Talk:ATR 72

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Merge

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)

[edit] Restored

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!

[edit] Split/move

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)

[edit] Page move/split

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, rahter 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)

[edit] Need Consistency in Engine Power Listings

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)

[edit] Major operators a mess?

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)