzzled at the market(s) that this aircraft would serve?
Somehow, at least from my POV, the market needs smaller, more fuel and cost efficient props having some 20-40 seats, for regional airports (that usually don't have much population around them or high demand for many seats) with birds like the BE1 or EM2 on their way out. The new generations of C-Series and others along those lines seem like they could easily substitute for this 90-seater prop and for not that much more operational cost or fuel savings at the airports that require this higher seat demand. And when considering speed, these props usually will spend more time in the air than the jets.
At any rate, ATR hopefully has pegged the markets where they would be proficient, and that purchase price, fuel and operational savings, and maintenance costs will be advantageous to carriers. But, are there any carriers out there that are even presently interested?
Of course, if these things are designed get around scope clauses, well.......
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6324 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13016 times:
Quoting B6WNQX (Reply 3): If they were to move to a 5 abreast, how many additional seats would it provide
17 rows x4 on AT7. 68 seats.
If all they did was make an enlarged scale AT7 without increasing length so much that allowed for 5 abreast 17x5 = 85 seats.. If you Stretch an ATR72 by 5 rows you also get the same capacity as 5 abreast. The aircraft I have in my head at least is a cross between an ATR72 and a civilian Transall C160.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12973 times:
I hope they will make a 5 abreast design, just for the esthetics and the coolness of having big turboprops again. A bit of trivia; so far the final bigger (5 abreast or more, 80 seats or more) propellor engined passenger aircraft built was an Il-18 in 1969... although reading between the lines I fear for a 4 abreast flying pencil.
5 Abreast will be a good basis for a new family, it might even make 150 seats possible (look at the DC-9 family which seated between 65 and 180).
Quoting point2point (Reply 4): Somehow, at least from my POV, the market needs smaller, more fuel and cost efficient props having some 20-40 seats, for regional airports (that usually don't have much population around them or high demand for many seats) with birds like the BE1 or EM2 on their way out.
Beech 1900s, Embrear 120s are still available and not out of hours yet... the reason they were withdrawn by most airlines is not that they use too much fuel or so, but because there are many fixed costs (2 pilots, 1 F/A if 20-50 seats, landing, handling) which make them less attractive on a RPK basis. I fear that we won't see many new 20-50 seaters anytime soon.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
wingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 585 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12616 times:
I know that P&W 150 on the Q400 has massive amounts of power. As it stands today, it could power a 90 seat t-prop no problem. Hell, on one engine a Q can out climb some regional jets.
Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12329 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12434 times:
I wonder if they could do a 'combi' version or a full freighter version for a number of markets like the Caribbean, islands, isolated and smaller cities, Alaska/Norhern Canada as well as where short runways and a need for larger freight capacity and replace the few DC-3's and other prop airplanes that may be ending their useful lives.
phatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1322 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12404 times:
Would this model get a front pax door? It would seem awkward to board a near-100 seat plane from the rear.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 35 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12347 times:
Quoting point2point (Reply 4): The new generations of C-Series and others along those lines seem like they could easily substitute for this 90-seater prop and for not that much more operational cost or fuel savings at the airports that require this higher seat demand. And when considering speed, these props usually will spend more time in the air than the jets.
The CSeries is too big and heavy vs TP... seats up to 125 @30" pitch. And block time on short routes is not really a consideration.
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 5): If all they did was make an enlarged scale AT7 without increasing length
The article reports "Bagnato says that while the future model will have features distinguishing it from current-generation ATR aircraft, it will still be based on the current design philosophy for commonality."
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
HermansCVR580 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 494 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12264 times:
Ok can we get one of our talented artists on here to do a sketch of what is describe in the article? In my head I have a picture of......... well I'm not really sure what is going on up there in my mind but when I hear classic T-tail I instantly picture DC-9 or 727.
The right decision at the wrong time, is still a wrong decision. "Hal Carr"
HermansCVR580 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 494 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12173 times:
Very interesting. Ok I gotta admit if this is it, I see an ATR that bread with a Beech 1900D. Reason I say that is the tail and the wings are kinda Beech 1900 looking. Its got potential thats for sure.
The right decision at the wrong time, is still a wrong decision. "Hal Carr"
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4536 posts, RR: 28 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10828 times:
I'd love to see a dual family of 90-100 seats and 120-130 seats, but I think this will likely just be a stretch. Regardless, for 250-750 mile markets, I'd think it'd be a great replacement for CRJ/ERJ/733/73G/A319's that often ply these routes today.
Per ATR ceo, it will be a completely new design with new generation engine. Three engine manufacturers show interest: Pratt & Whitney Canada, GE (CPX38) and Safran (Snecma).
"Bagnato said the 90-seater, “while maintaining same design concept as today’s ATR – “simple” – is from an overall standpoint is another aeroplane. The ATR 72 cannot be stretched. Once we studied an ATR 82, [a programme] which was left on paper. Due to length limitation, it was not possible without changes to both the wing and the engine.”
Bagnato added that he would not enter any agreement on engines without the OEM “being able to give me two brothers. The family concept is a key point. Major equipment must have a good level of commonality”.
Bagnato explained that a likely scenario will to have the 90-seater as a new aircraft, but having a version of the new engine fitted to the current models. New airframe designs for the 50- and 70-seaters are unlikely. “If I was designing an ATR 72 from scratch now, I would not do much different [with the airframe structure],” he stressed."
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1310 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8185 times:
I wonder what the market limit is for prop plane size? Clearly they only remain economic (vis a vis time length of journey) over the shorter sectors where the slower cruising speed is less of an issue (particularly as you get some of it back as you never need to go to the higher Fl's).
Then there is route density. From this announcement it appears that 90 seats can be an economic proposition (enough market demand) - also they have the fundamental aircraft structure in place so lower risk.
Might there be levels above this? Say at 120 seats? This would of course require a ground up new plane. But does anybody think that there is a market lurking up there or have aircraft such as the Bombardier "c" and others now put an effective ceiling on prop planes larget than 90 seats?
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8041 times:
A pair of 7500 hp GE CPX38 engines could comfortably power a 130 seater at Q400-like speeds. I really hope they at least consider such a size, at 150 seats in a high density layout, even Ryanair might bite...
clydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7521 times:
I am really interested by this development for a 90 seater prop. We haven't had one of these for years.
I think there could be huge potential for an aircraft such as this and hopefully they will keep to their current philosophy by keeping it simple. I think this is why the current ATR model has been more successful than the Q400.
It will be interesting to see what width they go for, either a 5 or 4 abreast. If we see that the CRJ1000 and ERJ190 can accommodate 100 in a 2 x 2 arrangement then it could be possible. It might also keep the development costs down.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 35 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7476 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 21): Clearly they only remain economic (vis a vis time length of journey) over the shorter sectors where the slower cruising speed is less of an issue (particularly as you get some of it back as you never need to go to the higher Fl's).
By the time this design would EIS we will have a carbon tax... there really should be no doubt about that. Europe tried and now with Obama in for another 4 years without having to face re-election and highlighting action on climate change as one priority in his Inaugural Address. This will "improve" the economics of TP's and tilt the range vs speed balance a bit more.
Quoting A342 (Reply 22): A pair of 7500 hp GE CPX38 engines could comfortably power a 130 seater at Q400-like speeds.
Bagnato said that speed target is around 300 so no Q400-like speed.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 clydenairways: Well the success of the current ATR models shows that the market prefers low operating cost and simplicity over speed so perhaps they will stick with
26 planemaker: By the time of EIS the other range "extender", in addition to lower costs, is NexGen ATC.
27 Flighty: Short-haul markets where the A319 or 73G burn too much fuel. ATR is talking about potentially a turboprop mainline aircraft, the first in (?) 40 to 5
28 planemaker: Don't forget that it is still only 90-seats all Y. The CS100 is 125-seats all Y... big gap. You are forgetting about all the other costs as it isn't
29 Aesma: Interesting, so I will bet on a 5 abreast with margin for a stretch.
30 clydenairways: The problem with the Cseries and ERJ-NEO is that they will be optimised for much longer range flying and because of this will probably be up to 10 to
31 tsugambler: Hope this one has the entrance at the front instead of the rear.
32 planemaker: Undoubtedly. What will be interesting is what would be the range limit where it would have "unbeatable economics", which would be variable as it depe
33 PlymSpotter: Whilst this is a much anticipated and expected development, I almost wonder if this move is coming at the wrong time. There's still uncertainty about
35 gigneil: I think you'd be surprised just how cheap flying a prop can be, especially vs an RJ. I'm not sure that size is an issue... if you could fly a 120 sea
36 scarebus03: I think if the bigger Aircraft is developed it will have to be front loading for pax and may not have room for the larger cargo bay between the cockpi
37 zkncj: NZ does that 72-500/600 with jetways at IVC/DUD/PMR
38 scarebus03: So did American Eagle, but it isn't practical in every AIrport and results in a lot of damage to a part of the Aircraft that was never designed for t
39 scarebus03: So did American Eagle, but it isn't practical in every AIrport and results in a lot of damage to a part of the Aircraft that was never designed for t
40 N62NA: Would be good on AA's routes out of MIA to Nassau/Freeport.
41 planemaker: Every bit helps. Boeing's and MIT's proposals for next gen NBs include reducing speed for a whole host of reasons including the most obvious, reduced
42 os787: As somebody who is making his daily living with finding oil/gas I don't see any scenario (excluding a dramatic global recession/depression with signi
43 planemaker: There is already a "glut" in North America. Canadian oil is at $40/bbl... And it isn't just BofA. For example, Pilarski of AVIATAS has been saying th
44 tommytoyz: Since the current ATR design has reached it's maximum useful length already, more seats = more than 4 abreast. Turboprops are not much more efficient
45 JoeCanuck: at Actually, the Q fuel consumption isn't that far from the ATR at 300kts...and at those speeds, it's not even close to what a jet burns. The high spe
46 SXDFC: There are a few things that come to my mind at least when I look at this drawing.. 1.) IMHO the rendering itself looks like its from the late -90s, ea
47 planemaker: Bloomberg The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017, the West's energy agency said on Monday, pr
48 columba: so how was your flight with Air Berlin Nice to see a larger turbo prop again. I was thinking of such a concept as soon as I have seen the engines of
49 a380900: Would the A400M engine be a good match for such a plane?
50 os787: This will be my last post on this topic, since it is only slightly related to ATR's 90 seat turbo prop... But of course it influences project economi
51 N1120A: I can think of a ton of them. Especially in the Northeastern US and Southeast Asia. At some point, I agree. That said, a 50 seat prop seems to make m
52 planemaker: I understand. Some fracking is done at $45/bbl though it ranges from $40-$70/bbl depending on circumstances as specific fields and technology employe
53 N1120A: That is untrue. The kind of shale that is being found in the US is profitable at $35bbl.
54 planemaker: There will always be divergent opinions and people will point to whatever valid or invalid talking points on both sides of the divide. However, I wou
55 aerorobnz: That was the engine I had in mind too. 2 of those would be more than enough for any ATR92.variant
56 gigneil: Whether or not oil is available, or becomes cheaper, there is value to not burning it in the atmosphere. As a society reducing consumption is a pretty
57 PW100: While the PW150A actually weighs in closer to 1500lb, your point is still valid. If developed from scratch using todays technology level, it should b
58 gigneil: Along with accessories, fluid, and the propeller, you're absolutely right. The engine by itself weighs exactly 924 pounds. We're waffling over just a
59 columba: Okay, but for an aircraft in the size of an A319-A320 the TP400 would be the right choice if somebody would plan to build a turbo prop in that segmen
60 fpetrutiu: I think so. A turbo-prop is much more efficient, and on shorter segments the turbofan equipped A319 will not have much of an advantage as far as spee
61 JoeCanuck: ...unless they wanted to make their new 90 seater like a very large Cessna Caravan. The newer jet engines coming down the pike, (GTF, LEAP), are more
62 r2rho: They have been talking about this for at least 2 years now. "All" they need is shareholder approval and an engine proposal - both likely more challeng
64 JBo: I think there is still a market for turboprops in the sub-70 seat range ... the primary reasons such aircraft have been phased out, at least in U.S.
65 Aisak: Why not the other way round? Most aircrafts find a second life as freighters and seeing the -42 and -72 models still have many cycles in their lifes,
66 Wingtips56: No, the MD-87 has the same main L1 boarding door as any other member of the DC-9 family. Yes, there was the option of boarding through the ventral st
67 Polot: Most airports that prop serve, at least in the US and Europe, can easily handle a jet (and frequently do). Most airline hubs, at least in the US, try
68 BonzoLab: If the '92' is to compete on mainline routes it will need to TAS 300kt++ and get to the cruise quickly ie better climb performance on hot/icing and he
69 r2rho: From the looks of it, ATR wants the '92 to be faster, so more powerful engines, but without making too many compromises on fuel consumption. They wan
70 parapente: Interesting thread. Reading through it seems that there indeed might be room for a stretch to 90 seats , particulary on the short haul where the speed
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4994 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 270 posts, 
From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6324 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 238 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4775 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2005, 180 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1906 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 995 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
