Talk:ATR (aircraft manufacturer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

ATR logo should be updated to the one realeased during the Paris Air Show 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.112.213 (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done! Ansede88 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATR Selection Page[edit]

I am wondering should the Article about "Aerei da Trasporto Regionale or Avions de Transport Régional (ATR)" be displayed on the PAge "ATR"? As far as i can see there are about 20 different meanings for the Short Form of ATR.

I know there is a Disambiguation Page, but why is the Aireline not simply a part of this Page and the ATR Page shows the Selection of Meanings for ATR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodnox (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Various comments[edit]

If the "ATR is Number 1 in Turboprops" paragraph sounds like marketspeak, that's because it is: it's taken verbatim from ATR's webpage.

I don't know how much copying is allowed, but the old version (13 Feb 2005 revision) sounded better (and more informative) to me, anyway.

ATR rear door use[edit]

I have flown on two different Aero Airlines (a subsidiary of Finnair) ATR-72s in September 2005, embarking the plane through the front door. I think that the use of rear door for passangers in ATR-72 is not universal.--138.23.181.10 22:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right; a versions of the ATR42 had a front pax door (originally ordered by Alitalia Express) instead of a cargo door, and some ATR72 have this too. It is quite rare, though. Fernando K 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple things[edit]

I am sitting at the airport with the AT42 parked in front of me and they are not using a pogo stick to support the aircraft. In fact I have never seen them use one. Is it for the 72 only?

This is the tail support and it is for ATR72 only. This led to a joke that the ATR72 is the "male" version and the ATR42 is the "female". Fernando K 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It claims that "Passengers are boarded using the rear door (which is rare for a passenger plane) as the front door is used to load cargo." There are several aircraft that board through the rear, B737, B727, A748 and multiple others. It's not rare.

The primary user is stated as American Eagle Airlines but that article says that Executive Air (and Eagle subsiduary) actually runs the ATR. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored[edit]

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 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there already is an artilce on the aircraft, the ATR 42/72. Any info related to the aircraft should go there. - BillCJ 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what he's referring to. Frankly, I don't think there's enough material to have ATR-the-company separate from ATR-the-aircraft, but if a bunch of people feel otherwise, I'm more than happy to concentrate my cleanup efforts on the aircraft article.
Changed my mind. I also support a split, and I'd prefer a three-way split: ATR for the company, ATR 42 for the 42, and ATR 72 for the 72. The aircraft are different enough to warrant different articles, especially in light of the complexity of all the specs tables now. I'm OK with the ATR article basically remaining a stub for the time being until people more knowledgeable about the corporate side of things can expand it.--chris.lawson 17:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just figured that out. I've undone his and my changes. I support a split, but we need to go through the process first. - BillCJ 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a split. Just because we currently don't know enough about the company or aircraft to fill two articles doesn't mean that we won't eventually. For crying out loud, DeLorean doesn't include the car in the article about the company. Split them and research to suit. ericg ✈ 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One could give good arguments for keeping the 42 and 72 together or splitting them. In the end, I think it comes down to personal preference. 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. Given we all seem to support restoring at lest the ATR 42/72 page, I'll do that, and we can decide on the split/moves there. - BillCJ 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ATR logo.PNG[edit]

Image:ATR logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics is it required[edit]

hi folks dont you guys think we need the below mentioned info for this type of aircraft. like

General characteristics

  • Crew:
  • Length:
  • Wingspan:
  • Height:
  • Wing area:
  • Empty weight:
  • Loaded weight:
  • Max takeoff weight:
  • Powerplant:

Performance

  • Maximum speed:
  • Combat radius:
  • Ferry range:
  • Service ceiling:
  • Rate of climb:
  • Wing loading:
  • Power/mass:

You can take a look into this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 Thanks. Nikhilhuilgol 07:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. However, this page no longer covers the aircraft themselves, but just the ATR company. The aircraft are covered at ATR 42 and ATR 72, and already include specifications. Thanks again. - BillCJ 07:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey BillCJ thanks so much for bringing this to my notice. Sorry for the mistake.

stretch[edit]

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) 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article names[edit]

Rather than the convoluted ATR (aircraft manufacturer) should the article be renamed as Avions de Transport Régional which is far more appropriate ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ATR (aircraft manufacturer). 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.

checkY 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 16:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on ATR (aircraft manufacturer). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Images should be updated at the top of the article. There's currently a picture of a very old aircraft that's not in service anymore (ATR 42-300 UtAir) and another one of a 72-500 instead of a 72-600. They make the page look old and dated.

The pictures at the top should be of the 3 different models currently produced by ATR: ATR 42-600, ATR 72-600 and ATR 72-600F.

Here are the images I suggest we use:

  • current UtAir 42-300
    current UtAir 42-300
  • current Precision Air 72-500
    current Precision Air 72-500
  • 72-600
    72-600
  • 42-600
    42-600
  • 72-600F
    72-600F

The current ones with the aircraft comparison should be moved to the Products section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabien Garcia at ATR Aircraft (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fabien, the point here is to show the difference between both models. The most obvious difference between both is the length, and to be able to compare their length, the most useful way is to present both sideway at the same scale. It is possible to change the variant (although there is no external difference between older and newer variants, except propeller blade number which does not show sideways anyway), there are many pictures available in commons: commons:ATR_72 and commons:ATR_42. I used the newer pictures to illustrate the ongoing #History section.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marc, I understand your point although I don't necessarily agree that's what users want to see first when they land on this page. They're looking for ATR, the aircraft manufacturer, so it would make sense to give them an overview of all aircraft the company produces. And the aircraft comparison should be further down on the page, in the products section with all the aircraft specs. If this comparison stays at the top, I would suggest to use these images:

Also, the length of the aircraft should be written this way: 22.67m without a space between the number and the unit. It would also be good to have the length in feet and inches for English speaking countries: 89' 1.5" for the ATR 72 and 74' 5" for the ATR 42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabien Garcia at ATR Aircraft (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are replaced then. But in the historical order, the 1984 ATR 42 first flight, and the 1989 ATR 72 first flight are before the -600 series announcement in 2007. Note there should be a space between numbers and units (a non-breakable space to avoid line breaks between them), and conversion templates automatically add them along imperial conversions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the images as we dont really used made up images and renders when real images are clearly available. I have also added a warning on User:Fabien Garcia at ATR Aircraft talk page as they have clearly a conflict of interest and as such should not be editing the articles. They are welcome to make suggestion on the talk page. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, rendered images are useful as they are controlled and can be less distracting and more comparable, and are often used, see Commons:Category:Aircraft profile drawings.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ATR_(aircraft_manufacturer)&oldid=1197163053"