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!
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:
