ATR42A - 48seats + Normal size cargo door
ATR42B - 40seats + 108" cargo door
ATR42C - 32seats + 108" cargo door
How much would a project like this cost ATR?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- BawliBooch
- Posts: 1700
- Joined:
How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
How much effort would it take for ATR to create a flexible Combi aircraft with front loading for passengers?
ATR42A - 48seats + Normal size cargo door
ATR42B - 40seats + 108" cargo door
ATR42C - 32seats + 108" cargo door
How much would a project like this cost ATR?
ATR42A - 48seats + Normal size cargo door
ATR42B - 40seats + 108" cargo door
ATR42C - 32seats + 108" cargo door
How much would a project like this cost ATR?
Last edited by BawliBooch on Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- LimaFoxTango
- Posts: 1065
- Joined:
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
Such a project for forward entry door already exist. There are older models of ATR 72's out there that has front passenger entry doors. This option considerably reduces baggage capacity however as it takes away from the forward baggage hold. As far as I know, this option is only available at the time of manufacture, not after.
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
I think the concern/question I'd have is whether they could get away with doing that much cargo at the rear, or would that just run very quickly into a weight and balance problem?
I'm pretty sure the reason many combi aircraft end up with the cargo at the front is that very reason.
I'm pretty sure the reason many combi aircraft end up with the cargo at the front is that very reason.
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
I thought flexible dividers were no longer certifiable after the SAA 295 crash, not sure if OP's idea is to move that bulkhead from one flight to the next or to keep it fixed. Regarding the W+B, having a cargo bay all the way in front or all the way in back would have a long moment arm. Either way you'd need to plan out how to keep it in CG limits, with some combination of pax on the other side, cargo limits, or ballast.
-
- BawliBooch
- Posts: 1700
- Joined:
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
LimaFoxTango wrote:Such a project for forward entry door already exist. There are older models of ATR 72's out there that has front passenger entry doors. This option considerably reduces baggage capacity however as it takes away from the forward baggage hold. As far as I know, this option is only available at the time of manufacture, not after.
Yes the Forward Pax Loading for ATR has been done. But AFAIK in that implementation, the location of the Fwd baggage remains the same? Pax board from the front and walk through the Baggage hold? Someone with details can update.
In this implementation, the Baggage hold is at the rear and pax board from the front. Kind of like how it is done on the Dash 8 series.
LH707330 wrote:I thought flexible dividers were no longer certifiable after the SAA 295 crash, not sure if OP's idea is to move that bulkhead from one flight to the next or to keep it fixed. Regarding the W+B, having a cargo bay all the way in front or all the way in back would have a long moment arm. Either way you'd need to plan out how to keep it in CG limits, with some combination of pax on the other side, cargo limits, or ballast.
Correct. That is why I propose fixed bulkhead install with 3 separate capacities - 48, 40 and 32 pax. The forward door and rear emergency exits would stay fixed. The Cargo bulkhead position would change between variants.
Dash 8 aircraft did have this. Atleast one Canadian operator had Fwd pax loading Dash 8-100/200 with 21, 29 and 37 seat variants. The difference between them was in the position of the bulkhead and size of the rear cargo door - 21 and 29 seat variants had distinctly larger cargo doors.
Dash 8 is no longer available in this capacity market. The smallest variant they have is the Dash 8-400 which in the Combi variant seats 52 pax with a Large Cargo door. Japan Airlines is the customer for this Q400 Combi variant?
My question was - Can ATR come up with something like this for both their -42 and -72 aircraft? I think a 42-600S Combi would be particularly useful for milk runs in the Canadian North.
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
Gotcha. Two things I'd be curious about then:
1. Would you need to have he exit doors in the last row so that there are no dead ends? Recall the discussion about the 748 grandfathering the nose section with the evacuation rules saying you always need two paths in case one is blocked.
2. When were those Dash 8 variants certified? Was that before or after the "fixed divider" rule? Maybe something like that hasn't been done since because it's not worthwhile to certify all combinations.
1. Would you need to have he exit doors in the last row so that there are no dead ends? Recall the discussion about the 748 grandfathering the nose section with the evacuation rules saying you always need two paths in case one is blocked.
2. When were those Dash 8 variants certified? Was that before or after the "fixed divider" rule? Maybe something like that hasn't been done since because it's not worthwhile to certify all combinations.
-
- BawliBooch
- Posts: 1700
- Joined:
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
LH707330 wrote:Gotcha. Two things I'd be curious about then:
1. Would you need to have he exit doors in the last row so that there are no dead ends? Recall the discussion about the 748 grandfathering the nose section with the evacuation rules saying you always need two paths in case one is blocked.
If you see the draft drawings in OP, 8th row is configured as exit row in A,B and C configs.
LH707330 wrote:2. When were those Dash 8 variants certified? Was that before or after the "fixed divider" rule? Maybe something like that hasn't been done since because it's not worthwhile to certify all combinations.
Not sure when the -100 and -200 Combis were certified. However Combi aircraft with fixed bulkheads can be certified even now. Dash 8Q400 is available in Combi variant with a fixed bulkhead.
I think key to certification is fire suppression systems in Cargo hold - either automatic or Controlled by Cabin Crew with access door in bulkhead. I think the Japanese Q400 cabins are accessible by Cabin Crew (not sure).
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
BawliBooch wrote:If you see the draft drawings in OP, 8th row is configured as exit row in A,B and C configs.
My concern was whether that would comply with 14 CFR 25.813, which states "Where more than one floor level exit per side is prescribed, at least one floor level exit per side must be located near each end of the cabin, except that this provision does not apply to combination cargo/passenger configurations."
I'm not sure if that's supposed to mean you still need an exit near the end of the passenger area versus the entire fillable fuselage space, I'd be curious to see if there's an LOI. It looks like your configuration might work from a regulatory standpoint.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.813
-
- BawliBooch
- Posts: 1700
- Joined:
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
I think Air Inayut in Canada had Dash8-200's with the rear exit on the 2nd to last row.
-
- Clydenairways
- Posts: 1450
- Joined:
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
BawliBooch wrote:How much effort would it take for ATR to create a flexible Combi aircraft with front loading for passengers?
ATR42A - 48seats + Normal size cargo door
ATR42B - 40seats + 108" cargo door
ATR42C - 32seats + 108" cargo door
How much would a project like this cost ATR?
A front pax door ATR already exists in some of the earlier models. Here is an example in the link below. But can you explain why you want to have cargo in the back and pax in the front?
Generally on props it is quieter towards the rear so better to place pax there. Is it because you want to load pallets or containers in the rear ?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Ai ... 201/661115
-
- CanadianNorth
- Posts: 3296
- Joined:
Re: How much effort to develop ATR combi with front pax loading?
Probably could be done with enough cash thrown at it, but I doubt there would be much point since ATR combi is already available and in service using the standard forward freight and aft passenger setup, First Air now Canadian North and Air North both use them, and I'm sure there are others around as well.
I believe 42, 34, 30, 22, 18, 10, and full freight are the configs Air North offers with the ATR42 combi. It meets fairly modern requirements for smoke proofing and fire detection, and noticeable by it taking multiple mechanics a full shift to reconfigure compared to the old HS-748s that could be reconfigured by ramp attendants in an hour or less.
I believe 42, 34, 30, 22, 18, 10, and full freight are the configs Air North offers with the ATR42 combi. It meets fairly modern requirements for smoke proofing and fire detection, and noticeable by it taking multiple mechanics a full shift to reconfigure compared to the old HS-748s that could be reconfigured by ramp attendants in an hour or less.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: yblaser and 21 guests