Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ATR Close To Offering 90 Seat Turbo Prop  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5404 posts, RR: 30
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18159 times:

ATR seems close to pulling the trigger on a turbo prop larger than their 600.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roval-of-90-seat-turboprop-381418/

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?


What the...?
70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17441 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.


A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7154 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17308 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.


User currently offlineB6WNQX From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17261 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?


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2740 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17139 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.......

 


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7154 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17028 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.


User currently onlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4302 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16985 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?
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16672 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
With the CSeries and Lear 85 hogging resources, BBD might not be in a position to challenge them.

BBD will probably create a JV soon with korean companies (KAI & Korean Air Aerospace) and launch a 90 pax turboprop.


User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16629 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!!
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13032 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16446 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.

User currently offlinephatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1345 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16416 times:

Would this model get a front pax door? It would seem awkward to board a near-100 seat plane from the rear.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16360 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
User currently offlineHermansCVR580 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16276 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"
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16264 times:

I found this rendering online...

http://www.acam.asso.fr/photos/chrono_trains/21-2011/21-05-ATR-NG-2011-01-27.jpg

Here a link to an earlier article on the 90-seater.

ATR outlines 90-seater development plans



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16244 times:

Quoting HermansCVR580 (Reply 12):
Ok can we get one of our talented artists on here to do a sketch of what is describe in the article?


User currently offlineHermansCVR580 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16185 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"
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6524 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15853 times:

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 10):
Would this model get a front pax door? It would seem awkward to board a near-100 seat plane from the rear.

It's already an available option on current ATRs.

I'm pretty excited by this, it's not everyday that a new plane is born !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlinezkncj From New Zealand, joined Nov 2005, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15677 times:

Just before Christmas, when NZ had its first 72-600 delivered they expressed interesting in being the launch customer for this model.

They are currently phasing out the 733 with 133 for A320 which 171 seats, which is to large for some markets.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 14842 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.

I think that artist rendering looks great!

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 13479 times:

I'm sure it will be a 4 abreast stretch, rather than a wider fuselage. Fine by me, every seat window or aisle! I love those 8 bladed propellers too...


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 12795 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
but I think this will likely just be a stretch.

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).

http://www.hmgaerospace.com/news/show/4693

"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."


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 12198 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?


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 12055 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...


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 11534 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.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 11489 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
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 11796 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 24):
Bagnato said that speed target is around 300 so no Q400-like speed.

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 this winning formula.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 11678 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 25):
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 this winning formula.

By the time of EIS the other range "extender", in addition to lower costs, is NexGen ATC.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 11895 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 4):
Just from this quick read I'm kind of puzzled at the market(s) that this aircraft would serve?

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 50 years.

The E-175 and E-190 NEO are going to provide major competition. If BBD (edit: ATR!) can get fuel consumption much lower than E-175 NEO, then they have a good case. If not, forget this whole thing.

[Edited 2013-01-25 10:55:01]

User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 11825 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 27):
ATR is talking about potentially a turboprop mainline aircraft

Don't forget that it is still only 90-seats all Y. The CS100 is 125-seats all Y... big gap.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 27):
The E-175 and E-190 NEO are going to provide major competition.

You are forgetting about all the other costs as it isn't just about fuel burn.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 27):
If BBD can get fuel consumption much lower than E-175 NEO, then they have a good case.

Operating costs include more than just fuel consumption. In any case, the CS100 cannot get lower fuel burn than the E175.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6524 posts, RR: 9
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 11776 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 20):
"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.”

Interesting, so I will bet on a 5 abreast with margin for a stretch.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 11797 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 27):
The E-175 and E-190 NEO are going to provide major competition. If BBD can get fuel consumption much lower than E-175 NEO, then they have a good case. If not, forget this whole thing.

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 tons heavier than this turboprop.
Over short flights of say 300nm i'd say this ATR could have unbeatable economics.


User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 11732 times:

Hope this one has the entrance at the front instead of the rear.

User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 11673 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 30):
Over short flights of say 300nm i'd say this ATR could have unbeatable economics.

Undoubtedly. What will be interesting is what would be the range limit where it would have "unbeatable economics", which would be variable as it depends on a whole host of factors, including which continent, etc.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11611 posts, RR: 60
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 11464 times:

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 just how efficient the next generation of jet engines will be on the E-Jet NG, C Series etc... but it seems they will meet or exceed expectations, and that will narrow the market for large props. Interesting one to watch.

Quoting parapente (Reply 21):
Might there be levels above this? Say at 120 seats?

Almost certainly.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 24):
Bagnato said that speed target is around 300 so no Q400-like speed.

That is important, one of the big issues with the Q400 is that its fuel consumption is too close to a jet.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 11350 times:

HA might want to look at these...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 11366 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 4):
he 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

I think you'd be surprised just how cheap flying a prop can be, especially vs an RJ.

Quoting parapente (Reply 21):
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?

I'm not sure that size is an issue... if you could fly a 120 seat prop from LAX-SFO, or EWR-IAD/DCA/PHL/ETC, you
d get brilliant benefits.

NS


User currently offlinescarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 11250 times:

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 cockpit and cabin. The Aircraft will also have to be more suited to jetways too make it more popular. Realistically with pax instead of cargo in the forward cargo bay and a slight stretch with the fuselage, add more powerful engines, efficient props and a higher and reinforced landing gear you're nearly there. I don't see a huge change from the current design.

Brgds
SB03



No faults found......................
User currently onlinezkncj From New Zealand, joined Nov 2005, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 11243 times:

Quoting scarebus03 (Reply 36):
The Aircraft will also have to be more suited to jetways too make it more popular.

Brgds
SB03

NZ does that 72-500/600 with jetways at IVC/DUD/PMR


User currently offlinescarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 9 hours ago) and read 11099 times:

Quoting zkncj (Reply 37):

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 that purpose.



No faults found......................
User currently offlinescarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 11037 times:

Quoting zkncj (Reply 37):

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 that purpose.



No faults found......................
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4411 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 10990 times:

Would be good on AA's routes out of MIA to Nassau/Freeport.

User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 10906 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 33):
That is important, one of the big issues with the Q400 is that its fuel consumption is too close to a jet.

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 fuel burn. However, there is a very real possibility that fuel prices are heading lower, with AVITAS predicting $40 by 2018 and BofA predicting the possibility of $50 by 2015.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineos787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 10819 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 41):
However, there is a very real possibility that fuel prices are heading lower, with AVITAS predicting $40 by 2018 and BofA predicting the possibility of $50 by 2015.


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 significant reduction in oil consumption) where oil would go down to $40 or $50 dollars per barrel for an extended amount of time (e.g. 12 months).
When looking at the global finding costs for oil reserves a price below $70 or $80 per bbl is not sustainable (short term price drops due to economy/speculation are always possible).


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 10764 times:

Quoting os787 (Reply 42):
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 significant reduction in oil consumption) where oil would go down to $40 or $50 dollars per barrel for an extended amount of time (e.g. 12 months).

There is already a "glut" in North America. Canadian oil is at $40/bbl...

Quote:
Recently, the bitumen crude from the oil sands has sold for more than $40 a barrel below U.S. light crude

And it isn't just BofA. For example, Pilarski of AVIATAS has been saying this for years.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 10760 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 23):
It will be interesting to see what width they go for, either a 5 or 4 abreast.

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 than 737s on longer routes, since jets cruise at much higher altitudes.

Short stage lengths are where Turboprops shine compared to jets, where the average altitude is lower anyway and much time is spent flying slower, at the request of ATC.

I recently flew on an Q400 and initial acceleration and climb out put a smile on my face. The A330 I later flew on that day seemed down right sleepy in this regard. Block time between HAM and DUS was 50 minutes - identical to the 737 I few going the other way earlies.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5404 posts, RR: 30
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 10769 times:

at

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 33):


That is important, one of the big issues with the Q400 is that its fuel consumption is too close to a jet.

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 speed cruise of the Q-400 is 340kts but almost nobody flies those speeds regularly unless they want to maximize the number of flights in a day. Most airlines use the speed margin to make up lost time to remain on schedule.

Quoting os787 (Reply 42):

OPEC, which will have control over a very significant portion of the global oil supply for decades to come, has stated in the recent past that they want to keep oil close to the 90 dollar per barrel mark as a basement. The US supply is growing but with the global demand at around 90 million bbl/day, the margin of overproduction by non OPEC countries will only be about a percentage point or two for the foreseeable future...a margin small enough to disappear if OPEC cuts production to maintain prices or a single supplier has production issues.

NYMEX forecast average is for oil to remain at about $100/bbl through 2014...with no significant downward pressure on price forecast after that.

As we have seen in the past, oil price forecasting is more voodoo than science and it takes very little to change the parameters, especially with the global demand withing a percentage or two of supply...and no signs of that changing.

That is why NEO's and MAX's are selling like hotcakes. There would be virtually no need for them, (or their higher price tags), if airlines thought oil would get below $50/bbl over the next decade...and airlines are very aware of oil prices and futures.

More efficient t-props have a very good chance of taking over the sub 100 seat arena in the next few years. The GTF may have record bypass and efficiencies for a jet but it can never have the bypass ratio of a turboprop.



What the...?
User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 19
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 10756 times:

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, early 2000's. I say this because most A/C renderings seem to be a bit more clearer, and 3D. Again this is IMHO..

2.) Where is the cargo door? That seems to be a trademark with the ATR series..

3.) The cockpit windows kinda reminds me of the Dornier 328..



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 10543 times:

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, predicting Washington will come very close to achieving a previously unthinkable energy self-sufficiency.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10431 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
I recently flew on an Q400 and initial acceleration and climb out put a smile on my face. The A330 I later flew on that day seemed down right sleepy in this regard. Block time between HAM and DUS was 50 minutes - identical to the 737 I few going the other way earlies.

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 the A400M the very first time. The new ATR will be a fascinating aircraft, hope there will be an even larger variant with 120 seats.

Many people claimed turbo props to be dead as soon as the CRJ entered service back in the 90s. Now you see airlines wanting to get rid of these small jets as soon as possible and ATR presents this concept.

I was wondering if ATR might offer a freighter version of this aircraft ? I believe if the price is right there will be huge market for such an aircraft.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinea380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1101 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9981 times:

Would the A400M engine be a good match for such a plane?

User currently offlineos787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9882 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 47):
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, predicting Washington will come very close to achieving a previously unthinkable energy self-sufficiency.


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 economics for this plane.

1.) All the new oil production in North America is only possible because of the high current oil prices. Therefore US production rising strongly will not lead to a fundamental reduction in oil prices. At $40 or $50 / bbl for longer than a few months you would see a dramatic decline in drilling rig activity in all the unconventional plays like a Bakken/Eagleford or Permian. And due to the strong decline rates of these type of wells, this would within less than a year lead to a significant decline in oil production.... (causing rising prices).

2.) There are short term infrastructure issues that cause some price distortion, but this will be rectified with additional pipelines coming on (e.g. Brent - WTI spread due to the Cushing Terminal bottleneck or the big drops in West Canadian select price which is a mix of transport and processing constraints). Oil is a globally traded commodity (very different from Natural Gas which requires enormous captial investments to export) and with demand increases in Asia/Africa North American self sufficiency has very little impact on local or global oil prices

3.) The same analysts that are now predicting $40 or $50 bbl oil in a few years (or NA self sufficiency in 2030) were predicting only a few years back that the US would need to import enormous amounts of LNG by now due to Natural gas production dropping. These type of forecasts are always very difficult, but the easiest way is as mentioned in my earlier post to look at cost of supply (development) of the last million barrel per day. And this Barrel is either deep water or unconventional oil and none of these can be profitably developed for less than let's say 80 dollars.
In addition to that take the comments from OPEC (see JoeCanuck's reply). They need the price to keep investing in infrastructure and achieve social peace in their country (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

All these factors make a sustained oil price below 90 dollars in the next 5-10 years very unlikely, which is the reason for all the investments into fuel efficient planes.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26361 posts, RR: 76
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9739 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 4):
Just from this quick read I'm kind of puzzled at the market(s) that this aircraft would serve?

I can think of a ton of them. Especially in the Northeastern US and Southeast Asia.

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.

At some point, I agree. That said, a 50 seat prop seems to make more sense, given the fixed costs.

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 6):
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.

That isn't the reason, so much as poor marketing.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9652 times:

Quoting os787 (Reply 50):
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 economics for this plane.

I understand.

Quoting os787 (Reply 50):
All the new oil production in North America is only possible because of the high current oil prices.

Some fracking is done at $45/bbl though it ranges from $40-$70/bbl depending on circumstances as specific fields and technology employed. And the cost of horizontal fracking is coming down with new techniques and approaches such as Haliburton's "frack of the future" initiative. And Weatherford, Baker Hughes and Schlumberger have theirs as well.

Of course, as Pilarski says, civil war in Iraq, nuclear weapon capability in Iran, etc., etc., can throw all predictions out the window but there is the underlying issue that points to lower oil prices: demand destruction in OECD countries that offsets developing world demand... while global oil reserves are increasing.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26361 posts, RR: 76
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9630 times:

Quoting os787 (Reply 50):
1.) All the new oil production in North America is only possible because of the high current oil prices. Therefore US production rising strongly will not lead to a fundamental reduction in oil prices. At $40 or $50 / bbl for longer than a few months you would see a dramatic decline in drilling rig activity in all the unconventional plays like a Bakken/Eagleford or Permian. And due to the strong decline rates of these type of wells, this would within less than a year lead to a significant decline in oil production.... (causing rising prices).

That is untrue. The kind of shale that is being found in the US is profitable at $35bbl.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9546 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 53):
That is untrue.

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 wouldn't want this discussion to be dragged away from the main point of this thread so I will leave it at that there are now enough facts and credible forecast out there for people to at least have an open mind that low oil prices are a possibility... just as most people just a short while ago were predicting $200/bbl oil by now.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7154 posts, RR: 13
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9304 times:

Quoting a380900 (Reply 49):
Would the A400M engine be a good match for such a plane?

That was the engine I had in mind too. 2 of those would be more than enough for any ATR92.variant


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9200 times:

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 key initiative.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 49):
Would the A400M engine be a good match for such a plane?
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 55):
That was the engine I had in mind too. 2 of those would be more than enough for any ATR92.variant

Whoa. No.

That engine weighs 4000 pounds (a PW150 weighs 900), is a meter longer, and puts out over twice as many horses. is far more complicated than is appropriate for a civil airliner.

NS


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8860 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 56):
a PW150 weighs 900

While the PW150A actually weighs in closer to 1500lb, your point is still valid. If developed from scratch using todays technology level, it should be a fair bit lighter. A TP400 would indeed be a significant overkill for a 90 seater.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8683 times:

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 little bit of weight there. The TP400 is a massive affair.



NS


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8534 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 57):
A TP400 would indeed be a significant overkill for a 90 seater.

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 segment ?



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 877 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8184 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 59):
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 segment ?

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 speed goes. So should one have a market for a 130 seater in the 300-500nm segment, the plane will make a lot of sense.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5404 posts, RR: 30
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7936 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 57):
A TP400 would indeed be a significant overkill for a 90 seater.

...unless they wanted to make their new 90 seater like a very large Cessna Caravan.

Quoting columba (Reply 59):
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 segment ?

The newer jet engines coming down the pike, (GTF, LEAP), are more like ducted fans than straight jets. While the turboprops will always have the bypass ratio advantage, the jets are going to be a huge generation ahead technologically than the current turboprops...and the next gen turboprops are not yet ready for prime time...though with all the talk about how revolutionary the GTF is...it's easy to forget that turboprops are essentially geared turbofans.



What the...?
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7340 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 2):
I think ATR have pretty much signed off on a design tbh, maybe with an EIS 2015-2017.
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 challenging than designing the plane itself.
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 2):
this aircraft could well be taking away orders/business from EMB170s and 190s

Incidentally, ATR now no longer views only the Q400 as competitor, but the entire 50-90 seat market:

"Bagnato says ATR has sold around 700 aircraft over the past seven years in the 50- to 90-seat market. "In terms of new sales, ATR accounts for 39% of total sales between 2005 and 2012," he says.

ATR puts Bombardier's Q300 and Q400 turboprops at 21% of the market, while the CRJ family and Embraer 170/175 models take 21% and 19% respectively.
At the end of 2012 ATR had 61% of the total backlog in the 50 to 90-seat aircraft sector. The Q400 accounted for 11%, the CRJ family 17% and the E-170/E-175 11%."


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roval-of-90-seat-turboprop-381418/

Quoting point2point (Reply 4):
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)

That's the old 80's-90's way of using props. The future props will eat into mainline territory. You can still order ATR42's today, and yet the market is clearly shifted to the -72. In the future, any destination that cannot support at least an ATR-42 will have to be served by trains, buses, or government-subsidized air service.


Quoting B6WNQX (Reply 3):
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?

I hope that's what they do. 5-abreast with built-in margin for a stretch (which would be kept secret and not launched immediately) to enable a 2nd TP family at ATR.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 19):
I'm sure it will be a 4 abreast stretch,

That is a frequent misconception, but ATR has made clear that it is an all-new design.

Quoting A342 (Reply 22):
A pair of 7500 hp GE CPX38 engines could comfortably power a 130 seater at Q400-like speeds.

I expect a de-rated, civilian-use optimized GE38 to be proposed, as the 7500shp are a bit too much (but nice to keep in mind for a future stretch)

Quoting planemaker (Reply 24):
Bagnato said that speed target is around 300 so no Q400-like speed.

300kts is still faster than the 250kts of today's ATR's, so it will extend the "useful" range of the "ATR-92" while not consuming as much fuel as would a Q400-equivalent.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 27):
If BBD (edit: ATR!) can get fuel consumption much lower than E-175 NEO, then they have a good case.

That is the challenge for PW & GE. In order to maintain today's fuel burn advantage for props, they need to improve the current engines almost to the same degree as they did with GTF/Leap - a double-digit improvement. Achievable IMO but a challenge. My "feeling" (TBC by someone more knowledgeable) is that the current PW1xx are built more for durability & ease of maintenance than fuel consumption, and that more could be gained with latest engine technologies.
But don't forget that the Ejet NEO's will be much heavier and built for longer ranges, and that the ATR has always had very low maintenance costs compared to RJ's, which will likely continue.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 49):
Would the A400M engine be a good match for such a plane?

Overkill. The TP400 could easily power an A319-A320 sized prop. And being a military engine, I don't know how well it is suited to civilian ops in terms of fuel consumption, cycles, maintenance, etc.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7240 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 4):
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)
Quoting r2rho (Reply 62):
In the future, any destination that cannot support at least an ATR-42 will have to be served by trains, buses, or government-subsidized air service.

Or something like this.....

.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_01_28_2013_p40-539457.xml


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stefan Sonnenberg


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Lapierre Forget
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Derden - Jetwash Images




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 62):
That's the old 80's-90's way of using props. The future props will eat into mainline territory. You can still order ATR42's today, and yet the market is clearly shifted to the -72. In the future, any destination that cannot support at least an ATR-42 will have to be served by trains, buses, or government-subsidized air service.

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. markets, are increasing mx costs with age, expiring leases, and public perceptions of turboprop aircraft.

I also don't think there are any regional airlines - at least in the U.S. - with the finances to sign as the launch customer for a new type of smaller prop. Except for maybe SkyWest or RAH, but they have bigger fish to fry.

I have a feeling the smaller markets are going to go underserved/unserved until the economy rebounds and there is a renaissance at the regional level of carriers willing to provide air service to the local communities with the resources to procure the aircraft for it.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineAisak From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 762 posts, RR: 10
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6799 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
I wonder if they could do a 'combi' version or a full freighter version

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, it might be wiser to launch a program for converting "old" pax models.
It would be interesting if you coud have a ATR-72 combi to reduce the passenger area to just 50 seats. That way you can maximise this new design for 90 seats = 2 FAs, and reduce the need for 2 FAs to just one, carrying 50 passengers on your older and smaller models.

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 10):
Would this model get a front pax door? It would seem awkward to board a near-100 seat plane from the rear.

Isn't the MD-87 also boarded literally from the back? It isn't that bad once you take into account the typical airports these props serve, where you usually walk to the aircraft.

Quoting scarebus03 (Reply 36):
The Aircraft will also have to be more suited to jetways too make it more popular.

Most airports with prop service cannot hold a jet. Not even a regional jet due to runway length. That brings the possibility of using jetways almost to zero as there are simply no jetways at those airports.
The big hubs they usually serve from these points also have a dedicated regional area with sidewalks to the aircrafts so I really see no benefit there.


User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 353 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6713 times:

Quoting Aisak (Reply 65):
Isn't the MD-87 also boarded literally from the back? It isn't that bad once you take into account the typical airports these props serve, where you usually walk to the aircraft.

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 stairway, but there were also built-in forward air stairs for ground level boarding. Of course most used a jet bridge.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6602 times:

Quoting Aisak (Reply 65):
Most airports with prop service cannot hold a jet. Not even a regional jet due to runway length. That brings the possibility of using jetways almost to zero as there are simply no jetways at those airports.
The big hubs they usually serve from these points also have a dedicated regional area with sidewalks to the aircrafts so I really see no benefit there.

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 to board their regional aircraft, including the props, through jetways as much as possible for passenger convenience and liability reasons- airlines would see the ability for easy boarding through a jetway as a big plus.


User currently offlineBonzoLab From New Zealand, joined Jun 2012, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6504 times:

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 heavy weight days. The 72s currently TAS 270-280kts and have awful climb performance when near MTOW. I think the 92 is an exciting prospect.

User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6244 times:

Quoting BonzoLab (Reply 68):
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 heavy weight days. The 72s currently TAS 270-280kts and have awful climb performance when near MTOW. I think the 92 is an exciting prospect.

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 want to keep the current advantage that the ATR has over RJ's, and that is the big challenge for GE & PW to do. ATR's motto for the '92 seems to be "as fast as possible, as slow as necessary" - the trick will be to make the right tradeoff.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6104 times:

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 issue is not an isue. I hope they do.

However it also seems the concensus that there really is not a market above this. There is a huge raft of 100+ seaters coming on to the market all Fan driven, all absolutly state of the art. From Russia,(now) Brazil,Japan and Canada. All fantastic aircraft. In many cases the Geared Fan is a huge new advantage in all of this.(But new materials/wing sections too).
These aircraft have the range,speed smoothness that any turboprop cannot hope to match and are also highly fuel efficient.

So yes really hope to see a 90 seater ATR but ain't holding my breath for anything after this - unless fuel prices go balastic and with the USA destined to become 100% self sufficient based on "Tight Oli" I cannot see that happening any time soon.

Note . Personally I have always loved flying prop planes. Both driving and Pax but I don't think the pubic do really.No reason to prefer them.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing/Russia To Build 90 Seat RJ posted Sat Apr 14 2001 04:26:10 by Republic
ATR In Advanced Talks With GE, P&W For 90 Seat TP posted Wed May 26 2010 06:53:26 by AirbusCanada
Kingfisher First To Offer In-seat IFE On ATR posted Fri Apr 14 2006 20:07:27 by PlaneHunter
Boeing Dash 8-300 Turbo Prop (according To BA!) posted Fri Jun 17 2005 06:32:44 by SNATH
A320 Sharklet Retrofit Close To Launch posted Fri Jan 18 2013 08:53:43 by art
A380 - Airbus Close To 'Significant Order' Part #2 posted Thu Jan 17 2013 10:40:50 by iowaman
A380 - Airbus Close To 'Significant Order' posted Thu Dec 13 2012 02:17:37 by afriwing
TAM Close To Joining Oneworld posted Fri Nov 16 2012 08:31:37 by SCL767
Scandinavian Airlines Really Close To Bankruptcy posted Sat Oct 27 2012 01:45:44 by robbie86
VS Close To Joining An Alliance posted Fri Oct 26 2012 10:10:09 by ota1