ATR 92

[Triton]

"Shareholders assess new ATR turboprop business case"
January 23, 2013

Source:
http://www.hmgaerospace.com/news/show/4693

ATR says it has provided the business plan for a new generation turboprop with a target capacity of 90 seats to its parent companies, EADS and Finmeccanica, and is awaiting board approval to launch the programme.

Speaking at ATR’s annual results press conference, CEO Filippo Bagnato declared, “We’ve done what we said we would do. We checked the design with our customers and have received interesting suggestions to improve the product. We’ve also got feedback from our major suppliers, for example the potential performance of landing gear, avionics, and so on. We’ve given a bit more solidity to the project.

“Based on that solidity we have finished our first step business plan and delivered it to the shareholders. In 2013, they have a good base to discuss together,” he added.

Bagnato said the 90-seater, “while maintaining same design concept as today’s ATR – “simple” – is from an overall standpoint is another aeroplane. The ATR 72 cannot be stretched. Once we studied an ATR 82, [a programme] which was left on paper. Due to length limitation, it was not possible without changes to both the wing and the engine.”

Bagnato added that he would not enter any agreement on engines without the OEM “being able to give me two brothers. The family concept is a key point. Major equipment must have a good level of commonality”.

Bagnato explained that a likely scenario will to have the 90-seater as a new aircraft, but having a version of the new engine fitted to the current models. New airframe designs for the 50- and 70-seaters are unlikely. “If I was designing an ATR 72 from scratch now, I would not do much different [with the airframe structure],” he stressed.

In his presentation, Bagnato showed an exterior design for the new 90-seat aircraft in silhouette, featuring winglets and eight-bladed propellers, which he confirmed as part of the design.

Of the systems required for the new aircraft, nothing has been selected. Those expressing interest among the engine manufacturers include Pratt & Whitney Canada and GE, with Safran the latest to join the potential supplier list.

Bagnato did not give any expected date for entry into service of the 90-seater but noted that bringing a new aircraft to market usually takes 50-60 months after the official programme launch.

As for the most likely market for the aircraft, the CEO indicated that the current largest market, Asia-Pacific, would continue to lead the way. “In Indonesia, Wings Air is definitely interested. It has a population of about 350 million to serve across thousands of islands.”

 

[Triton]

"The Next Generation Turboprops"
March 04, 2013

Source:
http://airinsight.com/2013/03/04/the-next-generation-turboprops/

ATR has been talking about a 90-seat Next Generation Turboprop (NGT) for some time. The idea is to extend the current design and add much more powerful engines and updated systems. ATR has spoken of using a 5,000+ SHP engine from GE (GE38-1B as used on the Sikorsky CH-53K has 7,500 SHP), but Pratt & Whitney will also likely bid on this design. Below is a rendering of what the future ATR might look like.

The NGTs are likely to make extensive use of the flight deck technologies seen on pure jets such as Required Navigation Performance. ATR, as part of the EDS family, will almost certainly have the Airbus ProSky company Quovadis’ RNP package. The RNP system allows aircraft to fly precisely along a predefined route using on-board navigation systems and the GPS-based global navigation satellite system. Clearly this system helps reduce fuel burn and flying time – which is already an advantage for a turboprop over a jet. Since turboprops spend most of their time on shorter flights (~500 miles) time saved adds fast because of the many turns they do each day.

 

[Triton]

"P&WC Prepares As Momentum Builds for New-Gen Turboprop"
Dubai Air Show » 2013
November 16, 2013, 1:00 AM

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2013-11-16/pwc-prepares-momentum-builds-new-gen-turboprop

Consensus is building among manufacturers and operators alike for a new 90-seat regional turboprop airliner, according to Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC), which is eager to press ahead with its plans for a New Generation Regional Turboprop (NGRT) engine. Both ATR and Bombardier are known to be actively considering plans for larger members of their respective turboprop families and P&WC is stepping up development work to be ready for what it believes could be a pair of program launches next year.

According to Richard Dussault, P&WC marketing vice president for regional and helicopter markets, the airframers are broadly in agreement that the target speed for the new turboprop transports would be between 300 and 325 knots. In his view, the optimum speed will likely closer to 300 knots if they are to achieve the desired goal of a 20-percent reduction in fuel burn, compared to the PW100 family of engines, first certified 30 years ago and still serving the regional airline market.

For the envisaged 5,000- to 7,000-shp engine family, P&WC is tapping technology developed by sister company Pratt & Whitney for the PW1000G geared turbofan to power the new Bombardier CSeries and Mitsubishi Regional narrowbody jetliners, such as the new Talon combustor that delivers significant reductions in nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions.

Fresh Demand

According to Dussault, fresh demand for both the ATR family of twin turboprops and Bombardier’s Q400 series is prompting both manufacturers toward a launch decision for new larger models up to a maximum capacity of 100 seats. In his view, a cruise speed of a little above 300 knots is optimum to preserve the fuel-burn advantage of turboprops over jets. In addition to conferring with the two leading airframers in the sector, the Canadian engine maker also has been in consultation with up to around 300 prospective airline operators worldwide and it believes there is sufficient interest to support the launch of new 90 seaters by both ATR and Bombardier.

“Back in 2003, there were only 24 [regional airliner] turboprops delivered at the height of jet mania,” said Dussault. “But when the price of oil went above $50 [per barrel] the economics changed completely. Turboprops consume 40 percent less fuel than jets on short segments, but jets are not standing still and this is why we need to achieve a further 20-percent reduction [in fuel burn]. I foresee a [regional airliner] market in which about 40 percent of the fleet is turboprops.”

Phase One Completed

P&WC has now completed phase one of the development work for the new turboprop, which mainly focused on testing compressor components. Earlier this year, the company shipped the first fully assembled compressor to MTU in Germany and tests of this unit to verified performance standards and load limits are almost complete.

“Certifying turboprop engines is complex work, involving the integration of the engine, the control system and the propeller before we test it in flight on a [Boeing] 747,” explained Dussault. “We’ve developed more than 37 different models of turboprop [not including the PT6 family], so we bring a low-risk option for the OEMs.”

The next task for P&WC is finalizing the exact requirements for the new engine before entering the post-contract phase of the development. This covers areas such as the amount of bleed air in the air management system, the control system architecture, as well as the engine’s electrical load and physical geometry.

Beyond that, the company would undertake the detailed design and procure hardware, with a view to conducting the first ground test within 18 months of program launch for the new aircraft. P&WC’s goal would be to achieve first flight on within 30 months and final certification within 42 months. “Everything now is about our readiness for when the market is ready for the new engine,” concluded Dussault.

 

[Triton]

"Opinion: ATR Pursues 90-Seat Twin-Turboprop"
By Pierre Sparaco
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
January 27, 2014

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_27_2014_p14-655696.xml

In the past three years, Avions de Transport Regional (ATR), the Toulouse-based Franco-Italian regional aircraft manufacturer, has tried hard to obtain shareholder approval to launch a 90-seat twin-turboprop to complement its current range of 44- and 72-seat aircraft. ATR is jointly owned by Finmeccanica and the Airbus Group (formerly EADS), as equal partners. This arrangement can and has impeded the decision-making process.

Finmeccanica, Alenia Aermacchi's parent, seeks to acquire more commercial business and it supports the envisioned all-new twin-turboprop, expected to be called ATR 92. However, top executives at the Airbus Group have rejected what they are calling an overzealous approach. “I don't understand such eagerness,” Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier said earlier this month. Late last year, Tom Enders, the Airbus Group's chairman/CEO, seemed to rank the project low on his list of priorities, creating bitter disappointment at ATR.

According to the turboprop manufacturer's in-house research team, an estimated 1,100 90-seat turboprops will enter service in the next 20 years and no more than three main competitors are expected to share the market. Archrival Bombardier will most likely launch an increased-capacity derivative of its Q400 and China could try hard to export the newly launched MA700 that was developed by Avic and is scheduled to enter service in 2019. The Chinese offering is a 78-80-seat aircraft, but a shortened-fuselage version is planned and a stretched variant is being considered. The latter could prove to be competition for the ATR 92, should either come to fruition.

ATR Chief Executive Filippo Bagnato strongly believes the time is ripe to launch a new program. In the last few years, the turboprop maker concluded orders for a record number of ATR 72s and is gradually increasing production to about 80 aircraft per year. Profitability has been restored, following several weak years. Company executives say the required investment to develop a new aircraft is a relatively modest $1.5-2 billion. However, Enders, Bregier and other Airbus Group leaders remain unconvinced, underscoring again that it is difficult to get major commercial transport manufacturers interested in “small” aircraft. The ATR 72 lists for $24.1 million while the catalogue price of the A320, Airbus's best-seller, is $102.8 million. List price for the A350 is $260.9 million and the A380 mega-transport goes for $414.4 million.

In other words, the Airbus Group, at least in its role as ATR co-owner, could be too big. However, the parent company rejects such criticisms. Previously, Airbus claimed its design office was overloaded by the concurrence of several types in the system—the A380 in its final development phase, the A350 in its initial (and demanding) design phase and the long-delayed A400M military airlifter, all of which involved thousands of engineers. But this is no longer true. The A380's wing problems have been resolved, the A350 is entering the production phase (although derivatives have not been frozen as yet), and the A400M is entering into service.

Perhaps launching a new turboprop is too much of a burden for relatively modest results. History does not favor ATR. For example, when a British partner (the British Aircraft Corp. BAE Systems' predecessor) temporarily joined the multi-national consortium that preceded EADS, it was denied a request to produce a regional twinjet in order to protect the BAe-146. So despite the emerging “jetmania” of that time, ATR remained confined to the turboprop market.

ATR executives, including Bagnato, are studiously avoiding a public airing of the response to their request. But the current freeze shows, again, how difficult European cross-border industrial collaboration can be, even without political interference or the negative effects of economic patriotism. It will be interesting to see if Finmeccanica can make a case for buying the Airbus Group's 50% stake in ATR to become the airframer's sole owner. For now though, this remains a politically awkward question.

 

[hesham]

Hi Triton,


finally they release this aircraft,they spoke about it from late 1980s;

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%203600.html?search=atr-92

 

[H_K]

I recently found new info on Alenia/Leonardo’s research on a 90 seat turboprop, under the EU-funded Clean Sky I/II program. Posting it here as I think it relates closely to the ATR 92... nice to finally have more detailed specs!

Seems like it would be an amazing aircraft if only Airbus would let it happen.

Green Regional Aircraft (2010-2012): CleanSky I studies

http://p.activart.org/documenti/Technologies%20and%20Research%20for%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Future%20Regional%20Aircraft.pdf

Initial specs:

The ~16m long cabin can fit 90-95 pax in 5-abreast seating at 32” pitch (length between cabin doors). Total cabin length is ~21.3m.

The cabin is roughly 2.5-3m longer than an ATR-72 (13.6m between cabin doors, 18m total cabin length).

In higher density configurations this should fit ~100 pax at 30” pitch or a maximum of ~110 pax at 28” pitch. This is almost exactly halfway between the ATR-72 (68-78 pax) and the smallest Airbus A220-100 (120-135 pax).

The ~3.45m wide cabin is almost identical to an A220 (CSeries)... maybe 1-2 inches narrower.

In terms of performance, max speed of 337 KTAS is ~23kts slower than a Q400.

The design range with 95 pax (10 ton payload) is 1,000nm, similar to a Q400 with 74 pax (7.5 ton payload) and better than an ATR-72 which can only do ~700nm with 68 pax (7 ton payload). This should be plenty of range for the typical 300nm sector.

 

[Apophenia]

Good stuff! And definitively an outgrowth of the ATR 92. For those who don't know, the European Commission's Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) programme is part of the larger Clean Sky program. GRA was led by Alenia Aermacchi and EADS CASA - 'GRA Relevant Project Leaders' in EC-speak - but is now under Leonardo Aircraft Division and Airbus D&S.

Alenia dubbed this ATR evolution as their TP90 (which is used in some Clean Sky documents too). Within the Clean Sky programme, this design was more often referred to as the GRA 90 Turboprop - to distinguish it from the related GRA 130 Geared Turbofan. The GRA 90 is also called New Turboprop (NTP) configuration (at least in its 5-abreast fuselage format). Loosely, it was just referred to as the 'Green Turboprop'.

By 2014, the proposed layouts had been narrowed down. The GRA 90 final configuration was essentially as you've shown, powered by twin underwing Snecma or Rolls Royce engines. The GRA 130 was finalized in the rear-engined configuration powered by two MTU geared turbofans - the Advanced Turbofan and Open Fan options having been abandoned.

Circa 2014, design of the Green Regional Aircraft Fuselage Barrel and Wing Box demonstrators was finalized. A 'Full Composite Cockpit' section was later added to that list.

For those interested, the Green Regional Aircraft programme phases were/are:
- GRA0 = Integrated Technology Demonstration Management (GRA ITD)
- GRA1 = Low Weight Configuration (LWC or GRA LWC)
-- But, as flight-tested on the ATR 72-600, called 'Low Weight Aircraft'
- GRA2 = Low Noise Configuration (LNC or GRA LNC)
- GRA3 = All Electric Aircraft (AEA or GRA AEA)
-- Trials resulted in choosing advanced composite technologies (over metallic)
- GRA4 = Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM)
- GRA5 = New Configuration (NC or GRA NC)

(After typing these out, I realized that the Clean Sky website covers all GRA phases with a bit more detail:
-- https://www.cleansky.eu/green-regional-aircraft-gra )

For anyone who wants to pursue this further, some useful acronyms/search terms might be:

GRA ITD = Green Regional Aircraft Integrated Technology Demonstrator
- ATR 72-600 based integrated in-flight demonstrator, aka GRA ATR72 FTD
- Sometimes given as 'GRA Flight ITD', occassionally as 'ITD-GRA'

GRAGD = Green Regional Aircraft Ground Demonstrator
- GRAGD (or GRA GD) delivered and successfully tested in 2014-2017

GRASM = Green Regional Aircraft Simulation Model
- Sometimes given as redundant 'GRA Aircraft Simulation Model'

GRA NC = Green Regional Aircraft New Configuration
- Akin to (aka?) Alenia's New Turboprop (NTP) proposal

JTI-GRA = Green Regional Aircraft Joint Technology Initiative
- No clue as to why this acronym is reversed

The GRA ITD is sometimes listed as a "flight simulator in GRA TP90 configuration" (to distinguish it from GRA 130 layout). At times, the GRA Ground Demonstrator is specifically referred to as a "Cockpit ground demo". The GRA ITD employed the GRACE flight simulator. But here there is no acronym relationship (GRACE refers to the Dutch NLR's unrelated 'Generic Research Aircraft Cockpit Environment' simulator).

A related Clean Sky-funded project is the awkwardly-acronymed ALLEGRA - Advanced Low-Noise Landing (Main and Nose) Gear for Regional Aircraft. Landing gear design was identified as one of five major noise-generators on approach. Filling or covering protuburances and openings were the solutions arrived at. Although aimed at regional aircraft, ALLEGRA actually falls (fell?) under the NOISETTE - the consortium working on landing gear noise attenuation.
-- https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/271886/reporting

 

[EwenS]

Has this project not effectively been replaced by the Airbus ZEROe Programme? One of those designs is for an up to 100 seat turboprop with 1000 mile range with engines fuelled by hydrogen.

Airbus reveals new zero-emission concept aircraft

Airbus has revealed three concepts for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft which could enter service by 2035. These concepts each represent a different approach to achieving zero-emission flight, exploring various technology pathways and aerodynamic configurations in order to...

www.airbus.com

 

[Lc89]

Has this project not effectively been replaced by the Airbus ZEROe Programme? One of those designs is for an up to 100 seat turboprop with 1000 mile range with engines fuelled by hydrogen.

Airbus reveals new zero-emission concept aircraft

Airbus has revealed three concepts for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft which could enter service by 2035. These concepts each represent a different approach to achieving zero-emission flight, exploring various technology pathways and aerodynamic configurations in order to...

www.airbus.com

Can they stop talking about "zero emissions" bullshit? They are not in the world to respect the environment, but to sell goods and services.

 

[H_K]

Alenia dubbed this ATR evolution as their TP90 (which is used in some Clean Sky documents too).

Related to the above, here’s the 2nd set of info I found on the TP 90.

This is more recent research from the Clean Sky 2 program, called Regional Integrated Aircraft Development Platform (REG-IADP). Specifically Work Package 2.1.2 on Morphing wing structures:

http://www.fedoa.unina.it/12559/1/Rea_Francesco_31.pdf

Note: Top view doesn’t look like it’s correctly to scale.

MTOW is now 700kg lighter, cabin dimensions essentially unchanged but the overall length and span are slightly larger with new wingtips.

 

[H_K]

This is my attempt to show the above drawings to the correct scale:

(Note I removed the windows because I was curious about potential freighter and military transport applications to replace the C295, C-27J Spartan and C160 Transall - which would require the addition of a ramp... this would potentially fit an interesting niche with savings from commonality with a civilian variant which would help the business case to launch it).

 

[dannydale]

Can they stop talking about "zero emissions" bullshit? They are not in the world to respect the environment, but to sell goods and services.

Some customers want lower emissions for whatever reason they please, and the customer is always right.

 

[sienar]

Can they stop talking about "zero emissions" bullshit? They are not in the world to respect the environment, but to sell goods and services.

Some customers want lower emissions for whatever reason they please, and the customer is always right.

Conversely, if the plane fails its because the customer ordered the wrong aircraft.

 

[nuuumannn]

Looking at these proposals I see several issues, firstly, Airbus need to be mindful of where they are pitching this 90 to 95 seat aircraft, particularly if it has lower performance than the Q400, which is designed not to compete with the ATR 72 despite their similar size and pax number (the ATR having slightly less), but to compete on domestic routes with jets, with the Q400's good cruise speed and quicker turnaround time being a turboprop. A 92 seat ATR will be competing with regional jets, which will be able to carry similar loads but at a higher speed and similar turnaround times. If ATR really want to build a bigger turboprop they need to take Q400 business away from its customers as it is getting long in the tooth, rather than producing a new airframe for a new market segment. They also need to address airframe issues the ATR family has. ATRs are maintenance hogs; they run on the smell of an oily rag but consequently, they spend longer on the ground in maintenance compared to their nearest competitor, of which there aren't many new turboprops operating in the 50 to 70 seat market except legacy Dash Eights.

I work for an airline that operates both Q300s and ATR 72s and the ATR is a pig of a thing. It's inflexible; can't do pushbacks without specialised tugs, it's slower, requires greater manpower to turnaround between cycles, spends more time on the ground in maintenance, except for A checks, but lots of defects. A typical Q300 C Check takes around 2 weeks, but an ATR 72 can take between 4 weeks and two months.

Another thing I see as an issue in those illustrations above is the cargo bay size. There is the rear bay that is hopefully bigger than the rear hold in the ATR 72 and an underfloor bay ahead of the undercarriage pods. The difficulty with this is that the door is very small making loading and unloading very difficult if you can't get someone in there, which you clearly can't. The rear hold isn't particularly big either, so for outsize loads like bicycles etc, you are very limited in space.

Airbus has a lot of issues to address regarding a whole new ATR/turboprop fitting into a new segment of the market. Time will tell whether airlines think such a thing fits into their strategies.