Space wasted by duplicate ATR profiles (ATR72-500/600 and 42-500/600 are the same aircraft IRL)

Hey guys,

You could save scrolling space by removing duplicate profiles for the ATR.

What we have now:

  • ATR42-500
  • ATR42-600
  • ATR72-500
  • ATR72-600

What I think we should have:

  • ATR42-500
  • ATR72-212A

Indeed, the “600” versions of both aircraft is only a commercial term given to the aircraft with the new avionics suite. However this new avionics suite does not change anything to aircraft performance. They are the same structure, same engines, same weights, same electrical and hydraulic system, same air conditioning, same everything !

You can see more in the type certificate data sheet → EASA.A.084 - ATR 42/ATR 72 | EASA

Suggests the (possibly “typical” configuration of) the 42-600 has a higher empty weight and different engines compared to the 42-500. Obviously the TCDS would be more accurate, but also more difficult to parse properly; if anything, the different avionics would still impact the empty weight (to some extent) and the avionics section of the ATC FPL, so combining base profiles might not be necessarily be a great idea.



Hey Tim -

I confirm your link is inaccurate. PW127XT engine only had it’s first delivery last month, is NOT standard, and is by no means a specificity of the -600.

TCDS is a more accurate source for accurate info.

I’ll clarify the empty weight for the 42- however, for the -72, both “-500” and “-600” are in fact ATR72-212A aircraft that are copy paste of eachother, minus the avionics suite.


The avionics suite installed would have an impact on empty weight (possibly minimal, although not necessarily so). And would also affect the “ICAO equipment” field on simBrief.

To complicate matters even further, even though, as you pointed out, the variants are somewhat nearly identical and generally simply “marketing names”, there’s nevertheless a dedicated type designator registered w/ICAO of each variant:

AT45 ATR-42-500
AT46 ATR-42-600
AT75 ATR-72-212A (500)
AT76 ATR-72-212A (600)



Fair point on the ICAO equipment, had no idea Simbrief cared about that (even if once again this is not standard at all even on -600, a lot of thing is optional, see here → ).

I was reasoning from purely from a fuel/weight calculation point of view.

Hi, thanks for the feedback.

Even if the performance is identical, because it has its own ICAO type designator I think we will keep it separate in the list.

Best regards,

This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.