ATR 42 vs ATR 72 compared: size, seating, runway needs, performance, economics and cockpit commonality, plus the variant traps to avoid.
In real-world aviation, the ATR 42 and ATR 72 are twin-turboprop airliners, but the ATR 72 has a longer fuselage, larger wing, higher weights and more seats. The ATR 42 carries 40–50 passengers; the ATR 72, about 68–78. Choose the 42 for lower trip cost and the 72 for capacity and lower cost per seat.
ATR 42 vs ATR 72 specifications at a glance
Using the -600 generation for a like-for-like comparison, the ATR 72 is about 4.5 metres longer and roughly 4.4 tonnes heavier at maximum take-off weight.
| Difference | ATR 42-600 | ATR 72-600 |
|---|---|---|
| Passenger capacity | Typically 40–48; up to about 50 | Typically 68–72; up to about 78 |
| Length | About 22.7 m | About 27.2 m |
| Wingspan | About 24.6 m | About 27.1 m |
| Maximum take-off weight | About 18.6 tonnes | About 23 tonnes |
| Engines | Two PW127-family turboprops at the rating appropriate to the variant | Two PW127-family turboprops using a higher power rating |
| Best operational fit | Lower-demand routes and more restrictive airports | Busier regional routes where more seats can be filled |
Those figures are representative, not universal. Certified weights, seating limits and engine installations vary by sub-variant and operator option. The earlier ATR 42-300 and ATR 72-200 should not be compared directly with later -500 or -600 aircraft as though only the fuselage length changed.
What does the ATR 72’s extra size change?
The ATR 72’s stretch provides more cabin rows, greater cargo volume and a higher payload, while retaining the same basic cabin cross-section and 2+2 seating arrangement as the ATR 42.
Passengers do not get a wider seat simply because they board the larger aircraft. Seat width, pitch, galley arrangement and luggage provision depend mainly on the airline’s interior. The ATR 72’s practical advantage is carrying more people and bags on one flight.
The ATR 42 normally burns less fuel for the whole trip and costs less to operate per departure. A well-filled ATR 72 usually offers the lower cost per passenger, but sending it out with too many empty seats can erase that advantage. In cargo service, the ATR 72 similarly provides more usable volume and payload, subject to fuel and structural limits.
Both aircraft serve broadly similar short-haul missions and cruise in the high-200-knot range. The ATR 72’s greater power is primarily there to move its additional mass; it does not turn the aircraft into a substantially faster or longer-range type. Published range comparisons also change with payload, reserves, weather and the chosen variant.
Which is better for short runways?
The ATR 42 is generally the better starting point for a restrictive airport, especially where take-off distance, obstacles, apron dimensions or route demand are limiting factors.
Smaller does not automatically mean suitable for every short strip, however. Take-off and landing performance must be calculated separately using the exact aircraft, weight and conditions. Temperature, elevation, runway slope, surface contamination, wind, obstacles and operator margins can all change the result.
- Choose the ATR 42 when demand is below roughly 50 passengers, the airport has tighter physical or performance constraints, or minimising total trip cost matters most.
- Choose the ATR 72 when demand consistently supports around 70 passengers and the runway, stand and payload limits allow the larger aircraft to operate without costly restrictions.
A common mistake is to compare a single published runway-distance figure. That number is tied to stated test conditions and weight; it is not a blanket airport requirement.
Do the ATR 42 and ATR 72 share a cockpit and type rating?
The ATR 42 and ATR 72 have extensive cockpit and systems commonality, and many authorities treat them under a combined ATR 42/72 type rating, with the required differences training and operator approval.
That does not make every ATR cockpit identical. Aircraft generation matters greatly: an early ATR 42 or ATR 72 has different avionics, engines, propellers and procedures from a -600 flight deck. Even within a common generation, crews must use the correct weights, limitations, V-speeds and performance data for the model being flown.
The ATR 72 also has greater mass and inertia, along with different ground-clearance and runway-performance considerations. A pilot should not transfer ATR 42 rotation, approach or loading figures to an ATR 72 merely because the panels look familiar.
What should flight simulator pilots compare?
Flight simulator pilots should compare equivalent generations—such as an ATR 42-500 with an ATR 72-500—before judging systems, performance or handling.
- Confirm the suffix: identify whether the add-on represents a -200, -300, -400, -500 or -600 generation rather than relying on the ATR 42 or ATR 72 name alone.
- Set a realistic payload: use an appropriate passenger and baggage load for each aircraft instead of assigning both the same percentage indiscriminately.
- Use model-specific data: do not reuse take-off speeds, maximum weights or fuel figures from the other type.
- Allow for add-on fidelity: freeware flight models may reproduce the size and appearance more accurately than certified performance or detailed system logic.
For a practical older-generation comparison, our library includes an ATR 42-500 model with an enhanced virtual cockpit and an ATR 72 package covering several major variants. They are useful for appreciating the difference in scale and configuration, but their documentation should remain specific to each simulated model.
Engine sound is another source of misleading comparisons. Early and later ATR variants use different power ratings and propeller arrangements, so one recording does not represent the whole family; our ATR family sound-package overview provides useful simulator context for those differences.