Ideas / suggestions for a twin

[TriMedGroup]

Hello,

I work for a company who is going through the motions of upgrading our (very nice 800 hour old) Cessna 206 to something faster and with better payload. My boss has a liking for things that go fast and are new, and will no doubt end up with a CJ1/2 or similar one day. The problem with a jet at the moment is that the new aircraft will be the first twin added to an AOC and i dont like my chances of getting a Chief Pilot approval to operate a citation or kingair with my hours.

My boss is quite sold on the Vulcanair P68 as they are quite economical and the only aircraft out of the 3 piston twins in production that is certified for 7 seats to fit his family of 6 and myself (yes the rear seat is available as a bench and will fit the 3 smallest children).

The other options for a new piston twin are the G58 baron and Seneca. Im endorsed on both and with The G58 costing $1.5M+ and having less useful load than the P68 and burning over 130 Lp/h it doesnt make any sense. The Seneca is a Seneca and that is enough said.

We are based in Mildura and there is a lot of legs between 100 and 250NM that are done privately with only 2 or 3 passengers, but for charter operations it would be nice to carry up to 5 passengers to Essendon/Adelaide/Albury/Canberra etc. and perhaps Bankstown. The P68 wont allow this and also with a TAS of around 150Kt is no faster than the C206 which will get 150+ on a good day.

So after a lot of research and number crunching, im still quite lost and have started looking at older piston twins as the answer. A good B58 or C310 will cost $250,000+ and i understand that they are older and require more maintenance and have recurring problems (SID's for the Cessna, maintenance costing a bomb for the Baron) but for the $1M that a new P68 costs you could buy a lot of maintenance.

I am just after some real world numbers for the older piston twins from any operators or owners; things like BEW and MTOW's, Fuel burn numbers, actual TAS, and most importantly maintenance costs and reliability. Feel free to message me if you dont want to post these things on a public forum. I'm willing to look into anything from the 310/B58 up to PA31/C421 size.

Interested to hear some (hopefully) non biased opinions, thanks in advance.

[anothertwit]

i'm a big fan of the aerocommander! love the 500 but if your after a rocket ship go the 690. :ok:

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

If you want something that will do what your 206 does (short, rough unprepared strips) etc, and lift a good load, your best bet is the much maligned Islander. You'll get an honest 140KIAS out of them (not somebodies dream of what they're getting in other gear -I regularly used to thrash the arse of 206/207 with/without belly pads, STOL kits and other assorted bits of fruit over a 40 minute sector), short-field performance has to be experienced to be believed, comes with seats for 10 adults and will literally fly with anything that'll fit inside the door. They're renowned as "an accountants aircraft" in terms of operating costs. They're relatively simple to fly and maintain for a twin -and they say the only thing that's better than a new Islander is a Used Islander!!!
Not sure what purchase prices are running at these days, but you'd get a good honest airframe for a decent price I would think. The only caveat that springs to mind would be the SB170 status... make sure it's up-to-date. The inspections are a bitch, expensive and recurring.

[The Green Goblin]

Welcome back Dunza, how about a Caravan? :ok:

[Grogmonster]

You will not beat a nice C310R on any front. Best useful load. Biggest cabin. Biggest nose locker and therefore easy to keep in C of G. Simple engines to maintain. An honest 180 Kt TAS. Very reasonable purchase price. Yes they have SID's but if it has been completed by a reputable LAME you will have no problems. The maintenance will still be far cheaper than a B58 of similar vintage. I know this comment will be howled down by the critics however have a look around and do what the Jones's do.

Groggy

[Wally Mk2]

Your wanting what all business owners want (TriMedGroup rings a bell where have I heard that b4? Dr's/chemists?) They want to go from their comfy yet limited SE 6 seater to something that's not much of a jump up operating cost wise but want a lot more from it. Yr talking about an entirely different ball game here. C206 great plane in it's class but in order to have an airframe go faster carry more or same (6/7 bums) in a twin package you will need to jump miles up the ladder. A light jet is a whole other game. Yr boss likes fast a new you say, yr C206 sale price would be lucky to buy a couple of turbine wheels etc, that's how much a jump yr boss is thinking here:-)
Still if the need is there then money will have to not be the impetus for making the right choice.
Beech C90 or any Beech for that matter would be a good choice. Reliable, fast & will carry the bums needed, & will land on the ruff stuff also. But they are not cheap! Going from a piston plane to a turbo prop means $$$$$$.
C310? yeah not too bad but awful things pax wise for access.
Islander? Flying noisy slow box............pass:E
Seneca?..........pass:E
PA 31...........another big jump up from the C206 but even though still very popular few around these days that are sweet.

Out of the twin piston jobs to do what you ask here the AC50 Shrike might be worth a look at. Tough, good load carrier (7 bums) reliable donks with props way above the ground for ruff stuff & fast enough to cover most of what you want. Trouble is they like all the other twins in that class are old, find a good one & yr set:ok:

Basically it's either piston twin or Turbine twin (SE if yr game !) Pick one they are both very different beasts, then stick to it:-) The little 'slowtation' looks pretty but is a toy amongst small jets but once you have flown a small jet you won't want to go back to 'boats':E

Wmk2

[apache]

i second the AEROCOMMANDER!!!!!
biggest cabin and best payload.

Will carry the same load as a chieftain, over the same distance for less fuel at the same speed - 165kts +/-

still has the rear bench seat, so is available for 7. Fuel system is a doddle, and STOL is great too.
High props mean less damage on stone/dirt/gravel runways and NON TURBO-CHARGED!!!!!!

I loved my time on 'em.

IF I was ever going to buy a twin for myself, the AC50 would be it!



on the negative..... engineers hate em!

[Hasherucf]

IMHO as an engineer a Caravan is great. Cessna got it right for a change but it would be nice if they went faster

C310 - SID's is killing them. The ongoing maintenance keeps them in the shop for long periods. Awkward but still a nice aircraft

B58 - Although I dislike working on them they are a good machine and the rear doors are a plus. Watch out for corrosion

Aero commanders have seen their day, you never know when spar problems are going to arise. How many do you see rotting away on strips or on eBay

P68 - Look nice but after seeing the problems I have seen with a recently imported one I would avoid it. Company support seems lacking

Cessna 404 or Conquest - That’s the **** ;-) Get a low time one if it is a Conquest and you’re laughing :-)

[TriMedGroup]

Jober - Forgot about the new islander, but as i said my boss likes toys that go fast and doing a 350-400NM leg in a Bongo at 120Kt GS isnt really going to take his fancy.

Green Goblin - Sorry has to be M/E for the charter side of the operation. CASA dont exactly hand out ASEPTA approvals. Did have a look at an Oasis Caravan though and it was very sexy indeed.

Wally 2 - You might have seen our 206 around with the Tristar Medical Group logo on the tail. Never said anything about cost being prohibitive, its more a case of finding a suitable aircraft and run with it. And by the way the 206 sale price would buy a whole PT6 and some as well.

Hasherucf - Ive spoken to most of the owners of the new P68s in Australia personally and not one of them had a bad thing to say about the support, or the aircraft itself.

The reasons the P68 is so appealing being: 7 seats, easy and cheap to maintain (nearest LAME is an hour flight away and doesnt have instant availability should something serious go wrong), high wing - there is a lot of possibility of DSE/CFA work around the area, decent space inside with the option of club seating and a large passenger door, high prop clearance as there is a few dirt strips that we do go into. The club seating is a major plus, as it is used for business related flying.

One day in the future we will have a jet, there is no questions about that, but at the moment we need something that CASA will let us put on an AOC with a CP with minimal twin time.

Has anyone (besides Todd Kelly) got any experience with a Panther PA31? Fuel flows and TAS etc.?

Dolling up an older airframe isnt a worry, like I said the new P68 is a million clams before you turn the key on delivery. Are there any good Shrikes out there that GAM dont already own?

Thanks again.

[PA39]

Yep.....AC500 Shrike, can't beat 'em. Just happen to know where the best one in Australia is, and it up for grabs. There are a couple of ****ters on the market and you will want one with the spar DONE. The engines are just out of the 12 yr for com ops, so will need topping. Sounds as though yours may be pvt ops?

Not saying you are, but please don't goof me around, we don't want dreamers or tyre kickers. If you want the details on the Shrike, PM me.

'39

[osmosis]

Not in the game anymore and therefore out of touch but what about a PAC750?

[43Inches]

Some very rough rounded figures,

Seneca II $250-$300ph + 100lph 160 TAS MTOW 2070kg BEW 1250-1450kg (ZFW limit)
Baron 58 $300-$350ph + 130lph 180 TAS MTOW 2450kg BEW 1550-1700kg
Navajo $400-$450ph + 150lph 175 TAS MTOW 3100kg BEW 1900-2100kg (ZFW limit)
Chieftain $450-$500 + 170lph 175 TAS MTOW 3250kg BEW 2000-2200kg

Max weights and zero fuel weights can all be dependent on vortex generator kits and specific models. The figures are for a working aircraft doing moderate hours a year and can vary greatly also depending on how much you pay for parts, maintenance and yearly utilisation.

[Orion Delta]

Go the Shrike :E

YouTube - Bob Hoover in his Aero Commander Shrike (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZEgKXJMCE)

[AussieNick]

Navajo with panther conversion on it? 200kt true (iirc) spend a bit of cash on the interior and there ya go. Saw one awhile back with the panther kit on it, leather interior and headrest mounted screens to IFE.

Or, a C208 would be nice, but the twin would give you charter IFR if required unles you got the 208 ASEPTA approved

[mattyj]

Don't buy a Beech, Hawkers product support and parts prices are a laughing stock within the industry. The only ones who like 'em are pilots!

[c100driver]

I would have to agree with Matty on that one. All Beech machines are pigs to work on, expensive to maintain and parts prices make Cessna look like a discount warehouse.

They look and sound sexy and are nice to fly though.

The Nevergo or Shrike would be good for you mission profile, but check the spars on the Shrike really well.

Courses for horses really, and opinions are like ar*e holes, every pilot has one!:D

good luck

[TriMedGroup]

PA39 - Thanks

osmosis and nick and anyone else who suggests a S/E turbine - see what i wrote re. ASEPTA... it is too hard for a start up operator.

43inches - thanks, that is exactly what i was after

After looking at what the yanks can do with an old Shrike or Navajo, I am impressed and they make the money that you pay for a new piston aircraft completely ridiculous, poor resale value and killer AD's being of course the main problem with spending money on an older airframe.

The former charter operator in Mildura operated a deathstar and a navajo for a long time and they seemed to work out quite well for him. Both of these would be good for company use as well.

The researching will continue, and please feel free to keep contributing. Fact rather than opinion being preferred thanks.

[psycho joe]

...My boss has a liking for things that go fast and are new, and will no doubt end up with a CJ1/2 or similar one day....

The other options for a new piston twin are the G58 baron and Seneca. Im endorsed on both and with The G58 costing $1.5M+ and having less useful load than the P68 and burning over 130 Lp/h it doesnt make any sense.

If you're boss is even entertaining those sort of numbers and has a discerning taste for speed and comfort then I'd suggest that you get your boss a demo ride of some sort on a Kingair. Faster, more comfortable and much nicer to fly than anything else mentioned and pressurised to get above the weather.

[prospector]

There is somwhere in Australia an Aero Commander 690FL with turbo charged Lycoming IO720's fitted, a modernised panel, two Garmin 430's fitted, not likely to be on the market, but a very good all round machine I would think.

[43Inches]

If you're boss is even entertaining those sort of numbers and has a discerning taste for speed and comfort then I'd suggest that you get your boss a demo ride of some sort on a Kingair. Faster, more comfortable and much nicer to fly than anything else mentioned and pressurised to get above the weather

PA42-1000, after that you need jets to get better performance.


Navajo with panther conversion on it? 200kt true (iirc) spend a bit of cash on the interior and there ya go. Saw one awhile back with the panther kit on it, leather interior and headrest mounted screens to IFE.


Only need the intake/intercooler modifications, the winglet and four blade props are a waste of time.

[Chimbu chuckles]

TMG I would take a long hard look at the AC50 PA39 has a handle on.

Failing that a really nice low time C414 ex the US - I could put you in contact with trusted people in the states who could find and prebuy inspect such a proposition. They don't work for free of course but they would save you a potential fortune in NOT buying the wrong aircraft.

Turbine wise a good low time C441 ex US would be awesome - quite simply the most excellent twin I have ever flown and as easy to fly as any 400 series Cessna twin. 290kts/FL300+ and you can either take 3 bums 2000nm or 8-10 (double club seating plus crew seats) 600nm.

Or a PT6 powered Conquest 1.

Its a great time to be buying aeroplanes in the US and if the boss hankers after a Citation one of these days perhaps you should be thinking about building time, and corporate experience, that will lead towards that in a logical fashion - in fact a really good C441 is so good the Citation could go on the back burner for many years - there is a reason Cessna stopped making 441s - they wanted to sell Citations and wouldn't have sold many with the C441 still in production.

If you want to do charter pressurisation and some speed are huge selling points...as well as radar/boots/hot props etc in the southern winter.

I think you'd very soon outgrow the Partbanana and you'd be looking to change up again - its essentially a twin C206. Whats a new Partenavia worth?

Hmmm C441 - US$850k

1983 CESSNA CONQUEST II Turboprop Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-CONQUEST-II/1983-CESSNA-CONQUEST-II/1183813.htm)

[gassed budgie]

I think you'd very soon outgrow the Partbanana and you'd be looking to change up again - its essentially a twin C206


....and that's on a good day!

[eocvictim]

AC500 is a great machine. 165 all day every day, 170 out of a perfect example.

AC680 is fantastic machine, well balanced and good load, between 185 and 200 with 600-700kgs load (depending on how you balance it). Not as good range as a 500 with aux tanks though. Biggest downside is that there are only 3 IO720 680s in aus that I'm aware of and CASA is not pleased with any of them.

TS did all Todd's training and knows the Panther and Mojave well. From those that have flown them, the Mojave is as good as a piston gets.

I wouldn't be letting anyone with less than 500me cmd fly any of these; other than the shrike. Even they can be destroyed by the wrong attitude.

[Jamair]

Don't dick around, get a C90 or B200; or as Chuck said, a nice C425 or 441.

IFR CHTR approval is not that difficult for a PC12 either and that would suit your stated purposes admirably.

If the budgets not up to a turbine, go a C414 or C421, or a C404 if you don't want the pressurisation. A good PA31 310 or 350 is also worth a look (I have a very sweet low-time refurbed one available). Forget the Panther mods.:yuk: If your budget will struggle with any of these options, you're kidding yourself; stick to the 206.

No '6 seat' light twin (B55/58, C310; AC50; PN68; PA60 etc) will be any good for filling the seats. An Aztruck would do it - mine did an honest 170kt with 6 x adults - but like all light twins, they are all getting old.

[TriMedGroup]

Thanks for the continued input, as i stated the aircrafts use will be part company/part commercial and i wont have any hope in hell of getting a chief pilot approval to operate anything turbine (be it S/E or multi) as the first twin on the AOC. The prospective charters remember are going to be Mildura-Essendon or Mildura-Canberra and the like, with, hopefully 3-5 pax. If the aeroplane costs a bomb to operate then the charter prices will be through the roof and no one wins.

Have been in contact with PA39 and spoken to the owner of the Shrike in question.

Jamair, the budget was initially for a C90 or a PC12 and spending $1M on a partybus wasnt an issue so the 206 is definately being replaced. Something faster and with a better payload and two non turbo piston engines to begin with.
From the numbers I have crunched a Shrike will eat an Aztec in terms of payload / speed, and has the benefit of club seats and a pax door.

There is some awesome gear for sale on controller.com and its a lot cheaper than any new aircraft so "new old" might be the way to go.

Thanks again for the input everyone.

[Plow King]

Buy this -

Piper Aztec C (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/PIPER-AZTEC-C/1966-PIPER-AZTEC-C/1175842.htm)

and with the US$1,400,000 you saved on a new G58, he can just pay you an extra $100K a year for the next 14 years!

The former charter operator in Mildura operated a deathstar and a navajo for a long time and they seemed to work out quite well for him

Well, I guess that depends how you look at it............ :E

[short-field]

You need an AC50 something like this:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff54/VHDXO/EXCpanel.jpg

[VH-XXX]

My advice for the operator/owner would be that the pilot should not be the one choosing the aircraft. You are already limiting the new owner to specific types that you are / will be approved to operate, therefore, the decision to purchase a specific aircraft that suits you could cost the operator / owner dearly!

[nomorecatering]

Perhaps you should consider a Lock & Key Navajo from Mike Jones in the US.

Yes they are expensive, but their reputation in the US seems pretty good.

Mike Jones Aircraft Sales (http://www.mikejonesaircraft.com/)

[frigatebird]

My advice for the operator/owner would be that the pilot should not be the one choosing the aircraft. You are already limiting the new owner to specific types that you are / will be approved to operate, therefore, the decision to purchase a specific aircraft that suits you could cost the operator / owner dearly!


Ha Ha Ha - Nice sendup :D

(so thats your preferred option XXX, dont offer any input, - just accept the beancounters decision and tear yourself apart trying to make it work !!?? Lindberg and Kingsford-Smith would have agreed...;))

[43Inches]

Perhaps you should consider a Lock & Key Navajo from Mike Jones in the US.

I would pay the money and get one, there's a few low time Navajo/Chieftains advertised with his renovations. I think all his conversions are Panther kits with full de-ice, radar, etc.. good for the area that you intend to operate in (SE Aus), especially to Canberra.

[Tinstaafl]

I'm based in the US now and manage a 1980 (or is it '81? Can't remember) 'Lock & Key' Panther Navajo from Mike Jones. I also fly a 1974 Panther Chieftain (not a M.J. one) and a 1979 B200 Kingair.

The MJ Navajo is nice. From MJ it came with:

Cream & blue leather interior. Pretty standard MJ interior. Look at any of his ads & you'll see what you get. Wing lockers, 7 seat club interior incl. potty. Aft partition with power outlet for electric razor, ice & drinks cabinet. VG kit with incr. MTOW.

Avionics:
Garmin 530
Garmin 430
Garmin 330 TXDR
another garmin TXDR (not the 330 mode S type, but can't remember the model. 228?)
Avidyne 500 MFD
Digital fuel flow
Glass HSI (Bendix/King thing. Quite nice)
Colour radar (displayed on the MFD)
Stormscope (displays on both Garmins, the MFD & HSI)
Mode S traffic uplink (also displays on both Garmins, the MFD & HSI)
Known icing
full co-P panel
digital ammeter/voltmeter for L, R & bat buss
O2 to each seat
XM weather (shown on the MFD)
KAP200 AP with YD.
Garmin audio panel
Intercom throughout incl separate pilot & pax audio input. I can listen to music independently from the cabin.

It also came with lighweight, high RPM starters and a scissor link quick disconnect kit. The nosegear disconnect is very handy if your plane gets towed a lot. It eliminates the nose gear towing turn limit. I've lost track of how many PA31s I've seen here with the **** knocked out of the nose gear casting from towing.

We've since added a JPI EDM.

Performance:

Rich of peak: 190-195 kts @ A100, depending on weight. FF 42 GPH (US gal. of course)

LOP: 170 kts @ A100. FF 28-29 GPH. This aircraft's flight manual authorises 50 deg LOP but I wasn't willing without being able to monitor TIT & each cylinde'rs CHT, EGT.

Nices PA31 I've ever flown. It's BEW is heavy for a Navajo though: 4750 lb vs 4550 lb for another one of similar age I used to fly.

The Chieftain is is also a Panther but not an MJ one. Not anywhere near as nice. Also an older airframe so suffers the lower gear speed limits & max 25 deg flap. It has a VG kit too so increased MTOW. Chieftains also get an extra 50lbs in the nose locker.

Typical 'quick upgrade' avionics: Slap in a Garmin 430 & TXDR. Still has a standard '6 pack'. Not even a HSI. Interior not too flash (1974 ugly) but serviceable. Bought quite cheaply though so a planned upgrade throughout will still be cheaper than one from Mike Jones.

Performance: 170 kts @ 42-44 USG ROP.


Overall: The MJ 'lock & key' aircraft are really nice but you pay through the nose. You really are paying for a nothing else you *need* to do aircraft. Recent ones include an EDM so even that upgrade isn't needed.

The Navajo - with VG kit - has a great useful load. It's not a short field aircraft though. For that you need an Aztec or even an Islander for really short strips.

If you go for a PA31 make sure you get one *with* the wing lockers. Not all of them had them (they were a factory option). You'll lose a few knots cruise speed and not get quite as much extra MTOW with VGs but the versatility is worth every bit. Especially with golf bags or fishing rods.

Seating is more comfortable in the Chieftain for pax & crew.

Pax: Even if the full 10 seat interior is fitted you can still do club seating. Most times push Row 3 back to R4 to make lots of leg room in club but still have the option to use the R4 by moving R3 forward a bit.
Crew: Navajo's are dreadful for leg room if you're tall. I'm 6' and am cramped in a Navajo. Not so in a Chieftain. I even need to move my seat forward, unlike a Navajo where I can't get it back far enough for comfort.

As rule of thumb the VG kit gives you two extra bums depending on bags & obesity. A Navajo goes from full fuel/4-6 POB to full fuel 6-8 POB. Chieftain goes from full fuel/6 -7 POB to 8-10 POB.

The Kingair 200 is a different class entirely. Operating costs are triple the Chieftain. Its interior is even nicer than the MJ Navajo. Of course performance is rather better. It would want to be for the cost! 120 USG for the 1st hour after take off/90 USG subsequently. Never mind the insurance and recurrency costs.

Still, it's nice to be doing 260-270kts at FL250 in pressurised comfort above most of the weather with upgraded avionics.

[glekichi]

WMKII is onto it. :}
Get a used PC12 will do everything you're after and then some and costs less to run than a PA31 as long as you're doing the hours to justify the purchase price.

[el_capitano]

Go the Aerostar PA-60, great aircraft to fly, fast and has a good range on them.

[bushy]

For many years our Navajos and chieftains cruised at 180 knots, and the P68 cruised at 155 kts.
The P68 is much like a twin engine C206. It will fly from alice springs to Adeelaide (720 nm) at night with a light load, and 200nm with 6 POB.
It is a better short field aircraft than the 206.

Check Australian maintenance requirements before buying a modified aircraft. CASA have some strange ideas about maintenance, even with unmodifird aircraft, and modified ones can be unknown territory. Things like wing spar life may be affected by modifications in Australia. (VG's etc)
Refurbished aircraft may be ok, as long as there are no mods.

[MCKES]

Have you seen the Extra EA500

[Stationair8]

Piper PA-31/310 good all-round performer, still a few low time models around that would fit the bill.

Shrike 500 is a lovely aeroplane to fly but has stuff all passenger appeal and is pretty cramped cabin.

C90 Kingair is a good performer, nice big cabin which gives that big aeroplane feel for the boss or charter clients.

B200 Kingair has to be the star of the class, but has the boss got a good heart for the retail prices of the spares?

B350 Kingair great aerplane but you start to get into the joy of operating something above 12500lbs.

Forget about Senecas, Aztecs, Barons all lots of limitations and not really genuine six seaters.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Every suggestion or idea I have for twins is not printable on PPRuNe :E and rejected outright by my wife :*


....and that's just the aeroplane twins, to say nothing about the Swedish, Norwegian or Danish twins I have ideas about :(

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

It is a better short field aircraft than the 206...

Been thinking about this one Bushy -nothing personal man... but jeez -you're kidding yeah? If that's been your experience, somebody just ain't flying the 206 right!!! I've done an admittedly little time in the P68 (was never partial to it), a fair bit on the 206 (wheels & floats) and some on 207 (pig)... no way the P68 is going to outperform a 206 in short-field or load-lifting abilities. Sorry man, just no way. It's just not up to it; was never designed, built or intended for that role. It shines at getting a ****-load of performance (speed) out of a minimum of horsepower, coupled with a little utility.

You are comparing the show-pony P68 with the Clydesdale 206. No way will the P68 come out on top when there's work to be done -otherwise, PNG & similar spots would've been full of them!!! :E

[cficare]

Sounds like a "AD" perfect Shrike AC50 would do the job (loverly to fly....a pilots a/c)

[bushy]

Mr. Jober.
I suggest you look at Australian P charts for both aeroplanes.

[The Green Goblin]

I'll second that about the P68. They have basically an extra 100 horsepower for a similar BEW. I used to be able to land one on a dime, and she was quite spritely into the air in most situations.

The reason why PNG is not full of them is it's a twin, and you have to pay to maintain an extra engine. Plus the after market support and spares is not a notch on Cessna, and there is not a large selection of good ones to choose from these days.

[Dashtrash]

have you actually looked into the jet option?? If the boss is so keen, why not go and speak to CASA and get some facts. The small crustations are aimed at single pilot/private use so are well within the reach of a CPL with a bit of experience. Get an "approved" training course withthe purchase and perhaps some supervisory CandT from an existing operator and you could well be there. Could be more cost efective than outgrowing a piston twin then outgrowing a turboprop then looking at the jet.....

Having operated both types, I know which is simpler. No 1"/1000/minute or cowl flaps and it's pretty hard to shock cool a PW engine.

just a thought.

[psycho joe]

Psst. I know a bloke who can do you a sweeeet deal on an Emb170. :suspect:

[TriMedGroup]

nomorecatering and tinstaafl, that is awesome thanks a lot, I will do some investigating.

I did some reading on the PA60 but they seem to be a maintenance hog and the common opinion is not to go anywhere near them, although the speed is impressive..

The shortest strips i operate from at the moment are around 700m, and it does get hot in this part of the world, how will the AC50/PA31/C414 etc. cope when its 40+ outside? (both engines that is, no need to lecture me on OEI performance of a piston twin).

bushy, what you say re. the quoted P charts is correct as i've done the comparisons, but having experienced STOL kit equipped 206's I would back the 206 every day!

[Grogmonster]

But have you tried a STOL equipped C310R. They will eat a 400 meter strip and still cruise at 180 TAS.

Groggy

[43Inches]

PA31 P-Charts only consider temps to 36'C at sea level decreasing with height around ISA +20. The aircraft was never designed to operate in outback australia summer temps. In any case at high weight and temps you would legally need over 1000m with factors included (nil wind).

Engine temps would run very high, best to seriously consider a turbine aircraft for prolonged exporsure to those conditions.

[bushy]

PA31's have been operating legally and effectively in Alice Springs for about 40 years. And still do.
Alice Springs is 1789 feet amsl and has many 40 degree days.
Yes you do need long airstrips about 1200m on extreme days with big loads. So do C210's and most other aircraft.
P charts will tell you the story. There are some strange ideas and stories out there.

[43Inches]

This is an extract from an NTSB report involving a PA31 where the aircraft could not maintain altitude in the US; OAT 40 degrees C at 2000 elevation.


Based on both the pilot's report of the conditions at the landing site and the METAR from the closest aviation observation station, the density altitude on the surface was calculated to be 4,700 feet. The outside air temperature at the site, and the estimated temperature at the aircraft's cruise altitude, were outside of the temperature envelope for a positive rate of climb on the aircraft's single engine climb performance chart in the Airplane Flight Manual. According to Piper, the temperature lines on the charts are limits and no extrapolation can be made for points outside of the temperature lines.

Lines in the POH/VG supplement end at 36C at sea level at 1789 amsl the lines extend to just over 34C.

Operating at 40C will lead eventually to an accident report statement as follows;


The fatigue fracture and separation of the No. 6 cylinder fuel injector line due to the company maintenance personnel's failure to comply with an Airworthiness Directive. A factor in the accident was the company's decision to operate the aircraft in environmental conditions, which were outside of the single engine performance capability of the aircraft.


Unless of course there is an updated set of charts.

Report date was July 23 2000 rego N600EE

[Joker 10]

Piper LS 400 only twin worth having

[VH-XXX]

I swear I've seen a P 68 take off in les than 150 meters, 2pob and nill wind. I almost choked on my spit when I saw it leap off the ground from it's intersectional departure.

[swaziboy]

Why are all of you talking about pistons?? Have you seen the price of AVGAS recently? On top of that you still have to do 50 hourlies on the buggers!!

Pay a bit more, get something with 1 or 2 PT6'es, 150 hours or more between inspections... your boss (as the owner) will be laughing... you (as the pilot) will be so happy you wont know what to do with yourself...

Dont let a lack of experience (CP) and AOC make you make the wrong move... PC12, Caravan, Conquest or Cheyenne is my 2 cents worth...

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And how many hours will you need on type or similar class to get any kind of insurance flying something like a PA-42? Unless the doc has clinics in Broome, it seems like a bit of overkill.

Everyone bear in mind this is not a 1000+ hr pilot applying for the CP position within the company (as he has already stated), so rather than the extremely (un)helpful cries of "It's a doctor buying! Get a GULFSTREAM!!!!":rolleyes:, stick with something around the level of the P68 or even a Baron.

Buying new will eliminate the ongoing maintenance required with busted arse old PA-31's and SIDs for Cessnas and you will still have a decent retained value if an upgrade is required after a few years. But seriously, how many people are needing to be carted around at the moment?

The P68 is almost half the cost of the B58 and the glass fitted to either is fantastic compared to the steam driven gear. (Again without the ongoing costs of gradually upgrading everything to glass as it breaks.)

No experience with (new - such an animal?) commanders.

[an3_bolt]

Is the F406 any good?

[Tinstaafl]

Pretty much a C404 with PT6s instead of GTSIO-520s. So lots of room and reliable engines with rather longer TBO compared to the pistion Gitsos. Usual turbine exposure to unexpected high cost if an engine finds a novel way to make smoke. Not that a cooked geared Continental is cheap either. Not pressurised so you can't take much advantage of reduced fuel consumption at high(er) altitudes. Unless everyone uses supplemental O2, or course. Still, Caravans, Skyvans and their unpressurised ilk get by just fine.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Vulcanair will be bringing out a stretched twin turbine version of the P68 called the A-Viator in Feb/March this year for Avalon. 11 seat, newer RR versions of the Allison 250's, 210 Kts cruise, unpressurised and at this stage under $3mil delivered. Much more affordable than any other turbine twin on the market and burns less than a caravan.:ok:

[eocvictim]

Why didn't they pressurise it!? Such a waste.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Ask Reims why they didn't do the 406?

[43Inches]

Buying new will eliminate the ongoing maintenance required with busted arse old PA-31's and SIDs for Cessnas and you will still have a decent retained value if an upgrade is required after a few years. But seriously, how many people are needing to be carted around at the moment?


The new aircraft still require much the same maintenance an old one does. Operated 30 year old Seneca II/III and brand new Seneca IV and V models and the 30 year old aircraft were more reliable, used less fuel for the same speed and carried better loads. This was probably due to sorcing aircraft in good condition and history. Brand new you don't know until you operate it and the waranties are not particularly long lived. The newer aircraft were quieter and had modern features and equipment, slightly better take-off performance (due more powerful engines) but at max weights were much the same as the old. Unfortunately nothing much has changed in the way they make light twins in the last 40 years and the engines are the same possibly with electronic monitoring and control gadgets (which just add more complexity, weight and reliability issues themselves).

If you buy old just do a lot of homework and get a good one, then keep it in good condition.

As far as value is concerned generally I have sold all around what they were bought for with the older aircraft as they have already fully depreciated. Just be very careful of buying higher hour aircraft and make sure they are not approaching an airframe limit etc...

A new aircraft like a new car will lose significant value as soon as you take possesion of it.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The new aircraft still require much the same maintenance an old one does.

Disagree.

Corrosion, time lifed parts, breakages all mean more maintenance. Agreed the 100 hourlys still need to be done regardless, but SB's and AD's don't generally apply to a new airframe.

Anyone want to attest to the cost required to keeping a 40 year old airframe airworthy?

[propblast]

Yes, there is a higher cost of keeping a 40 year old airframe airworthy.

However time lifed parts(most) will run out in the same number of hours on a 40 year old plane as they will on say a 4 year old plane. But I can see your point WRT breakages and corrosion.

Just out of curiosity, would there be a difference in insurance premiums between a brand new (high hull value) and a low time airframe, say 3-4000 hours?

If so, how much?

[Old Akro]

Aging aircraft is not the problem - just cumulative sloppy maintenance. You don't need to look any further than the smarties packet of different screws on inspection panels or the number of times you see LAME's put self taping screws into threaded holes, skip hard to get at greasing points, re-use self locking nuts that were designed not to be reused.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Cost of insurance all depends on how much you want it insured for. Usual figure is about 2% of hull value.

Yeah, you still have to replace lifed parts when due, but with a new a/c they won't be due for their full life.

Say you spend $150K on a baron that's got 9000 hrs TT and 100/200 hrs left on engines & props. Start with $60-80K for new engines, $20K for new props, possible issues with fuel cells $8K, gear issues, autopilot, avionics etc. All these things start to add up, not to mention the time needed to fix the issues, and when you go to sell it 5 years later with 12000 hrs TT, don't think you'll get more than you paid for it, even with half life engines and props. Maybe even after chucking in $8K for a paint job to make it look half decent.

This is fair as an average estimate, and I know there are good deals to be found, I also know there are worse ones too, so don't bother pointing out you could get a set of props at your mates for $19K, hence proving my argument wrong (as so many ppruners LOVE to do).

If you happen to find an airframe that has fairly fresh parts all round, you're gonna pay extra for it compared to something that has everything due.

Same as for well maintained airframes. They're around, but you pay extra for them and you will still get a lot less for your 10000 hr airframe when you go to sell it than a 3000 hr airframe.

A new aircraft like a new car will lose significant value as soon as you take possesion of it.
6th Jan 2011 21:41

The point being you won't spend as much to keep it on the road though.

Who wants to put up a worst case scenario for their ongoing maintenance costs? Might as well see what you could be up for and there's no point saying, "It won't happen to me."
Paddy's law.......Murphy was an optimist.:cool:

Old story, pay peanuts, get monkeys.
(Not to mention Large fortune/Small fortune):rolleyes:

[43Inches]

It may cost slightly less in direct costs, maintenance wise to operate the aircraft however any saving will be quickly eaten up by the purchase price of a new airframe. Your Baron example is good as a brand new Baron would set you back $1.5million where as you could make your $150,000 dollar machine quite good for a total spend of $500,000 (zero time most componants, re-paint, refurbish and upgrade the avionics), you have saved a million in finance. After a few years or 2000hours of being looked after properly you should get at least $200,000 where as the brand new machine would probably be worth under a million.

The direct operating cost difference between the two machines would be negligible.

Things like corrosion depend on the aircraft and its history and location, a good pre-purchase will sort that out. I have seen 40 year old aircraft with no corrosion problems and brand new aircraft only a few years out of the factory with major problems due to manufacturing issues.

The main difference between a light aircraft and a car is that a new car has little in common with one from 30-40 years ago. Engines, body and chassis are built with different techniques and materials. A new Baron or Seneca is essentially built the same way as the old, from the same stuff and has the same engine with maybe an electronic control unit attached and some fancy new avionics and interior.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Yes, ends up pretty much the same, but without the downtime required to fix the broken/breaking things.
Higher outlay....yes
Higher sale price when you upgrade....yes

My baron actually was a good example as there was a G model with Garmin glass for sale a year or two ago at Archerfield for about $1.2M AUD. Add $100K for new donks and props and not much else and you've spent $400K.

The $150K machine as you pointed out needed half a mil spent to get an extra $50K back (Optimistically as you'll need a fresh set of donks and props at sale if you want to get more than you paid back on a now five figure TT machine). $450+K cost. Much more attractive presentation for clients as well.

The P68C is also a very good example. $850K to purchase with glass (probably about to go up) and there are examples I've seen around 5-8 years old selling for $700+K. Not that much of a loss, really. Plus they present a hell of a lot better for charter clients, have current and working avionics and they come with factory corrosion proofing.
Pretty good actually.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Geez guys - they did build a few Barons between the 1970 model at 100K and the 2011 Baron at 1.5 million.

I am a member of another bulletin board that exists only for Beechcraft owners and there are MANY members in the US with Barons of every vintage from 1960s models to one (Australian) member of the BB who picks his new G58 up in a few weeks from the factory.

Lots of mid 70s, mid 80s, early 90s Barons with low TT and upgraded avionics (G600 Glass and Garmin stacks), recent paint and interiors that a lay person simply could not tell from new and that change hands for 200k - 400k. Just the savings in insurance premiums alone would cover 40% of the total cost of operating a Baron for a year.

850k for a P68?

That is just nuts.

[TriMedGroup]

Try $1.1m for a new p68, and that's with the euro in it's strong position. All of the new build aircraft have much higher BEW too. For a p68 equipped with all the options Inc de-ice and air con you have a useful load of 640 odd kg, and a fuel burn of 60kg p/h, coupled with a tas of around 150 it just won't compete with the likes of a shrike out of Mildura where, apart from Adelaide everywhere is 250nm+.

From all the contact that I have had with operators of shrikes and Navajos, the maintenance is nowhere near the difference in purchase price, unless you intend to operate the older aircraft for 25 years. GAM redo the wings, re engine with a modern io540, and have that many mods that will keep on top of the normal problems associated with aging aircraft. Add to this the ability to put whatever custom equipment you like, where you like and not having any constraints on colour schemes, interior materials etc.

[PA39]

Chimbu....wise words !

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Try $1.1m for a new p68

Actually, the retractable that was delivered in Dec was offered at $850K with a price increase due soon, but 99% sure it wouldn't be over $1M. Will confirm.

850k for a P68?

That is just nuts.

What? Compared to $900K for a new Semenhole or $1.5M for a Baron?

Anyone seen what a Seneca V's worth?

[1a sound asleep]

For $600k you will get a lovely PA31 with 3-4000 hours Total Time. Will always be in demand for charter, parts are a no brainer and its a cabin class executive feel aircraft. Not only will it build credible twin time it will do what tasks you need it to do and be resaleable when you want to upgrade

[TriMedGroup]

MakeItHappenCaptain, I have a feeling I may have spoken to you, my boss was very close to signing up for a new P68 and I have done my research and know all the numbers.

The retrac that sold was;

A: The ex factory demonstrator

B: Stuck in Malaysia for months with landing gear problems that were subsequently fixed and the aircraft bought by a malaysian company for a lot less than it was supposedly worth.

C: Came in over 50Kg heavier than expected when weighed, and has a 21Kg less MTOW than the fixed gear version. Read: 600Kg useful load.

D: Not equipped with Air Con, De-Ice, Radar (the retractable model cannot house a radar), the lighter MT props, it had the old version head lining, the sideways mounted Sagem EFIS, and more.

The Jan 1 price rise was 9.7% and affected all vulcanair aircraft and all the options.

The Baron only has one option, and that is fully optioned. G1000, De-Ice, Air Con etc. The P68 fully optioned from Jan 1 is over $1.15M and that is with the Euro at 0.768, if it gets back to being 0.65 or worse that price is getting very close to the Baron.

I agree that they are a much better option for the training market and would be a money spinner for short range charters or a bit of freight.

Unfortunately for our intended operation, the distances are in excess of 250NM, the destinations quite often endorsed with INTER and TEMPO, OR have an alternate requirement, and the freezing levels quite low. For example:

P68 with all options Inc De-Ice, Useful load = 645Kg

Mildura to Bankstown, 450Nm @ 130KT G/S = 208 Min
208 Mins flight fuel = 277Lt, +15% variable of 41Lt, +60Lt fixed, +INTER fuel of 30Lt plus an allowance for an instrument approach at BK of 20Lt

= 304Kg of fuel + my weight inc my flight bag of 80Kg = 260Kg of passengers and bags. Now that equals 3 x 86Kg per person with bags and journey time is probably 230 mins total. You could of course stop at say, Griffith and re-fuel. This would allow you to take 4 people instead of 3 (still not a full aircraft) but will add 30 mins to the journey, and your pax will have to get out and stand in the rain while you fill up.

Looking at the numbers i have for the Shrike, you could take 5 x 90+Kg (not including me) and be in Sydney in 3 hours non-stop.

I have been asked to start an operation on behalf of my boss and I am personally responsible for ATTEMPTING to make it as viable as possible, I.e getting an aeroplane that is going to be able to do absolutely everything that may be required of it, is a good start.

Hopefully this gives a bit more insight into what the intended purpose of the aircraft will be. Thanks again to all contributors so far!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

TriMed.
Yes you did speak to me and as such you know that I'm not making this up.

I was initially only presenting an opinion of new vs old. Although I know Vulcanair (duh!) I never said they were the only option available.

upgrading our (very nice 800 hour old) Cessna 206
Bet it sells for a lot more than a H model.
The G58 costing $1.5M+ and having less useful load than the P68 and burning over 130 Lp/h it doesnt make any sense. The Seneca is a Seneca and that is enough said.
You said it.

A. The aircraft has only just completed it's FIRST 100 hrly. It was not an "ex-demonstrator" in the sense you portray it as. It was sold on sight on it's way to Aus. Owner and his pilots are completing Aus qualifications and collecting the a/c next week.

B. Not saying what it sold for, but so what if they got a bargain anyway? The gear pressure switch failed and burned out the gear pump. (Could happen to any Piper too. Identical components.) The gear was extended using the blowdown system and it was found the actuators were too light and overextended. The aircraft was "stuck" for six weeks, NOT MONTHS while factory engineers fitted heavier actuators and blueprinted the gear. This aircraft was the first of type. Issues have and will continue to be discovered and rectified on almost ANY new type of a/c, not just Vulcanairs (at no cost to the customer.) Nothing new there.

C. Since when did you see all a/c match their POH Standard Weight? Some are higher, some are lower. This a/c has some options fitted above standard that contribute to a higher than standard weight. Big deal.

D. What do you want a/c for in Victoria? Would have been "nice" in the Middle East on the way over in 40deg heat, but the standard ventilation has three blowers that do a more than satisfactory job and it has a standard fuel burning heater that would be more use to you.
De-ice? It's not pressurised or turbocharged. What for? Extra weight? How many normally aspirated GA a/c have de-ice in Aus????
Radar - You'd mount it under the wing, same as a Malibu
MT-3 blade props quieter climb better - Hartzell 2 blades all metal, easier to get serviced, faster (we got over 170 KTAS S&L from both P68R's with 2 blades)
"Old version" head lining? Oh yes...a grab handle on the windscreen divider for the "new version". WTF???
The landscape mount vs portrait mount EFIS? Not hard to change and the customer has the choice.

What exactly is your point about how the first model was optioned?

PS. I have confirmed AirItalia are keeping the price at 2010 levels (The retract was offered landed in Aus for $850K) until the next factory trip in Feb and no, I'm not on commission.

[43Inches]

D. What do you want a/c for in Victoria?
Being based in Mildura where the temperature sits around 30degrees most of the year, and above 40 for a number of days. Blowers just shift hot air around the cabin, the PA31s with aircon were much nicer for passengers especially in summer then ones with an internal temperature approaching 50.


De-ice? It's not pressurised or turbocharged.


Freezing levels to Melbourne, Canberra or Sydney easily drop below 5000ft in winter, with LSALTs higher.

Although I'm not sure why you are averse to turbo-charged aircraft. There is no problem if you and a few selected pilots are the only ones who use it. If its for general hire thats another thing.

[TriMedGroup]

MakeItHappenCaptain,

Sorry if i have offended you. The primary reason for putting this question out there was because I wanted to gain some actual operating figures (not peoples opinions or ideas for their own dream aircraft) so i could present my boss with comparisons about what would and would not work. To spend $1.1M on a P68 and out grow it in 18 months would mean fronting up to my boss to admit that I didnt do my research and spent a lot of money on an aircraft that isnt suitable. Just a little bit of pressure on me to get it right!.

Do you mean to say that the gear emergency extension wasnt tested at the factory? Like you say, new aircraft types will have issues and the only way of discovering these is generally when you are a long way from home.

What do we want A/C for in Mildura? Perhaps you should look here: Mildura climate, averages and extreme weather records (http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=76077).
The aircraft's main use will be as an executive transport, dont think my boss is too keen on getting out of the plane in Canberra for an important meeting smelling like he's just ridden there on a push bike. Over 40c inside the aircraft is pretty common here. Dont quote me but i'm pretty sure the heating set up is an exhaust shroud system too, not that it matters as the heater in the 206 doesnt see much use.

As you say the aircraft is not pressurised or turbo'd, which for mine is more reason to have De-Ice if you can. Yes with good pre flight planning you can just about get around most of the problems associated with Victorian winter freezing levels of 3500, but you will probably negate the saving of 25Kg from not having De-Ice, by using 25Kg of fuel diverting around the ranges at 2500ft. I used it for the comparison so i could compare apples with apples, I could do a comparison of a basically equipped P68 (no leather, air con, de ice, radar etc.) with a fully kitted out older aircraft on a range v payload basis and for anything over 250Nm, the older one would still come out on top for longer trips.

Not to mention the added comfort of the well equipped older aircraft for the passengers, I have to try and sell charters to the public - better equipped aircraft = more attractive to them and more chance of getting there, speed is the other main advantage here.

The main reason for the MT prop option was the 13Kg weight saving, if you dont think they are much chop then add a further 13Kg to the BEW i mentioned before. Youre in G58 territory now as far as useful load goes. If you can show me an example of a retrofit wing mounted radar then I would love to see it, I would guess that it wouldnt weigh less than 10Kg as well.

By old version head lining, I mean that the newer models no longer have the 6 inch covering of the ventilation ducting that runs down the middle of the roof. The same piece of ducting that we all managed to hit our head on getting in and out of the rear seats.

It must sound like I am rubbishing the P68, but I dont intend to - it is still definately on my bosses short list and just about un-beatable when doing what it was intended for. The A-viator you mentioned is a very interesting aircraft and seems a very good turbine replacement for the C402/PA31 type aircraft. We are looking forward to having a look at it at Avalon.


Thanks for your input none the less,

TMG.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

No dramas.

The system should have been tested. I was told that even though the system runs at at ~600 PSI, the lines are rated to 1200PSI+. You would think they would have tried it, but not a concern now that the heavier duty actuators are fitted.
(Imagine how I felt with a 400L bladder of AVGAS in the back, just starting a 1400nm leg over the Arabian Sea when you get a burning smell from the gear pump!)

Be aware that many GA twins, while fitted with de-ice are not certified to remain in icing conditions (ie. vacate ASAP). Navajos, for example are only certified in MODERATE icing and that's only if every part req in the POH (antenna shields included) is fitted and working.

Haven't fitted a radar YET, but the Viator will have underwing pods that can be used for fuel or sensors/cameras and they can be fitted to P68s. Should be able to use for a radar as well.

Sorry 43: my response was on the comment that the demo model didn't have de-ice. That option only comes with the turbo models as far as I'm aware. (Believe it or not normally aspirated Senecas had a de-ice option that held the boots in the retracted position with suction, but usually you need a turbo, turbine or press. air to provide the inflation.)

It's unfortunate the industry hasn't come up with anything piston to replace the C400 series/PA31's. If you're carting anything more than 5 adults total and gear, you're going to have to consider 8/10 seats.

Cheers.

[43Inches]

Navajos, for example are only certified in MODERATE icing and that's only if every part req in the POH (antenna shields included) is fitted and working.


Few propellor driven aircraft, including transport category turboprops, are certified for more than Moderate icing, the next step being Severe, which is unpredictable and includes freezing rain and drizzle.


It's unfortunate the industry hasn't come up with anything piston to replace the C400 series/PA31's. If you're carting anything more than 5 adults total and gear, you're going to have to consider 8/10 seats.


I think its more a pitty the turbine versions such as the PA31-T3 (T1040) and the less know Emb-821 Caraja (EMB-820 Navajo turbine conversion) were not produced in more numbers. The Caraja also may not be certified outside of South America but had a 500kg increased MTOW with 550hp PT6A-27/-34. This allowed about 220Kt cruise and 600m field performance, MTOW 3600kg BEW around 2300kg.



If you can find a T1040 for sale they are usually around $500000US.

[frigatebird]

Just get a 10 year old Baron, and suck it and see. You can trade up to larger/turbine later if it works out. if it doesn't you still have a saleable asset. My 10 cents.

[TriMedGroup]

Hi and sorry to drag this up again,

We still dont have an aircraft but the focus has turned now to a PA31 sized aircraft and we are in the process of looking at a few in the US. There is a few Mike Jones lock and key chieftains with low time but the problem with them seems to be the BEW.

Can anyone help with info regarding the VG kits and associated MTOW increases? From what i have gathered the standard BLR manufactured VG kits will enable an MTOW of 3349? but when the aircraft has had the "Colemill" treatment with the Q-tip props and winglets you are limited to a MTOW of 3284. Does anyone know about operating at the higher weight with these mods?

Despite what Mike Jones quotes that the average BEW of his aircraft is roughly 2250, all of the ones I have looked into are around 100 Kg heavier, so have a useful load of 950 odd Kg. With 115kg of fuel reserves and and 110kg per hour fuel burn it really makes a good 6 seat aircraft...

I have also heard that the winglets and Q-tip props add no performance and if anything have a negative impact on TAS and BEW, can anyone confirm/deny this?

Does 180kt and 190 litres in the first hour, then 150 lph sound about right too? Some stories on the internet are quoting 190kt.


Hope someone can help out with my questions,

Cheers.

[Jamair]

Tri-Med, I said it earlier, if this is a commercial operation don't faf about with antique piston twins where you are weighing and considering every kilo of load and litre of fuel to see if it can just barely get the job done. If your mission is that tight, NONE of the stuff you are considering will work out in the long run and you will be back looking for an upgrade.

Get a B200 or a C90, a Conquest or a PC12. They will go as far as you could want, carry as much as you could need, and will still be applicable to the task and achieving the goals in many years time. They cost no more than a tarted-over Chieftain in the long run.

[The Green Goblin]

A C404 will do what you're asking in the piston range.

They are a real workhorse.

If you're serious about the aeroplane though, something like a Conquest will do a far better job (or an F406).

[Wally Mk2]

Without doubt the Beech is a far better choice....BUT the price diff from a PA31 to a B200 for Eg is huge! The cost of one busted TSIO540 compared to a busted PT6 is also Huge. The two types aren't really in the same league & therefore can't be compared unless funds where unlimited then if that be the case the PA31 wouldn't come into the fray here so I assume 'TriMed' is still playing/talking down at grass roots level (piston stuff) so a twin turbine I think is out of the question here by the sounds of things.
The C404 is a real load carrier far better than the old Chieftan I reckon but would be surprised to find a good C404 laying idle these days.


Wmk2

[Mimpe]

A well maintained PC 12, or Cessna Conquest in from US while the dollar is up. Turbines the way to go. Piper Meridian,Tbm 850, or even the Extra 500 if you want somthing smaller.

The Pc 12 is just a beautiful, fully sorted aircraft with a great track record. I reckon there must be an enthusiast owner in some desert state in the USA who is ready to sell.....

[1a sound asleep]

A PA 31 with low time... maybe but still 25-30 years old. I dont know what projections you have or how many hours you anticipate but this is now one very antiquated plane. Even a Meridian would make more sense in 85% of situations

[glekichi]

+1 for the PC12 - but not the NG (avionics STILL having teething problems!)

Even Wally must admit one PT6 is safer than two 540s!
I'd guess that total costs in the long run would be less than a PA31 too.

[LeadSled]

Even Wally must admit one PT6 is safer than two 540s!
I'd guess that total costs in the long run would be less than a PA31 too.

Izzzatso!!!
Where are the/your figures???

In a paper presented to a regional airservices conference in Sydney, sponsored by the NSW Government, a detailed paper from a well known operator refuted both of the above commonly held misconceptions.

Firstly, engine reliability of small turbines v. piston is a bit of a myth, secondly, the cost$$ / HP / hour for a -540 is streets ahead of a PT-6 or a Garret --- even when you have two versus one.

Tootle pip!!

[1a sound asleep]

Firstly, engine reliability of small turbines v. piston is a bit of a myth, secondly, the cost$$ / HP / hour for a -540 is streets ahead of a PT-6 or a Garret

How many fatal accidents are there each year in piston twins versus turbo props? Forget about short term dollars and think about long term longevity of the crew and pax....;)

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/2/7/0900729.jpg


AS for the PC12 - double the money of a Piper Meridian. You can buy a lovely Meridian for $800k . A good step from a 206, which is the operators current aircraft

$799,000 PIPER MERIDIAN aircraft for sale, Reg # N32KE, Piper Meridian for sale (http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircraft_for_sale_detail/Piper_Meridian/2001_PIPER_MERIDIAN/28567.htm)

[Howard Hughes]

If money was no object there would be only one aircraft for me, a Royal Turbine Duke! (http://www.royalturbine.com/):ok:

[glekichi]

Sorry leadsled but that was tongue in cheek but I would be interested if you can show stats that a piston twin is safer than a pc12! (but in a separate thread - enough thread drift already!) Aeromed in Australia certainly has given the pc12 a serious workout, and the stats there speak a lot.

I honestly believe it would be the safest and most cost effective option for the payload, but if that much payload is not required then a meridian would be an interesting alternative. Don't know much about them though.

[TriMedGroup]

Thanks again for the feedback.. Can anyone actually answer the question that i posed?

A Kingair or Pilatus would be great but if anyone has bothered to read the whole thread, a Chieftain fits the budget but a Kingair that costs 8 times as much to purchase and 4 times as much to operate DOES NOT...

There is NO good C402/404 out there, they all have mega hours and generally are kitted out for freight or high density aboriginal carrying.. If someone can point me toward a nice one then feel free to.

Duke / Meridian = really good 4 seat aircraft once you put a load into them. Why does everyone think that ASETPA (soon to be ASEA i believe, as in no longer limited to turbines) is so easy to gain approval for? We are a small scale start up operator with no in-house engineering, and the nearest LAME that can look after a TBM / Meridian type aircraft to ASETPA standard a fair way away...

This is an interim aircraft not a long term proposition, why do all the charter operators around here operate Chieftains? They are cost effective and have passenger appeal. Im talking 100-300 NM legs with 6-7 POB and often un-prepared strips. The aircraft that we are looking at are all sub 5000 hours, 1980+ models with excellent maintenance history.

CAN SOMEONE ANSWER MY QUESTION RE: THE VARIOUS VG KITS, Q TIP PROPS AND WINGLETS??

[Jack Ranga]

Tri med,

Stop arseing about and move to the 21st century. 30 year old piston twins? Come on.

A Caravan will do everything you want and more. I guarantee if you bought carefully and through the right broker, a mill. If you haven't got the budget to provide your pax with the safest mode of transport, buy a minibus and deck it out for comfortable travel.

[Wally Mk2]

'TriMed' I have recognized that a turbine is out or yr reach & have said as much mainly cause the cost is huge over the two types. Just that most in here are thinking without their hands on their wallet:ok:
As for the performance details yr after? Am sure someone will come up with those specs as I have been out off lying the PA31 for some years now but I know one things for sure with 10 bums on board at MTOW in 40 deg's the '31' won't climb much at all with the gear stuck down. This I found out many years ago at Olympic Dam in SA after T/Off, bloody gear wouldn't come up...........pretty much full power in the circuit to get back on the ground....ahhhh

Hope you find what yr looking for, it's always a trade off with aviation anyway.


Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

Wal, it's like most 'operators' in GA, whinging and complaining about cost. If you haven't got the money to operate safely in aviation, f@#k off out of it.

Aviation is no place to be operating on a 'budget' If that in itself is a problem, bring back regulation I say.

Take the bus, buy a nice car and drive, go RPT or get the budget to do it properly in aviation. Either way, stop moaning about cost.

I would NEVER let any of my family board a Cheiftain for RPT or Charter. EVER.

Tri-med, have you made the people that you transport aware of the risks involved with these aircraft? Do they think it's as safe as getting on a B737 with the appropriately trained crew? Have you given them options i.e. PA31 v TBM850 v PC12 v C208 v BE20 v DHC8 (and hire car) etc?

[VH-XXX]

When you're out chasing down the Sea Shepherd giving tips to the Japanese Whalers, operating hundreds of miles off the coast of NZ, you can't beat a Chieftain eh? ;);)

[Wally Mk2]

I hear ya Jack but we don't live in a perfect world where the word 'budget' only gets heard of when the Govt are trying to rape us!
Every working class person & probably every business works on a 'budget' so even though the the turbine jobs are safer in a lot of ways the old clunkers as the PA31 still have their places in a budget conscious industry. As long as they are maintained properly(that's where the word budget lies not the plane itself) I see no reason not to fly in them. I think it was AirLink in Dubbo used to have some of the most immaculate Chieftans one would see & they operated RPT on a budget am sure.

Anyway we ALL whinge & complain about something cost related not just in aviation. Every time I fill the cars tank I complain but you won't see me taking the bus because of it:)
Choice, it's all about choice:ok:

Wmk2

[glekichi]

If you must go with a chieftain then don't touch anything without the increased mtow, the landing weight upgrade, and a crew door!

Sorry I can't help you in regards to the q-tips or winglets.

Now, while the economy of scale is obviously different, and im no accountant, but looking at the central ops 2010 annual report it costs the RFDS about $500 an hour for fuel, maintenance, and engine overhauls on the Pilatus. That may or may not include labour from the engineers as they are in-house, but that surely wouldnt bring it up to more than say $700 (which is roughly what Pilatus say at the current price of fuel). Not to mention you cover almost 50% more ground in the same given time compared to a Pa31. How much are you planning to spend running the Chieftain? Bear in mind the above gets you Egpws, TCAS, and full de-icing - not found in most chieftains.

Why don't the bottom end operators use them? Because it's GA in Australia, what do you expect? :ouch:

[Tinstaafl]

I manage a PA31-325 Panther & have flown the versions below. This is based in the USA so weights are in lbs. Numbers are from the respective aircraft's flight manual/POH.

The Panther mod on a Navajo-325 gives 190-195kts at 70-75% power. Bear in mind that this a Navajo's smaller fuselage with a Chieftain's bigger engines. That's ~44 USG/hr. On the other hand, we had a JPI EDM installed and usually operate it LOP (50LOP is approved in the POH). Then I get 170kts and 27 USG/hr. Temps are usually better too.

ROP and at 65% power I typically saw 165-170kts in the others. I flew a particular -350 before & after VGs. It lost about 5 kts in the cruise.

PA31-310 stock / with VG kit:

Maximum Certificated Weights (-310 / -310+VG)
Max Ramp Weight = 6536 lbs / 6880 lbs
Max takeoff weight = 6500 lbs / 6840 lbs
Max landing weight = 6500 lbs
Zero fuel weight = 6200 lbs

PA31-325 stock & with Panther mod (VG kit, winglets, 4 blade prop etc):

Maximum Certificated Weights -325 / +Panther
Max Ramp Weight = 6540 lbs / 6740
Max takeoff weight = 6500 lbs / 6700 lbs
Max landing weight = 6500 lbs
Max zero fuel weight = 6200 lbs

PA31-350 stock & with VG kit:

Maximum Certificated Weights -350 / +VG kit
Max Ramp Weight is 7045 lbs / 7448 lbs
Max takeoff weight is 7000 lbs / 7368 lbs
Max landing weight is 7000 lbs
Max zero fuel weight is 7000 lbs

I'd suggest avoiding the -310. It doesn't have wing lockers. The room in those wing lockers are damned useful, both volume & the 150 lb /locker. The only benefit of a -310 is a VG kit equipped one getting a greater gain in useful load compared to a -325 with wing lockers.

The -325 I manage is a Mike Jones 'Lock & Key' aircraft. Like he advertises, the day you buy it you can use it. You'll pay through the nose for it though. It will also tend to have a high BEW thanks to the equipment it'll have. The 1980 -325 I mentioned is over 200 lb heavier than a mid to late 1970's -310 I used to fly.

To give an idea of the equipment it came with:

7 seat interior including Club seating & potty seat. No 8th seat next to the door. The interior is nice. Typical MJ stuff but quite presentable. Only thing I don't like is the mono-colour blue carpet. It really shows the grime & sun fading. I think a speckled/patterned charcoal, mid grey & blue would have been better.
Garmin 530 & 430
Avidyne 500 MFD
2 x Garmin TXDR. One a 330, other a 327. The 330 is Mode S & provides an uplinked traffic alert function (displayed on both Garmins, the MFD & the EHSI)
Colour Wx radar (displayed on the MFD)
Stormscope (displayed on the MFD & EHSI)
Digital fuel flow
King EHSI
King 3 axis KAP200 AP with FD & YD

Audio panel with music inputs from a jack in the cockpit (me likee!) + a jack in the cabin. Can isolate pilot or cockpit from the cabin.

Factory O2 with masks (mic. masks for the crew seats)
Factory aircon** (which uses about 2' of the R. wing locker space)
Co-pilot panel with HSI. Old DI retained but useless for single pilot ops due positioning at far lower right of CP panel.

Nosewheel scissor link disconnect. Allows the link to be disconnected without tools by substituting a push-release pin. Bloody brilliant for towing. The number of PA31s I've seen with bashed-to-hell castings thanks to towing beyond the pitiful turn limit...

Amenities/icebox partition with electric razor power outlet.

Four blade props. Very quiet *and* increased ground clearance.

Lightweight high speed starter motors. I like these. An engines being turned over looks like it's a turbine being motored. Starts are rather easy & the motors weigh less than the factory equipment...

Improved electronic prop syncrophaser (not syncroniser) to replace the old factory one.

VG kit, winglets with integral recognition, nav. & strobe lights

Shortly after I took over management of it I had the owner install a JPI EDM. MJ has them on all his aircraft now but didn't when this one was done. We've also had to upgrade the Garmins to WAAS after one unit needed repair. F**cking Garmin won't repair older, non-WAAS units without an upgrade. Don't need WAAS so it was a cost that all but useless but necessary to regain original functionality after a Garmin let its magical smoke escape.



**The mid to late '70's -310 I used to fly didn't have factory aircon. Instead it had an aftermarket electrically power system that fitted into the pilot side cockpit/pax area bulkhead. Not as good as having a conditioned air outlet for each seat but could be powered on the ground with a GPU. Very convenient!


------------
Later: Forgot to add that it also has known ice approval with de-ice gear (boots, heated pilot side windscreen. Not one of those hot plate things but most of the windscreen). It also has XM weather. XM weather is bloody wonderful! Biggest advance in Wx. safety since on-board radar. Don't think the service is available in Oz?

[TriMedGroup]

Wally, thanks for being on the same page.

Jack, thanks for your opinion.. Please keep your assumptions re: budget and maintenance/safety to yourself.

Really great that after 5 pages of explaining that perhaps at this point in time a single engine turbine is not what we are after and doesnt suit our needs, up pops suggestion after suggestion of a single engine turbine.

Glekichi we are looking at fully de-iced, TAWS, TIS, radar, storm scope, flight director, dual WAAS GNSS, Air-Con etc etc. Obviously cost is why the "bottom end" operators dont use turbine aircraft. Perhaps if Jetscab didnt offer $49 Melbourne-Gold Coast fares the masses wouldnt laugh so much when you quoted $3000 Mildura-Bendigo in a B200.

On another note I am interested in just how much better say a C90 or C441 is on a hot day when full over the cabin class pistons? I ask this as while i was in Canberra a few weeks back there was a Conquest obviously doing an endorsement or flight test as they advised being assy on take off. Anyway once airborne at about 800' or so it slowed up quite a bit and climb seemed to cease basically heading straight for the hills.

[havick]

TriMedGroup.. It's good to see that you're not rushing into this, and it seems that you've narrowed down your search.

One question that comes to mind however. Will the result of a bigger aircraft (twin) necessitate charter ops to subsidise the cost of the aircraft, or is it merely a nicety to have the option there?

[JMEN]

Why not the new Gippsland GA18...
GAF Nomad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAF_Nomad)

or some Italiano...
http://www.vulcanair.com/page-view.php?pagename=AircraftA-Viator

or a few more seats...
Viking (http://www.vikingair.com/content2.aspx?id=276)

Many options...
One I have always wanted...
Beech 18 Headquarters (http://www.beech18.com/)

Or for a bit of speed - http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2922.html

:ok::E:D

[Doodlebug]

TriMedGroup,

Forgive my butting in here as a non-Aussie(can't help reading all threads regarding MEP with interest), but I couldn't help noticing your comment regarding 404's. Have sent you a PM. Good luck.

[tail wheel]

He wants to replace a C206 - but almost everything that ever defied gravity has been suggested, except perhaps a DH84 Dragon and Executive A380!

You mentioned a C90 or Conquest - which is an enormous leap from a C206? Avoid the C90 with PT6A-20 engines. Consider an E90 with PT6A-28 engines. Conquest, well, you need to like Garrett engines.

A lesser known Cessna, the Cessna 425 Corsair/Conquest I with PT6A-112s is a very under rated twin, excellent engines and usually available at good prices. The RFDS successfully operated Cessna 425's in West Australia for many years. The 425 shares the same engine with the very similar but unpressired Reims F406 operated by Coatwatch.

Bear in mind that any aircraft fitted with two small PT6 turbine engines will cost you $215 per hour in engine, HSI, atarter generator etc overhaul provisions, or around $3.30 per nautical mile (at 240 kts) in basic operating costs. By comparison, a C206 will cost around $45 per hour in engine overhaul provision, but around $3.00 per nautical mile (at 125 kts) in basic operating costs.

[TriMedGroup]

Tinstaafl - Terrific, thanks.

Tailwheel the 425 was actually one of the first aircraft that i looked into, perhaps the fact that there is presently none in the country was one reason that i didnt pursue it more. If you have any other operating figures for one then I would love to hear as they seem like quite a nice aircraft, feel free to PM. Also thats 155kt for the 206 thankyou very much!

[Jack Ranga]

Jack, thanks for your opinion.. Please keep your assumptions re: budget and maintenance/safety to yourself.


Ahhh, no, I wont. Democracy allows me to share my opinions.

Why? Truth hurts does it? Are they aware of the risks you are taking by transporting them in a Cheiftain?

[1a sound asleep]

Still say going from a 206 to a PA31 just all seems wrong. 206 - great safer performer that wont get you into trouble. PA31 - new operator, horrific crash statistics in this scenario with a plane that will fly you to the crash site on one engine.

Suggest you read and do some more research - seen way too many of these things crash and burn.

A single engine TP like the Meridian will do 95% of the job and who says it needs constant maintenance. I know everybody has their own wheelbarrow to push but this "its got to be a twin" is all rubbish.

I just hope the operator isnt pushing the twin wheelbarrow for the sake of hours. Piston twins are precariously dangerous in inexperienced hands - way more than any turbo prop with one set of blades

[Jabawocky]

C421 ?

C208 gets a look in, it's not that quick compared to some but the bush strips make it look like a good option. C208B if u need more stuff.

[1a sound asleep]

C 421 - yeah from 1968. Seriously we need to be thinking about modern aircraft that make sense in 2011. Yeah agree go the C208. I think the 208 is a more logical upgrade from a 206 than anything mentioned. I would also think a desirable thing to be based in Mildura.

I mean how would you feel if I pulled up in a HQ Holden taxi? Ok its got freesh paint and we did the head on the donk. Shes got new seat covers and its very presentable for it's age.

[Tinstaafl]

TriMed, it doesn't matter what the multi-type is w.r.t. single engine performance if it's a Part 23 certified aircraft. They all lose ~70-90% of their two engine performance. Best you can do is start with something massively overpowered under normal circumstances so that whatever power reserve is left OEI is still sufficient.

NB. I had an in flight shutdown in that Panther Navajo a month or two ago when L.Eng. #2 Cyl injector line broke. At A090 I needed nearly max power to maintain altitude, at A080 climb power was needed, and at A060 I could maintain altitude at 75% power at Vyse+5. That's with an extra 25 hp above factory equipped.

On a side note, the EDM paid for itself that day. I'd been watching the EGT & CHT for that cylinder deteriorate for a while and was considering returning to base. All other EGTs & CHTs were normal. I thought it had a blocked injector. When the line broke I saw the EGT drop to 0 deg & CHT start reducing. No fire or smoke and, thanks to the EDM, I knew it was a particular cylinder. Didn't know at the time whether it was an injector, blocked/broken line, or swallowed a valve, cylinder break or what, so elected to shutdown the rough running engine and started back to base. With the EDM I could monitor the working engine's temps really accurately. I descended in stages until the live engine's temps were able to be maintained where they would normally be, and then airport hopped back to base. I had nearly full tanks & wanted to reduce that a fair bit before putting the wheels down. Fortunately there were so many airports in the area (East Coast Florida) that I was able to stay within a minute or two of a suitable strip the whole way back to base instead of circling the nearest & then landing.

Without the EDM to get some idea of what failed, and monitor the live engine I'd have landed at the nearest airfield so having it saved the owner from the expense of a grounded aircraft away from base + finding maintenance + transport + ferrying afterwards + the hassle factor.

[Jabawocky]

Tintaafl

That post is Gold!

To every aircraft owner, be it a single or twin, the best investment in safety, fault finding and reducing costs is to have a good engine monitor. :ok:

[Tinstaafl]

You're not wrong about EDMs & pistons, Jaba. I used to fly this aircraft for a 135 charter mob. When they went tits up I took over managing it. That's when I recommended installing the EDM. I think they should be standard equipment on any piston.

For the typical flights we do, LOP operation adds 5 mins each way but saves over 30 USG for the round trip. Even though the aircraft is factory approved to run 50 deg LOP, doing so on the single point probe factory gauges is risky. You really need to know what's happening on each cylinder & the turbine. It's instructive to see how different power settings & mixture can change the most critical cylinder.

Being able to download each engine's parameters onto a USB stick is nice too. Really helps trend monitoring. It's a pity the unit (a JPI EDM760 without Fuel Flow) doesn't tap into the oil P&T's. Integral fuel flow would have been nice for data downloading but the extra cost wasn't justifiable considering it already had a digital FF fitted.

-------------

1a...: Most pax can't tell if it's this year's model, or from 1970. If the aircraft's paint & interior are shiny & new then it's all the same to them, never mind what quality of maintenance has happened under the cowlings. About the only thing that most of the SLF know is if it has propellers then it's not a jet and therefore crashes 'all the time'. Not that that most of them are willing to pay jet charter rates. Some of the more astute ones have some idea about turboprops but by no means all. I've had to explain on the ramp/apron to somewhat peeved pax the Kingair they're going to fly in really does have a 'jet' engine like they booked, and not a 'dangerous' piston engine like 'all those small ones that crash all the time'.

Mind you, some of them can't even answer if the aircraft in which they flew was a single engine or a twin without prompting. Even those that fly in twins 'for safety' believe that any aircraft with two or more engines can fly perfectly well on only one of them at any stage of the flight.

[tail wheel]

Purely a personal perspective, but a move to 30 plus year old PA31 and particularly C421 would be a retrograde step. A used C208 (the Baby Van) would be a far smarter, multi purpose solution for the wise investor, IF the C208 meets the operational criteria.

However, acquisition of an aircraft can only be based upon operational requirements, financial constraints and anticipated utilisation, not the pilot's personal flying ambitions. In 100 posts I can't find where the operational requirements have been defined, although I have not been closely following the thread.

TriMedGroup, I think you need to study up on aircraft operating cost analysis and in particular, the various cost elements that contribute to fixed and variable aircraft operating cost components, define your operational parameters - sector lengths, strip types, maintenance logistics etc - then determine which airframes may meet those constraints?

[The Green Goblin]

On another note I am interested in just how much better say a C90 or C441 is on a hot day when full over the cabin class pistons? I ask this as while i was in Canberra a few weeks back there was a Conquest obviously doing an endorsement or flight test as they advised being assy on take off. Anyway once airborne at about 800' or so it slowed up quite a bit and climb seemed to cease basically heading straight for the hills.

ISA + 20 in good condition they should both get around 300 fpm at V2 on one engine at MBRW.

The PA31 on the other hand will be going down in these conditions. The PA31 was only ever required to achieve 1% climb gradient on one engine in ISA at MTOW. This is about 106 fpm at blue line with a feathered engine. Someone only has to fart on their seat and she will lose that rather quickly. Never mind thermals or incorrect technique or the temperature actually being greater than 15 degrees :eek:

[Jabawocky]

A quick holiday in Broome should yield plenty of folk operating the C208 who could advise you on the real costs.

I know two private companies who operate/d C208/C208B and do a bit of charter as well. One has recently gone up to the PC12, it seems the smart choice.

Do the numbers as TW suggests, and then get the budget to do it properly. Or stick to the C206.

J:ok:

[1a sound asleep]

The PA31 on the other hand will be going down in these conditions. The PA31 was only ever required to achieve 1% climb gradient on one engine in ISA at MTOW. This is about 106 fpm at blue line with a feathered engine. Someone only has to fart on their seat and she will lose that rather quickly. Never mind thermals or incorrect technique or the temperature actually being greater than 15 degrees

Thankyou. The #2 engine merely is there for an uncontrolled crash at the landing site.

PLEASE to the OP consider a 208

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
The PA31 on the other hand will be going down in these conditions. The PA31 was only ever required to achieve 1% climb gradient on one engine in ISA at MTOW. This is about 106 fpm at blue line with a feathered engine. Someone only has to fart on their seat and she will lose that rather quickly. Never mind thermals or incorrect technique or the temperature actually being greater than 15 degrees
Thankyou. The #2 engine merely is there for an uncontrolled crash at the landing site.

PLEASE to the OP consider a 208

There have been more PT6 failures however in the past 12 months that I know of, than TIO-540s. And let's face it, when one quits in the Van, you have no choice! At least in the PA31 it could quit at anytime during the flight. The second engine will give you driftdown options and extend the glide to a suitable landing destination. The C208 is going down regardless.

I lost a Pilot friend in a Mojave recently. While the second engine took him to his end, he did have drift down options until the only option was a crash.

At least through robust discussion after the incident I'm sure many piston twin drivers will now stay high if in the same position for as long as they can, rather than a standard descent profile to their suitable landing destination.

Food for thought?

[TriMedGroup]

Tinstaafl, agree 100% on the engine monitoring, we have decided regardless of the aircraft choice that an EDM960 is going in - don't think i could go back to not knowing what the engine/s were doing in regard to temps having been exposed to all cylinder monitoring.

tail wheel the average trip is between 100-350NM with some as little as 50-60NM, and between 1 and 5 pax with an average weight including bags of 95KG pp. Strips are anything between Taggerty and Canberra sized, obviously Taggerty is out with anything much bigger than the 206!, therefore it would most likely be staying in the stable as 155Kt at under $200 an hour its pretty hard to beat for 1-2 pax.

I'm not disagreeing with what anyone has said merely engaging in debate when I say this but;

The 208 was designed around 1980? Hardly 'new' design technology - maybe not a HQ but certainly could be a WB taxi! Agree that it is a wonderful piece of equipment, don't think for a minute that i haven't done my research - I started long before this thread which began in December of last year I think.

Say going into Canberra cruising at 9000 in IMC over a segment with a 7200 Lsalt in the van and the fan stops? Is it still better than a piston twin? No doubt both are going down but what is the glide ratio of a heavy 208 V the drift down rate of descent in a heavy PA31 with one engine inoperative? Only talking about the Van here obviously in a pressurised single turbine you have a lot more options from FL180+

Jaba - any chance you could divulge any more details of said companies? via PM would be great. I have spoken to a few operators / former operators of the Van already and the feedback was that it was very hard to sell S/E turbine over a twin of any sort operated by the competition - even VFR.

Once again its not a long term investment solely for the purpose of making $$ in charter. Primary use is that of a company that has 30+ sites in different towns throughout VIC and NSW and transporting people between them, some of the operations that we conduct cannot be classified as Private hence the AOC so if we want to be less restricted in the conduct of these ops - IFR / Night then a new aircraft is required, i say again the AOC is not solely for the purpose of making money carting around the general public. I will also say again YES I KNOW ABOUT ASEPTA, by the sound of it a bit more than those who keep thinking it is a matter of sending a Form 1214 to CASA and you are right to go. Perhaps it is the way to go? Who knows, this is why we still haven't bought an aircraft! Believe me I would rather fly a Pilatus than a PA31. The problem being that the 206 has been outgrown and the PC12 is a massive leap, and perhaps overkill for a day trip to Warracknabeal. Where as a PA31 would be a lot comfier and quicker as an easy step up from the 206.

Thanks and regardless of what Aircraft type you think we should get, can someone answer my question about the VG kits and other mods in relation to MTOW's and performance??? No I'm not relying solely on an internet forum for the answers and should I find out before someone here posts anything I will let you know.

Thanks, Alistair.

[Jack Ranga]

Gobler,

Risk mitigation, getting out of bed in the morning is probably the biggest risk you take all day.

It sounds to me like someone is promising the 2 engines is better than one bit when it's not necessarily so.

The glide characteristics of the Caravan are remarkable, risk mitigation: don't transport people at night etc.

[The Green Goblin]

Gobler,

Risk mitigation, getting out of bed in the morning is probably the biggest risk you take all day.

It sounds to me like someone is promising the 2 engines is better than one bit when it's not necessarily so.

The glide characteristics of the Caravan are remarkable, risk mitigation: don't transport people at night etc.

If it were not necessarily so, we'd see single engine airliners.

Single engine turbine aeroplanes are around for one reason. They are cheaper to operate than a twin engine turbine aeroplane.

Plain and simple.

Risk analysis may conclude that a single engine turbine aeroplane is just as safe as a twin engine piston aeroplane. However, CASA still require a sound application before IFR Charter/RPT approval is given for them.

A piston twin comes out of the box with the approval.

Something to think about maybe?

[TriMedGroup]

TGG - thanks for summing up what I have been getting at. Not saying that I agree with the situation at all though. Does anyone know if a change is at all on the cards in regard to this? I know... Silly question.

[tail wheel]

It sounds to me like someone is promising the 2 engines is better than one bit when it's not necessarily so.

The glide characteristics of the Caravan are remarkable, risk mitigation: don't transport people at night etc.

:ok:

The 208 was designed around 1980? Hardly 'new' design technology

I guess that is in comparison with late 1950s designed C206, early 1960s designed PA31, both with 1940s designed engines and the late 1960s C90 with mid 1960s designed PT6s? :E

[The Green Goblin]

As I have said many times before.

A Piston twin engine aeroplane gives you options. It is not a get out of jail card, and it does not have guaranteed performance like something certified under 20.7.1b.

If the aeroplane is serviced well, and the pilot is proficient and understands the limitations of the aeroplane, they can be flown safely. IMO more safely than a turbine single.

You just need to have a bit of a think about what you are going to do before you push those levers forward. i.e what am I going to do if the donk quits on takeoff, climb, cruise etc etc and where can I go enroute.

The only things going for a turbine single are the fact they are newer, have greater performance when everything is working properly and the systems and avionics are of a more modern variety.

When the donk stops and you're in the soup, all that modern equipment is not going to save your arse, it's just going to tell you where you are going to end up rather accurately :}

[The Green Goblin]

1960s designed PT6s

Which were originally designed to pump oil in Canada :ok:

[QCPog]

Turbo airvan!

[tail wheel]

Which were originally designed to pump oil in Canada

Then became the core of an aircraft APU!

The -20 is old, a bit temperature sensitive and prone to chewing up hot sections, compared to later PT6s including the -27/-34 family and it's derivitives.

The Cessna 425 uses -112's that are nicely derated to only 450 ESHP. Fit a Shadin ECTM and monitor trends, regular compressor washes, boroscope at regular intervals and the engines should be totally trouble free. :ok:

[Capt Fathom]

I'm having some difficulty following this thread.

Trimed has asked for some advice on a future aircraft purchase.

Plenty of advice forthcoming.

However, Trimed seems to be unhappy with some of the replies!

Well it is pprune after all, not an aircraft brokerage service!

Maybe Trimed should pay for an aircraft broker and get some professional advice!

[Howard Hughes]

Not to mention he didn't even acknowledge my suggestion... (http://www.royalturbine.com/)

Oh well he probably wouldn't have been able to keep up anyway!;)

[Jabawocky]

HH

I was keeping up with ya:ok:

Beachie and I drooled over one at Oshkosh last year:) sexy as bro!

[1a sound asleep]

I work for a company who is going through the motions of upgrading our (very nice 800 hour old) Cessna 206 to something faster and with better payload. My boss has a liking for things that go fast and are new, and will no doubt end up with a CJ1/2 or similar one day. The problem with a jet at the moment is that the new aircraft will be the first twin added to an AOC and i dont like my chances of getting a Chief Pilot approval to operate a citation or kingair with my hours.

My boss is quite sold on the Vulcanair P68 as they are quite economical and the only aircraft out of the 3 piston twins in production that is certified for 7 seats to fit his family of 6 and myself (yes the rear seat is available as a bench and will fit the 3 smallest children).

The other options for a new piston twin are the G58 baron and Seneca. Im endorsed on both and with The G58 costing $1.5M+ and having less useful load than the P68 and burning over 130 Lp/h it doesnt make any sense. The Seneca is a Seneca and that is enough said.

We are based in Mildura and there is a lot of legs between 100 and 250NM that are done privately with only 2 or 3 passengers, but for charter operations it would be nice to carry up to 5 passengers to Essendon/Adelaide/Albury/Canberra etc. and perhaps Bankstown

When I go back to the opening question I keep reminding myself that they use a 206 at the moment. Doesn't it scream C 208? Seems like a good step in the right direction

[Howard Hughes]

HH

I was keeping up with ya

Beachie and I drooled over one at Oshkosh last year sexy as bro!
So when you gettin one Jabba and when can I have a fly?;)

[Jabawocky]

When you donate a million or two that you are secretly hiding from the mrs HH.

I have photo of beach with one...... I swear there was a bulge in his shorts too, or his iPhone perhaps:uhoh:


Edit.....found it
http://i1.bebo.com/051/8/large/2010/07/27/11/4525920200a12673639304l.jpg

[Howard Hughes]

That is one sexy beast!

The aircraft, not Beachie...:}

[Wally Mk2]

..............jaba daba doo...........yr sick buddy!:E

Nice machine there though:ok:


Wmk2

[Tinstaafl]

How about one of these for having quite an engine upgrade:

http://www.aopa.org/images/Oshkosh/2011/110730jet-powered-aerostar.jpg

[Wally Mk2]

Hey 'Tin' that's a great shot, donks look too big for the frame though.
You guys have gotta take a look at the U-Tube Vid of it, what a beast! Landing looked like it was still at crz speed!:-) And the SE Turbine version, the yanks are nuts!:)

Many years ago in TW there was a green colored Aerostar 701 I think the owner called it (his interpretation I believe) a one off airframe as far as I know custom fitted out with 425 HP twin turbo'd 4 bladed pops that took the machine to VNE in the cruise. Flew in it once with the owner, the fastest machine I'd ever seen!
It was destroyed on the ground by fire late one night in suspicious circumstances I believe.


Wmk2

[Tinstaafl]

I flew Aerostars in Oz. I like them. Good speed for the price. Just don't plan on short or rough airstrips.

[TriMedGroup]

I'm having some difficulty following this thread.

Trimed has asked for some advice on a future aircraft purchase.

Plenty of advice forthcoming.

However, Trimed seems to be unhappy with some of the replies!

Well it is pprune after all, not an aircraft brokerage service!

Maybe Trimed should pay for an aircraft broker and get some professional advice! 5th Aug 2011 21:01

Plenty of suggestions for 6 seat aircraft (we already have one...), B200 Kingairs etc, and not one reply RE: the question that I actually asked when I bought this thread back up!! And again please don't think that this site is my primary source for accurate information.

Not to mention he didn't even acknowledge my suggestion... (http://www.royalturbine.com/)

Oh well he probably wouldn't have been able to keep up anyway!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


err: Duke / Meridian = really good 4 seat aircraft once you put a load into them.

Just had a read of a 208 POH, apparently they will do 180kt+ on around 400Lbs/Hr at A090 - can anyone testify that this is true? Speed is the main reason my boss wasn't so interested in a van but if you can wind them up to those sort of speeds then he might come around.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

A-Viator will do 200+ at half the cost of a kingy, less fuel than a 208 and still carry eight pax comfortably.:ok:

[1a sound asleep]

A-Viator will do 200+ at half the cost of a kingy, less fuel than a 208 and still carry eight pax comfortably

Its still a Partenavia and service/parts back up is way behind a 208, let alone the capital cost.

The way I see it the 208 is the modern form of the 206/207. For a base in Mildura its 175 knots gets to all the likely destinations without refueling and has the enormous potential for charter, assuming the owner wants additional revenue.

With the intended loads suggested there is nothing else that will carry the required number of pax/load with required fuel and do it with turbine smoothness and efficiency.

Spending huge money on a 40 year old plane is stupid. The resale on a good well looked after 208 will ensure that the whole operation makes financial sense.

http://www.templeavionics.com/Images/inner/CESSNA208.jpg

Nobody has suggested anything that will carry the fuel/load with similar efficiency for a similar investment compared to the 208

[StudentPilot479]

Never flown a Caravan, but if it does what your boss wants but is a little slow why not get a big-engine mod done on one? I seem to recall the advertised speed for one of the mods was 191+ kts. And you get a huge boost to take off/climb performance as well. Only catch if he likes new and fast is that I don't think any of the big engine mods are certified for the G1000-equipped planes, so you'd need to pick up an older airframe.

[MyNameIsIs]

C90 with -21's. Will do hot and Aus "high" and get to FL180-200 no worries.

Yes a little old, but still a relatively cheap and reliable alternative slash upgrade when compared to piston twins.
Twin turbine, with pretty much guaranteed performance.
Spacious.
Quick.
Quiet.
Relatively cheap to operate compared to other multi turbines such as a B200 or Conqy.

Either that or a C90 GTi. They look nice :ok:


As much as I'd like to have a pole of a PC12 or TBM850, there is something nice about having one PT6 either side of you, even if one isnt burning the kero!
However, having said that, of the few engine issues I've had, I'm glad I had a 2nd PT6 there, thats for sure!
That's probably what you call luxury :)

[Pilotette]

So, 3 months down the track...
Are you still operating the C206 or what was the verdict?

[Viator]

The Vulcanair AP68TP-600 turboprop would fit the bill pretty nicely.
I have just completed my type rating on the one in Australia and the aircraft has exceeded my expectations.
This aircraft is about 50 knots faster than a Cessna Grand Caravan on the same fuel flow. And it has better STOL characteristics too, takeoff over 50' at MTOW is only 620 metres (2,040'). Combined with a trailing-link undercarriage, and the availability of reverse thrust the thing can be down and stopped in under 500 feet. Rough fields no problem.
This one appears to make book figures in cruise. At 10,000' we were getting exactly 210 KTAS at Recommended Cruise power. It is probably the most stable aircraft I have ever flown - a great IFR platform.
The one I flew had 8 seats installed: pilots, a forward club seating arrangement with well over a metre of legroom and about 6" more headspace than a P68C, plus another two seats aft. That leaves a huge space for bags etc. with few weight and balance issues.
It does have a MZFW limitation which limits the payload to ten standard occupants and no bags. The 'advantage' of that is that you can carry more fuel even when you have maximum payload: you can plan 445 air nm at 10,000' with IFR reserves at Recommend Cruise power.
Typically equipped you are looking at about 10% more dollars than a Grand Caravan. If you want to start logging twin turbine time you could recommend it to your Boss!

[UnderneathTheRadar]

It does have a MZFW limitation which limits the payload to ten standard occupants and no bags. The 'advantage' of that is that you can carry more fuel even when you have maximum payload: you can plan 445 air nm at 10,000' with IFR reserves at Recommend Cruise power.

Gold! - I was smelling a salesmans pitch until I read this bit - then I knew it was true..... Hey, you can't take as much as you'd like but at least you can go further....


(not even commenting on the poster's handle being suspicially like part of the aircraft name....

UTR

[jas24zzk]

445 anm!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats not enough to get it out of sight on a dark night.

[Wally Mk2]

........yeah 'jas'I was thinking the same thing but it looks about right with max payload leaving around 3 hrs endurance or 450 miles with res @ the typical crz speed. EOI is 270 fpm, sheez scary numbers but better than a PA31 on a hot day which would have a neg sign in the front of it !:-)
A couple of 'Gomad' donks, those engines are in everything from a kids go-kart to the heli commodore of the skies, the B206:-)
Take a look at a cockpit photo on Airliners .net, you would swear it came straight from Apollo 13! Ancient & cluttered!:-) If you can handle all those gauges you'd never be able to fly an Airbus you'll get bored instantly!:-)

Wmk2

[Josh Cox]

My favourite:
http://images.wikia.com/austinpowers/images/2/21/Fook_mi_fook_yu_and_austin_powers.jpg

[TriMedGroup]

So, 3 months down the track...
Are you still operating the C206 or what was the verdict?


Try 30 months..!

And for the oversized party bus - if there was actually more than 1 in existance and there was good parts back up, and it wasnt the first of its type to go on a CASA AOC, and we had $2.3M..... then we would probably still spend half as much on one of these: 1982 CESSNA CONQUEST II Turboprop Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-CONQUEST-II/1982-CESSNA-CONQUEST-II/1193331.htm)?


Should have an aeroplane by the end of the month with all things going well though, will come back to this thread then and let you all know how it goes.

[Pilotette]

Standing by!! You decided on the Conquest then? Hope all goes well!

[Wally Mk2]

That's a nice piece of kit there 'TriMed' that coonquest:-) I hope you guys are ready to buy new pants with deeeep pockets now yr about to launch into twin pres turbo prop.Fast, flash & requires lots of cash :) The C206 will seem like a kids pedal cart in comparison:-)


Wmk2

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Actually there are 10 flying in various counties aound the world, not one. As for first on an AOC, already happening.
2.3 Mil, bargain for a new twin turbine. Priced a new King Air lately?
Vs second hand Conquest? Don't touch a thing for the first 5000 hours or so. No downtime for ongoing inspections, SIDS, etc. just basic 100 hrlys.
$650 an hour WET operating cost really isn't bad.

Love how GA aviation is happy with operating the equivalent of an XB Falcon with all the accomanying maintanance costs.:ugh:

Next one should be off the production line by the end of the year.

Cockpit really ain't that bad, Wal. Trust me, did 80 hrs in a week and a half. New KAP 150 worked fine. :ok:
Little narrower than a Van admittedly, but plenty of headroom.

Since when does any GA plank take max pax without a fuel reduction.:rolleyes:

Anyhoo, let's see if trimed's company has actually bought anything by this time next year....

[jas24zzk]

Since when does any GA plank take max pax without a fuel reduction.

About the day they invented the PA32-300.....sometime late in the sixties i believe..............................

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Realistically, crap.

Sample, Standard Empty Weight. 827 kg (ones I flew were more like 900+)
6 x pax @ 77 kg 462 kg ( VERY low assumption, excludes 7th kiddy seat)
316L useable fuel. 228 kg

Total 1517 kg

Leaving a grand total of 25 kg for baggage.

This calculation is based on the factory standard airframe. Any optional equipment (eg. elec trim, ext power receptacle, avionics) all has to go on top of the standard weight to get to the Basic Empty Weight.

Not buying that one. (Argument or aircraft.)

PC-12, though, will have to have a look at that one. Probably fits the case, probably too expensive for trimed though. Wiki reckons max payload with full fuel is 539 kg. Accurate, eoc? (Don't know for which type they're quoting)

Addenum: Pilatus website quotes 458 kg payload with max fuel. Sorry, eoc.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Since when does any GA plank take max pax without a fuel reduction.

But Mr Viator's pitch was that - after you've put 10 pax in (with no bags), and the fuel you need to get to safeway, you'll still have less than MTOW. Somehow that's an advantage - which I guess it is, in case safeway is closed and you have to go further down the road to get to coles.

He'd be better off pitching the added safety benefits of SE climb performance from taking off at less than MTOW.

I know plenty of other aicraft have MZFW limits - but I've never seen anyone try to claim it's an advantage!

[TriMedGroup]

Whoops - didnt mean we got a conquest (I wish..), more that $2.3M could be more effectively spent in our situation on something like that.

MakeItHappenCaptain - I dont know about comparing a low time conquest to an XB falcon.. also the $800,000+ price difference will buy a lot of maintenance on a C441 or the like and it will take more payload further in less time. Not really comparing apples with apples there I suppose.

Working for AirItalia I suppose your job is to push aircraft to people, much like every other bloke out there trying to flog me an aeroplane. Could you PM me the details of the AOC that it is being added to as I would love to have a chat to the person considering operating it. Also 3500 TBO on the rolls so not sure where 5000 comes from.

Also whats with everyone using 77kg as a standard pax weight.. Cant think of the last time I had anyone on board that weighed this, I plan on min 100 Kg per person inc bags.


Cheers,

Alistair.

[romeocharlie]

I'm sure you've looked on their website, but just in case,

Cessna Aircraft for Sale : Used Twin Piston Aircraft for Sale (http://www.avbuyer.com/aircraft/result.aspx?view=,95,,764,,89,&cat=3&loc=999999&model=false&seo=Cessna_401%20/%20414%20/%20421_337%20/%20340_310%20/%20T310_)

You asked for good example 402/404, these guys turnover quite a few.

Also for your requirements and seeing you considered a shrike, this 680 has all specs you were looking for.

Commander 680 Twin Piston Aircraft for sale on AvBuyer.com (http://www.avbuyer.com/aircraft/detailed.aspx?aId=28677&Cat=Piston-Twin-Engine&seo=Commander%20680)

I currently fly the 680 with the io-720, and while I still think the Titan is one of the nicest twins I've flown, the 680 is up there next to it and handles very similarly. Quite stable. 400hp per side, tas 180, 2544kg bew, mtow 3863. Pm me for more details. Side note, it does burn more fuel - 160/hour average.

Cheers
RC

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Tri, was referring to structural inspections, time lifed components etc.
Doesn't matter if they haven't hit tbo if their calender life is out and I'm pretty sure something that old (read as year of manufacture) is gonna have continual items coming due.

Not trying to sell it. Not working for Vulcanair at the moment. Just believe in the product.:ok:

EOC, happy to stand corrected. Not 100% up on PCs.

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb432/MakeItHappenCaptain/th_0022.jpg
Don't think this cockpit is exactly Apollo either. No more engine gauges per engine than a Caravan has. Two control levers per engine. Easy!

[Stationair8]

The Conquest 11 is a pretty honest beast, and really 280 kts plus and a fuel burn of 500lbs/hr is not bad. In BC/A it has had a few reviews and always comes up in front of everything else. Seems to be a number of C441's, being looked in the USA of late to be brought back to OZ.