Wikipedia

Talk:ATR 72/Archive 1

< Talk:ATR 72
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Marc Lacoste in topic Airspeed
Archive 1

Merge

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am suggesting a merge since these two articles are almost completely redundant, and since the ATR 42/72 family are the only product. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I support it: I'm a certified Captain for both ATR 42 and 72 in Brazil. Such certification is endorsed by ATR, and at ANAC (Brazilian Aviation Authority) both aircrafts are considered under certification "AT47", or, in other words, a family of aircraft that includes all ATR models, including the brand new -600 (this one requiring only a "differences" ground school). It would be, in principles, like the Boeing 737 article, that covers all models.RobertoRMola (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Restored

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have restored the articles about the planes themselves. Other prop planes like the Dash 8 have their own articles. I see no problem about having an article on the ATR-42/72. Mrld 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made the page a redirect to ATR again. If you feel the aircraft and company pages should be separate, please discuss it on the Talk:ATR page first. As the company only made the two models (423 and 72), it made sense to put all the inof on the same page. I actually agree they pages should be separate, but we have to go through the split process first. - BillCJ 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on Talk:ATR supported restoring at least this page, so it's back!

Split/move

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Given the fact that ATR 42/72 is not going to be the name that people search for, but rather ATR 42 or ATR 72, I'd lean toward keeping the planes separate. There is an edit history at ATR 42, while ATR 72 was moved to ATR 42/72. ATR 42/72 would probably have to be moved back to ATR 72 by an admin so that we retain some edit history, but we can just restore ATR 42, and paste in what we need from ATR and from here. - BillCJ 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: If I am the one who splits off the pages, I will be carefully comparing both main versions of the articles (ATR and ATR 42/72) to make sure we don't miss anything important, as both pages have been "tweaked" recently. Also, I removed a couple of extra pics from ATR because of spacing constraints. I think one was a 72, but I don't remeber what the other one was (tho it was one of those ubiquitous Pluna pics that seems to show up on every airliner page :) ). - BillCJ 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only difference between the merged version of ATR 42/72 and the current version is the addition of the infobox and the removal of a couple dead photos. The article text appears to be the same. As I mentioned on Bill's Talk page, I'd prefer it if we moved the text over from the ATR article since that's what got cleaned up and referenced. I'd prefer not to have to do that work twice ;) --chris.lawson 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

AH! I think I got you now, Chris! I still want to move the ATR 42/72 page to ATR 72 first to keep the back-history of that page, whcih was originally at ATR 72. THEN I'll paste in the material from ATR. Also, that way there's no left-over history at ATR 42/72 to confuse somone who's looking at the edit summaries who might think there should be a page there. A little tedious, but I think it'll work the best here. - BillCJ 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

stretch

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There should be info about ATR's study on a 90-seater stretch... on one of the three articles atleast. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DO you have some sources about the study? - BillCJ (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33310946_ITM
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/23/218828/atr-studies-new-larger-turboprop-family.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/14/219551/atr-floats-idea-of-stretched-model-to-tackle-90-seat.html
PDF http://www.eraa.org/intranet/documents/24/487/RegionalInternational.pdf
76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Need Consistency in Engine Power Listings

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article (also the ATR 42 article) isn't consistent. In the text (ATR 72-200) it states the engines are rated at 2400 shp, whereas the box at the bottom of the article lists those engines (PW124B) at 2160 shp. In the text (ATR 72-210) it states the engines are rated at 2750 shp, whereas the box lists the engines at 2475 shp. In the text (ATR 72-500) it states the PW127F engines are otherwise identical to the PW127 of the -210, which means they are rated at 2750 or 2475, depending on which source you wish to believe. The General Characteristics section (just above the box) lists the -500 engine output as 1846 KW, or 2475 shp.

Somebody should make the effort to find the correct rated power for each of the three engine types used in these three models. As a starting point, the Aviation Week & Space Technology issue for 29 October, 2007, p. 64 lists the engine power (for the ATR 72-500) at 2475 shp, so that is probably correct. Where did the 2750 number come from? Any help would be appreciated. Raymondwinn 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

2750 hp is an emergency rating (single engine operation); normal max rating (take-off and max continuous) is 0.9 max power, that is 2475 hp. plxdesi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.4.249 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Operational history

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article would be more complete with some discussion of operational history, such as the crash near Roselawn, Indiana and the subsequent FAA airworthiness directives regarding icing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.176.33 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Deliveries

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've only checked back on the pages history to July 2009 but the number delivered has stayed static at 408. I would suspect this not to be the case, does anyone know how to check and update the figure. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of date?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The ATR72-600 section is still talking about 2010 like it's the future.

Yes, that happens a lot on Wikipedia. Feel free to fix it. Remember to preview before you save. --Lyncs (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:ATR-72-212-AeroCaribbean-estrello-noche-Airlinersnet CLAIMA20101105 0095 18.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:ATR-72-212-AeroCaribbean-estrello-noche-Airlinersnet CLAIMA20101105 0095 18.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 29 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move/split

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have completed the splits of the 42 and 72 from the ATR page, though much work needs to be done to expand each page. Given the sentiment on this talk page, I asked an admin to move the ATR 42/72 page to ATR 72, which was done promptly. I then copied the aircraft portions of the ATR to each aircraft page, and edited our the non-relevant content. I have left the combined specs table on both pages, rather than trying to edit the tables to take the other version out. I think adding in the regular {aero-specs} template would probably be better than using the table, but the table could be edited to show 2 versions of each type. - BillCJ 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in the article that the ATR company is an Italian French company owned equally by Alenia and EADS (before it was Aerospatiale) --82.89.191.143 10:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See the ATR page.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Major operators a mess?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone else feel the major operators listing is a mess? The heading says "major", but time after time even tiny ones make it to that list. In my opinion the list should either be trimmed to the real major operators with a substantial fleet (alitalia express, the american eagle ones, ...), or the entire section removed from this article to a new one listing all operators of the type. Same can be said for the ATR 42 article for that matter (allthough the heading there doesn't state "major"). Whale plane (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think we should only list the top 10 users and top 5 orders. I'll make the change in a day or two unless anyone objects.--Cavrdg (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I came to this discussion a little late. While I concur with reducing the list here, I don't think it will stay short, and keeping it trimmed will be a full-time duty. IPs generally don't follow instructions very well, and their "favorite" operator is always a major one from their POV, even if it only has one aircraft! I'd prefer seeing the operators sections of both the ATR42 and 72 split to one page, List of ATR operators, or a similar title. That is being done with many of the other airline articles, and seems to work best. - BillCJ (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech Air has also several ATR 72's in duty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.123.242 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Accidents

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is TransAsia flight 791 listed twice? (2002 and 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.116.132 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The 1994 AA crash happened during one of the most severe winters in the US. ATRs had a temp rating of -40C, the most common rating for small turboprops, yet the airlines continued to fly these machines in conditions colder than -50C. The NTSB blamed ATR for the crash, and not AA.220.244.72.136 (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

>> This commenter has his/her facts wrong. The 1994 AA crash happened on October 31st when the ground temperature near Roselawn, IN was, according to records at the time, between 50 and 55F (10 to 15C). Not remotely winter conditions, and certainly not extreme conditions. Temps at the plane's altitude when things went wrong was determined in the NTSB report to be between 5 and 14F (-10 and -15C). ATR was blamed because the manufacturers knew the ATR72's de-iceing boot did not extend far enough onto the wing surface to be effective but they rated the plane for use in iceing conditions anyway.108.3.233.32 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ATR 72. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

List of operators: make a table?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone make the list of operators into a table? It's done very well at List of Bombardier Dash 8 operators. My wikiskills don't stretch that far. Nankai (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Make an article, surely? 203.97.184.160 (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ATR 72. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

main picture change

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  •  
    current, early 4-blade props, side view, grey sky, gear and flaps down
  •  
    proposed, later 6-blade props, frontside view, blue sky, clean config

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ATR 72. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ATR 72. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ATR 72. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Iran Air

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

[[1]] by User:H2mathmay and several before it have added Iran air as a list of ATR72 users - but with only 8 aircraft does not meet the inclusion criteria. Can't workout if the user is acting in good faith or is just being troublesome. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Why 15 or more? H2mathmay (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@H2mathmay: I have moved your reply to me on your talk page to here. This is the place you should get consensus to change the criteria for the operators list. It is not really alright to just continually change it because it is something you want particularly if you change the criteia to obviously add your very favourite piece of information. There is nothing magical with 15 but that figure is sufficient to list the major carriers and not the multitude, that is what being encyclopaedic means. Encyclopaedias deal at the tertiary (general) level it is not necessary to make a list of every operator at least not on this page. In your case I would just wait - Iran air will qualify sometime sooner or later and then it can be added. There is really no hurry. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Only the largest operators needs to be listed. If you want a complete list, you can create a List of ATR 72 operators but it needs to be exhaustive and updated - do you want this burden? Or just read the annual world airliner census.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Airspeed

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Cruise speed: 509 km/h; 316 mph (275 kn)

The article is not clear on whether this is indicated airspeed or true airspeed. -Rolypolyman (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated, it is in the ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ATR_72/Archive_1&oldid=1240484270"