Talk:ATR 42

Need a gallery
Can someone make a photo gallery for all these photos? They're screwing up the section edit links something awful, and it looks kinda silly to have a giant column of photos running down the right side of the page.--chris.lawson 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this problem was solved with the article splits. - BillCJ 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Company
In the article is not mentioned that ATR is an Italian French company, with the shares equally divided between Alenia and Aerospatiale (now EADS) --82.89.191.143 10:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And this is relevant to the article about the aircraft ATR 42 exactly how? There is an article on ATR as a company already. 82.10.157.146 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Need Consistency in Engine Power Listings
The article isn't consistent. In the text (ATR 42-200/300) it states the engines have 2000 shp, whereas the box at the bottom of the article lists those engines at 1800 shp. In the text (ATR 42-320) it states the engines for that variant have 2100 shp, whereas the box lists the engines at 1900 shp. In the text (ATR 42-500) it states the PW127E engines are rated at 2400 horsepower, whereas the box lists the engines at 2160 shp. In addition, the General Characteristics section (just above the box) lists the engine output as 1790 KW, which converts to 2400 horsepower.

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 42-500) at 2160 shp, so that is probably correct. Where did the 2400 shp number come from? Any help would be appreciated. Raymondwinn 08:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

These P&WC engines have a nominal power and a "reserve take-off" power, to be used if an engine failure occurs during take-off, which triggers the so-called "uptrim" on the remaining engine, a ~10% increase in torque. So the PW120, for example, has this RTO power rated at 2000 shp (threfore the "20" on its model name, PW120), but normally it is used at 1800 shp, which corresponds to 100% torque. The PW121 can go up to 2100 shp (therefore the "21") on RTO but normally is used at 1900 shp. For the PW127, this name rule does not apply because there are many sub-models. ATR42-500 use the PW127E but they can be fitted with PW127F as well; many of these PW127 can be retrofitted into different sub-models very easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.105.129 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ATR42-300 specifications
This article lacks specs for the 42-300. I'm not good at making wiki articles but if someone wants to format the below correctly that would be great.

MRM 17000KG MTOM 16900KG PAYLOAD 3006KG MZFM 15540KG MAX FUEL 4500KG ZERO PAYLOAD RANGE 2300NM WITH RESERVES ZERO PAYLOAD ENDURANCE 9:30 WITH RESERVES FULL PAYLOAD RANGE 1800NM WITH RESERVES FULL PAYLOAD ENDURANCE 6:00 WITH RESERVES

Thanks 78.146.179.212 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Data Sheet
I found an ATR 42 data sheet - Data Sheet No. 01-02 / 23.01.02 at Instituto de Aeronáutica Civil de Cuba WhisperToMe (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Specifications
Is there any reason why we still have specs for the ATR-72 as it isn't part of the article any more? If not is there any reason why the article can't use a more normal specs template? Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The same of course applies to the ATR 72 article.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont see any reason why the standard template cant be used (on both). MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/atr_42/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on ATR 42. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017034141/http://www.atraircraft.com/milestone2.htm to http://www.atraircraft.com/milestone2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408082107/http://www.atraircraft.com:80/cargo_sol.htm to http://www.atraircraft.com/cargo_sol.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408081945/http://www.atraircraft.com:80/atrMP.htm to http://www.atraircraft.com/atrMP.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406225612/http://www.atraircraft.com:80/atrVIP.htm to http://www.atraircraft.com/atrVIP.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407165712/http://www.atraircraft.com:80/atrinflight.htm to http://www.atraircraft.com/atrinflight.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead image
The image should be updated to a more recent one: Hop is not using ATR anymore. I suggest this one of an ATR 42-600: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabien Garcia at ATR Aircraft (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The point of the main picture is to clearly show the aircraft main configuration. Being an almost straight side view, the proposed picture does not really show well the ATR 42 configuration: an high-wing, twin turboprop and T-tail airliner. The hop! picture is better suited, even if the airline does not use it anymore, it does not matter.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand, how about these pictures then? [2d and 3d proposals, above]


 * The 2d one is interesting (the 3d one is too much a front picture). Note that using an aircraft picture with the manufacturer livery conveys an idea of not being into service, which perhaps you want to avoid.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have my doubts about using an image with a transparent background, which gives it an artificial, 3D render-like quality. And if the transparency shows as a grey chequerboard, as above, it is somewhat distracting. I much prefer the blue sky of the current image. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried to verify, and when previewing the article with the proposed picture, the checkered background does not show, it's on whatever background the page is.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I dont have a problem with the current image, as an encylcopedia we have no reason to keep the image current it just has to convey the shape and features of the type. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)