Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
What does anybody that has flown the ATR think of it?
- Thread starter Rally
- Start date
- Watchers 15
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
mckpickle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
- Posts
- 1,242
Lets just say the title of this thread got me hard
Honestly it's a great plane. Fast for a prop, will carry a shat load of gas,pax, and cargo. A bit easier to land in a x-wind than the 42 but the 72 overall is still a handfull to land. You gotta know what your doing or things could get outa hand rather quick.....as seen with eagles 72 in SJU. But overall a great plane.
Honestly it's a great plane. Fast for a prop, will carry a shat load of gas,pax, and cargo. A bit easier to land in a x-wind than the 42 but the 72 overall is still a handfull to land. You gotta know what your doing or things could get outa hand rather quick.....as seen with eagles 72 in SJU. But overall a great plane.
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
The ATR is a whole lot more of an airliner than the CRJ. Cockpit flow is better and is more automated (believe it or not).
The controls are HEAVY and SLOW. Think of a dump truck without power steering. The airplane is very efficient but underpowered. You can go a year without setting 29.92. Burns between half and one third the gas of an RJ to go 2/3rds as fast with a lot more room and a heavier load. I don't know why RJ's exist on flights of less than 400 NM.
It does not land like an airplane. Best technique is to slip it a little, land it flat with one main, then put the other one down. Reminds me of dipping my toe in a swimming pool. Then you have to keep (sometimes even push) the nose down depending on CG. From there the ailerons can steer the airplane (like a bicycle). Ground handling at night in the rain is somewhere between lousy and scary. It has no taxi lights, or windshield wipers that work. The nose wheel slides all over the place because the weight is so far aft and the GC is way over your head. But, if you fly the ATR well, you can give your passengers a really nice ride.
Also, if it breaks, or if crew scheduling makes you mad enough... you can drive home.
The controls are HEAVY and SLOW. Think of a dump truck without power steering. The airplane is very efficient but underpowered. You can go a year without setting 29.92. Burns between half and one third the gas of an RJ to go 2/3rds as fast with a lot more room and a heavier load. I don't know why RJ's exist on flights of less than 400 NM.
It does not land like an airplane. Best technique is to slip it a little, land it flat with one main, then put the other one down. Reminds me of dipping my toe in a swimming pool. Then you have to keep (sometimes even push) the nose down depending on CG. From there the ailerons can steer the airplane (like a bicycle). Ground handling at night in the rain is somewhere between lousy and scary. It has no taxi lights, or windshield wipers that work. The nose wheel slides all over the place because the weight is so far aft and the GC is way over your head. But, if you fly the ATR well, you can give your passengers a really nice ride.
Also, if it breaks, or if crew scheduling makes you mad enough... you can drive home.
Last edited:
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
Some of the systems are a little strange, but they are fairly simple. Cockpit is big and comfortable. As has already been mentioned, it can be a handful in a strong crosswind and visibility isn't very good when landing in rain due to poor wipers. You won't be able to outclimb the thunderstorms, but you can go below the weather at 4000 ft. and not burn much more gas.
I've been on the ATR for almost 12 years and they're probably going to have to pry me out when the last one leaves. No SJS here - just give me an ATR.
I've been on the ATR for almost 12 years and they're probably going to have to pry me out when the last one leaves. No SJS here - just give me an ATR.
Rook
And shepherds we shall be
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 1,225
As a fledgling RJ F/O I got to ride in an eagle ATR jumpseat from TUL-DFW. All I could think of was how cool the plane was (is). I envied those guys. That's a great airplane in my opinion. Would've loved to have flown that when I was running fr8 like the FedEx contractors (Mountain Air?)
Rook
Rook
Borat Sagdiyev
Registered Gypsy Catcher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
- Posts
- 28
I am biased since I fly it (sometimes), but I will say that it is an excellent airplane for what it does. It was designed to be easy to operate, reliable, and efficient.
We have had plenty of pilots with no turboprop experience learn to be excellent captains on the ATR. The systems are quite automated, more so than the CRJ-200's. It is a challenge (like any airplane you are just learning) at first to learn how the system automation works, but it really cuts down on switch-flipping and really pilot-proofs the airplane (think Airbus here). It has heavy flight controls, but you've got enough control authority to do what you need to do. It is a very stable airplane, but less so when the flight attendants starting walking up and down the aisle. It lands like a rubber ball (bouncy) and takes a definite, positive side slip to land in a crosswind without side loading it. The combination of a narrow landing gear, large wingspan, high wing, and a large tail make it a real handful in a crosswind. In other words, you will learn to land it well in a crosswind or you will scare yourself a bit. Aileron placement during takeoff and the landing rollout is crucial in a crosswind, or else one of your main landing gears might get a bit light in the loafers. But, once you master one of the many techniques ATR pilots use, you can get some very nice landings out of her.
As far as reliability, alot of that depends on the age and the maintenance of the airplane. Older ones break more often, but knowledgeable mechanics can mitigate this.
It is a very efficient airplane optimized for regional flying. It burns about 1600 pounds per hour at about 265 KTAS (on average). It does seem underpowered, but this is because the airplane does not let you use more than about 80% of the total available horsepower during normal climb and normal cruise. This increases engine life greatly, since it keeps ITTs very far from engine limitations. The engines are amazingly simple to operate. The power levers spend most of their time in flight in a detent called the notch; the crew sets power by rotating a knob called the power management selector. The power levers usually only come back when it is time to reduce power in a descent.
The airplane gets a bit hot inside in the summer since the packs aren't exactly huge. Keeping the temperature reasonable in the summer months is an art among ATR pilots. Barring this, the cabin is very comfortable for a regional airliner, much more so than the CRJ's cabin.
Pilots here at Almaty Southern Aeroflot love the ATR (but not as much in the summer). I know I will miss it when it goes away.
We have had plenty of pilots with no turboprop experience learn to be excellent captains on the ATR. The systems are quite automated, more so than the CRJ-200's. It is a challenge (like any airplane you are just learning) at first to learn how the system automation works, but it really cuts down on switch-flipping and really pilot-proofs the airplane (think Airbus here). It has heavy flight controls, but you've got enough control authority to do what you need to do. It is a very stable airplane, but less so when the flight attendants starting walking up and down the aisle. It lands like a rubber ball (bouncy) and takes a definite, positive side slip to land in a crosswind without side loading it. The combination of a narrow landing gear, large wingspan, high wing, and a large tail make it a real handful in a crosswind. In other words, you will learn to land it well in a crosswind or you will scare yourself a bit. Aileron placement during takeoff and the landing rollout is crucial in a crosswind, or else one of your main landing gears might get a bit light in the loafers. But, once you master one of the many techniques ATR pilots use, you can get some very nice landings out of her.
As far as reliability, alot of that depends on the age and the maintenance of the airplane. Older ones break more often, but knowledgeable mechanics can mitigate this.
It is a very efficient airplane optimized for regional flying. It burns about 1600 pounds per hour at about 265 KTAS (on average). It does seem underpowered, but this is because the airplane does not let you use more than about 80% of the total available horsepower during normal climb and normal cruise. This increases engine life greatly, since it keeps ITTs very far from engine limitations. The engines are amazingly simple to operate. The power levers spend most of their time in flight in a detent called the notch; the crew sets power by rotating a knob called the power management selector. The power levers usually only come back when it is time to reduce power in a descent.
The airplane gets a bit hot inside in the summer since the packs aren't exactly huge. Keeping the temperature reasonable in the summer months is an art among ATR pilots. Barring this, the cabin is very comfortable for a regional airliner, much more so than the CRJ's cabin.
Pilots here at Almaty Southern Aeroflot love the ATR (but not as much in the summer). I know I will miss it when it goes away.
Lets just say the title of this thread got me hard
Honestly it's a great plane. Fast for a prop, will carry a shat load of gas,pax, and cargo. A bit easier to land in a x-wind than the 42 but the 72 overall is still a handfull to land. You gotta know what your doing or things could get outa hand rather quick.....as seen with eagles 72 in SJU. But overall a great plane.
Mckpickle does not surprise me that you were the first to respond...no go wash your hands
dojetdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Posts
- 1,998
Mckpickle does not surprise me that you were the first to respond...no go wash your hands
Yeah, I was wondering how long it would take him.
V2plus25
Brownin'
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Posts
- 163
The ATR was loads of fun to fly, very roomy and still has one of the best jumpseats I've seen. Now if I could have a penny for every time I had to fix those smoke doors I'd be rich.
I enjoyed flying it so much that a few years ago I almost left my Metro gig just so that I could fly ATRs again (for Empire). SJU and MIA were fun times!
I enjoyed flying it so much that a few years ago I almost left my Metro gig just so that I could fly ATRs again (for Empire). SJU and MIA were fun times!
mckpickle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
- Posts
- 1,242
For that guys that mentioned is was a little on the under powered side I'm just wondering which model you flew? I flew the 72-212 which had the bigger engines but also had time in the 215(I think that was the model number). Anyway, both models had 2450 SHP with a RTO of 2700ish. With the power management at TO you'd hit 90ish% TQ, but once you switched to climb mode the power management would keep the TQ right at 100%.
Someone said about how you only used about 80% of the engines. I recall once in the 42 and once in the 72 having to firewall the engines due to windshear.........seeing 125% TQ and the engines just wanting to rip the wings off was somethin else!!!!! Nice to have the power when you need it. Never understood why RJ's didn't have that.
Someone said about how you only used about 80% of the engines. I recall once in the 42 and once in the 72 having to firewall the engines due to windshear.........seeing 125% TQ and the engines just wanting to rip the wings off was somethin else!!!!! Nice to have the power when you need it. Never understood why RJ's didn't have that.
flylowman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Posts
- 149
Having flown the ATR-72 212 for about six years, I can tell you it is a very honest bird. Don't let people scare you about the landings. It is not that bad. I would benefit you to go and get a few hours is a Citaboria or something similar. Learn to do wheel landings, and x-wind landings. The ATR lands the same. Good luck, I think you will like the frog.
Aerosurfer
I envy the Gaut
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Posts
- 233
Greatest Plane ever!!!! Ya what everyone else said already. It was blast to fly. You can load anyting in it, as long as the door shuts it will takeoff. Landings can be a bit tough to master, but the thing will stop on a dime!! Deep Reverse with those props, all 13ft in diameter can throw everyone forward. And if you can see the runway in front of you, you can make the landing. Props forward and power levers idle, she will glide as gracefully as bird poop straight down! In the 72 at cruise altitude, with the props back to 77% (or was it 72) its nice and quiet enough to go without the head sets.
Sure miss flying it! How much fun are those Bridge Visuals to RW10 in SJU!!
Sure miss flying it! How much fun are those Bridge Visuals to RW10 in SJU!!
Borat Sagdiyev
Registered Gypsy Catcher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
- Posts
- 28
I just wanted to clarify what I said in my post for all of you fellow ATR pilots. I mentioned that in normal climb and normal cruise you'll get no more than 80% of the maximum rated shaft horsepower of the engine. ATR does this to increase engine life. You definitely get more on takeoff, go-around, and using MCT. I wasn't totally clear and I did not intend to imply otherwise. Allow me to explain a bit.
According to ATR, the power output of an engine as a percentage of its rated SHP is the value from the torque gauge multiplied by the Np setting. Remember that torque measures the amount of twist applied to the power turbine shaft, and unless the Np is 100%, the torque indication does not display a percentage of maximum shaft horsepower.
For example, on takeoff, with the torque set at 90% and the Np at 100%, the engine is developing 90% of its rated SHP.
Another example: in cruise, with the torque at 86.5% and the Np at 77%, the engine is producing about 67% of its maximum rated horsepower.
The highest climb torque (in the -212) is about 92.1% at an Np of 86%, which means that the engine is producing about 79.2% of max power, or 2,178 SHP.
And like mcpickle said, if you push the power levers all the way towards the radar panel (past the notch and the ramp), you will get as much power as Pratt and Whitney will give you. You'll exceed most or all of your engine limitations. On the ATR-72-212, you'll get about 125% torque; the Nh is mechanically limited to about 105%. The engines will keep running and probably won't require replacement. The propellers and the RGBs will probably have seen their last flight.
V2plus25, the smoke doors have been replaced by a lockable cockpit door. Also, you will be happy to know that ATR came out with an engineering order for those door mounts about two years ago. They are now held in the sockets with a no-s*** red pin that you actually have to pull out to remove the doors from the airplane. They don't come out unless you really want them to now. I do not know anyone who has had a door come off since. No more kicking the doors to get them back in those stupid holes!
Aerosurfer, I miss the Bridge Visual 10 into SJU as well, although it has humbled me more than once!
According to ATR, the power output of an engine as a percentage of its rated SHP is the value from the torque gauge multiplied by the Np setting. Remember that torque measures the amount of twist applied to the power turbine shaft, and unless the Np is 100%, the torque indication does not display a percentage of maximum shaft horsepower.
For example, on takeoff, with the torque set at 90% and the Np at 100%, the engine is developing 90% of its rated SHP.
Another example: in cruise, with the torque at 86.5% and the Np at 77%, the engine is producing about 67% of its maximum rated horsepower.
The highest climb torque (in the -212) is about 92.1% at an Np of 86%, which means that the engine is producing about 79.2% of max power, or 2,178 SHP.
And like mcpickle said, if you push the power levers all the way towards the radar panel (past the notch and the ramp), you will get as much power as Pratt and Whitney will give you. You'll exceed most or all of your engine limitations. On the ATR-72-212, you'll get about 125% torque; the Nh is mechanically limited to about 105%. The engines will keep running and probably won't require replacement. The propellers and the RGBs will probably have seen their last flight.
V2plus25, the smoke doors have been replaced by a lockable cockpit door. Also, you will be happy to know that ATR came out with an engineering order for those door mounts about two years ago. They are now held in the sockets with a no-s*** red pin that you actually have to pull out to remove the doors from the airplane. They don't come out unless you really want them to now. I do not know anyone who has had a door come off since. No more kicking the doors to get them back in those stupid holes!
Aerosurfer, I miss the Bridge Visual 10 into SJU as well, although it has humbled me more than once!
Last edited:
As long as you know how to use those brakes.... those things suck!! And below 70kts, that reverse isn't doing much for you.... Still love the plane though....
Weigh in at anything less than 42,000lbs and she'll climb 1000-1500fpm above 10,000' (at 170 KIAS). Cockpit is huge. I can stretch out both arms (bent up) and not really touch anything. The loudest part of the airplane is the damn recirculation fans in the cockpit. Turn one off, put the props in 77% (or Auto in the -72A), and she'll be damn near jet quiet above about 4000'. Hardly ever need reverse or brakes to slow down on longer runways. Just ground idle. The ATR-72A's never slow down. You better be thinking ahead when you're doing 240 KIAS 5 miles out at 1500' AGL. She's gonna make you work to slow her down. (Secret hint: put the Power Management Selector to MCT...the props will go to 100%). I agree that she's tough to land as stated before. Land with too much power, you float. Pull out all the power and she drops like a 50,000lb brick. I see many older captains land beautifully with lot's of power until about 5' off the ground. Of course, do it wrong in the ATR and you're gonna be ricocheting pretty wildly off the runway. Brakes suck. It's like having a Freightliner's brakes on a Geo Metro. Way too overpowered but great if you need them. The ATR-72A's all fly crooked (at least all of Eagle's). Go full power, retrim the rudder. Take out 10% TQ, retrim the rudder. Add 5% TQ, retrim the rudder. You get the idea. Annoying as hell. If Eagle still flew the ATR in the States, I'd transfer up to her instead of the jet. Long live the French Tractor, Cloud Plow, ATRuck, Mini Airbus....many names apply.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
