C402 and C404 Planning Info

[Ixixly]

Hi All,

I'm trying to get a good idea of ranges of weights, speeds etc... Basically if you've flown a C404 or C402 recently (Mostly interested in the 402C in 10seat config and would love to hear from someone who has flown ones with VGs and Increased MTOWs) What I'd really love to know is:
BEW:
Planned Fuel Burn:
Planned TAS:
MTOW:
MLW:
Model:
if you could be so obliging!!

Trying to do a comparison of the two Types but its hard without knowing actual figures that people are using and actually achieving, going by the book only gets you so far!! Especially the BEW as these always change a lot so knowing a good range of them would be very helpful.

Not interested in debating the merits of them as there is already plenty of that around and I'm really looking for info within the last 5 - 10 years as my figuring goes that they were a bit less beat up 20+ years ago and probably flew a bit straighter than they do today!!

I know I'm being picky but still hoping there are a few on here who can humour me!!! Thanks in advance!

[Flying Bear]

I am familiar with the C402C as I have an association with a company operating 8 of them, but the usual all care / no responsibility caveat goes with the below...

So, per your request:

BEW - approx 2215 kg in the 10 seat commuter config with the usual stuff (ie first aid kit, some spare oil, etc in the wing locker...). This weight considers an 86 kg driver;

Fuel Burn - my maths has it at an average block of 150LPH using 29.5MAP/2300RPM as cruise power. Data validated over several thousand flying hours;

Planned TAS - hmmm, let's go with 120 in climb, 170 in cruise / descent;

MTOW - depends on mod state (Micro VG kit of various flavours, or RAM props) but try 3270 kg with a typical VG kit, 3107 kg without;

MLW - 3107 kg;

Model - the above for a typical 402C with VG.

Hope that helps.

[Jamair]

These are SoP ex what was once the largest and most reputable C404 / 402C operator in Oz. Hope it helps.

C404

VNE 241
VA/B 160
VS 83
VSO (LE, F1) 70
VMCA 78
VY (Flap 1) 102
VX (Flap 1) 82
VYSE (Flap 1) 102
VXSE (Flap 1) 98
VREF (Flap 1) 92
VFE1 182
VFE2 152
VLE 182
VLIGHTS 140

TAKEOFF Full Power, 2235 RPM, Mix Full Rich, Pumps ON, Flap NIL* or Flap 1+.
CLIMB: Flap UP @ 200’, Pumps OFF @ 400’, Power 35” / 1900 RPM, FF 170/side, VYSE or 120 Kts
CRUISE: 31” / 1800 RPM FF 120pph/side, EGT not above 50 RoP , 175kt
DESCENT: Reduce 1” / min from 24nm.
APPROACH / CIRCUIT: 23-25” MAP, 1900RPM, Flap 1 @ 170kt, Gear Down @ 170kt, Lights @ 140kts, Base 20-22”, min speed VYSE, PWR not below 17” until below 100’, VREF 92kt @ 50’

Holding: 22”/ 1800 / 100pph/side
OEI: 40”/ 2235, 255pph/side, 120kt
Flapless: Add 17kt to VREF
MRW: 3832
MTOW: 3810
MLW: 3742
ZFW: 3674

FUEL: 1286.9 lt
1986 lb
Fixed Res: 180lb
Var Res: 15%

TOW > 3580 zero flap T/O
TOW < 3580 flap 1 T/O

C402C with VGs

VNE 230
VA/B 156
VS 83
VSO 70
VMCA 83
VY 109
VX 86
VYSE 103
VXSE 98
VXWMAX 16
VFE1 170 App
VFE2 140 Full
VLE 170
VLIGHTS 130

TAKEOFF Full Power, 2700 RPM, Mix Full Rich, Pumps ON, 00 Flap, rotate 83kt.
CLIMB: 29” / 2450 RPM, Mixture, 115-140 Kts
CRUISE: Pumps OFF, 28” / 2300 RPM EGT not above 50 RoP
DESCENT: Reduce 1” / min or 1000ft as required.
APPROACH / CIRCUIT: 21” MAP, 2450RPM , 156 Kts –150 flap,140 Kts gear, 130kts Lights, Base 120kts. min 110 Kts on final until short final then 100 to 105 over fence

MTOW: 3271
BEW: 2100
MRW: 3290
MLW: 3107

Fuel – Mains: 1232lb

Flapless Landing: 108

FLT PLN: 200lb/hr
60lb Climb
170kt TAS

[bddbism]

The C404 is a weapon.

MTOW - 3810kg
Load ~ 1600kg. (full fuel (9hrs worth) and about 4 pax + bags.)
Fuel Burn - 300lb in first hour, 250 every hour after.
TAS 160-170

Never does a bad landing.

[601]

VGs and Increased MTOWs)

Is there a upper temperature limit for aircraft fitted with VGs?

[Horatio Leafblower]

I've never flown a C402 but from the figures here it seems like it can't quite do what a Chieftain can do, and has the cost of SIDs etc on top. (I don't like Chieftains much either, they are all getting pretty tired and unreliable).

C404s on the other hand... what a machine. Expensive to maintain but will out-do a Chieftain day in day out.

[tail wheel]

I've never flown a C402 but from the figures here it seems like it can't quite do what a Chieftain can do....

It was never comparable to the Chieftain. It is comparable to the Navajo but the C402 does a far better job in bush operations.

The Chieftain compares to the Cessna 404 Titan and again, the 404 does a better job.

[Brian Abraham]

It is comparable to the Navajo but the C402 does a far better job in bush operationsTailwheel, How so? Just intrigued, that's all.

[tail wheel]

If you'd seen the Cessna 402s in Papua New Guinea bush air strips like I have, you'd have great faith in old Clyde Cessna's products. I think it is fair to say that regarding piston engine aircraft, the Cessna 185, Cessna 206 and Cessna 402 (followed by the Islander and Beech Baron) probably built PNG air services in the 1960s to 1990s.

Conversely, there were very few Pipers in PNG, they simly were not popular. I'm told the Navajo is (or was) more maintenance labour intensive than a Cessna.

Many years ago I operated the Eastern Airlines Titans for a brief period - what a machine! They had something like 17,000 to 20,000 hours on the air frames then, but were barely run in and were super reliable! I wonder if a Chieftain would last that long?

[MCKES]

Has anyone seen the fatigue study that was done on two different 402's? They tore them down and analyzed everything. Interesting read.

[Doodlebug]

Any link for those reports, Mr. MCKES? Sounds very interesting.

[MCKES]

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar0735.pdf

[Doodlebug]

Excellent, thank you!

[Ixixly]

Cheers for the Information everyone, that report is a good read as well!!

So far the BEW we've got here are 2215kg from Flying Bear and 2100kg from Jamair. Anyone else able to provide a BEW or two they remember?

This is the sticking point for me at the moment in trying to put together a good business case to the owner for which aircraft we should pursue and why, they've pretty much written off the C402 but I'm convinced that it could be quite useful for our operations and of course payload is one of the key factors so a few more BEWs would come in handy as well.

[Flying Bear]

Ixixly,

Remember the weight I posted included an allowance for 86kg pilot and company paraphenalia carried always in the aircraft - which would make the 2100kg offered by Jamair consistent with mine.

Dunno what payload you seek, but the 402C is not a bad bus for general GA charter type work - certainly more comfortable with a bigger cabin than a PA31...

C404 - different class machine.

[Ixixly]

Heh, yeah, I saw that after I wrote it and edited the parts about the weight differences out, wasn't fully awake when I was looking through it all and didn't really click in my head till after I'd posted and then re-read it!! Cheers for that.

We're aiming towards a scheduled service, not quite a small domestic service or anything, we mostly cater to tourists and people doing specific tours through us, but the ability to carry them in all weather conditions and start adhering to a schedule for the flights would be quite beneficial to us and some of the tour operators that we work with.

[fire wall]

Flown both in PNG and Australia
404 has an achilles heel....actually 2
1. nose gear is not built for rough strips. Sunbird/Norfolk Aviation collapsed a few on rough strips in the Cape....ok I am old !
2. GTSIO-520M...... great powerplant BUT only if the guy who flew it before you knew what he was doing. They would fail if you abused them. Power reduction schedule on descent was critical (and more so on 421's which had same eng)

Trailing link undercairrage was magnificent and begs why all light aircraft do not have the same.

[MCKES]

Have you looked at an asetpa approved caravan? It is the future. :E

[Ixixly]

Not planning on doing Bushstrip work in them to be honest, we have singles that can handle that sort of thing if necessary and have considered the geared factor, another reason why I'm slightly more inclined to push for the 402C as opposed to the 404.

Yes Mckes, absolutely would love to get one, and if we had the business model and proven hours we'd buy one in an instant. The purchase of a 402/404 is to test the waters without having the rather large investment that comes with a Caravan (Leasing a Caravan was another idea, but irrespective we need something to move up to and buying a slightly larger aicraft allows for the possibility of plateauing at that level). The idea is to get something like this that is bigger than what we already operate without the huge investment and run it for a year or two, get the business side of things running smoothly and prove the hours are there (At least 1000hrs a year for it) and then if all that looks good the next step is to cement it all together with a Caravan!!

The company I work for is still relatively young and I feel doing exactly the right thing by taking things a little slow and cautious like this. :E

[MCKES]

Ix, I agree with what you have said. I would assume less risk however with a leased caravan. Im not sure what it is like with the van operating cost and leasing wise as I have never looked at one. However there are quite a few successful and long term business' operating in australia with leased turbine fleets. It is always a good avenue to go down risk wise. It is a lot easier to commit to a 20 or 25 hour block of hours month to month than to commit to the 400K purchase price of a good 402.

[tail wheel]

I said the C402 was good - but that was 30 years ago. Have an experienced LAME estimate your forward maintenance obligations and costs on a C402 - ADs, aging aircraft program etc.

If you pay $350K to $400K for a good C402C or Titan, double that and get a C208. Four times the aircraft for double the money.

[Ixixly]

Yeah, I get what you mean Tail Wheel, luckily we already have our own Maintenance so things like that are a little bit less expensive for us. Plus we've got a pulse on some pretty well priced 402s and 404s which is the primary motivator and makes it well worth it.

[aerotune]

Hi Ix,

PM Sent

[PALMIS]

Having operated 402B &C,404 and 421C in a past life,I agree with most of the previous replies.However the area of operation of the charters will determine the aircraft to some extent.
IMHO , tropical and western areas really require airconditioning so most 402 C's are out unless very long legs involved. The 421C is also unsuitable for this reason.421C electric air is hopeless. Many 404s have air fitted.
The 402C with VG's will carry a bigger payload than the 404 on legs of more than 350nm. (the 404 fuel requirements kill it when you go over 350nm)
Passenger comfort is better in the 404 (10 pax config). Keep away from the utility seats if possible for pax charter.Pedestal seats in the 402C are the way to go with 6 pax seats. 8 seats are too squeezy.
Our GTSIO in the 404 was on 1800hrs with 20 min cycles. Brisbane Aero Engines rebuilds were better than factory remens.Don't discount it.

[MCKES]

^^now that there^^ from PALMIS is good knowledge.

[Ixixly]

Cheers for the great info PALMIS (And everyone else if I didn't already say it!)

What do you mean by Utility seats though? Pretty sure these are the pedestal ones you mean:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=vdvrlLovoBxNfM&tbnid=Iko-87eyECS6LM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.charteradvisors.com%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2 FFlyBVI404InteriorOpt.jpg&ei=xadGUcv0IorVkQXF8IDICA&psig=AFQjCNEWVeHn4sl8sX1skpJeo5FbUTsR9A&ust=1363671365596358

Therefore are these the Utility ones? Just your stock standard Cessna type?
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=vc0vxs9-_oGi9M&tbnid=8af1Lv3muhtCdM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwADgU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclassifieds.aviationadvertiser.com.au%2Fima ges%2F2618_2013020423.png&ei=w6lGUfzyKYWjkQWqyoHgAQ&psig=AFQjCNEQ1mcf9hDHoBknuCfbs6UmHgO1UQ&ust=1363671875719273

[601]

402C with VG's

No one has answered my original question. Is there a temperature limit in the performance data for a 402 with VGs fitted?

I have seen performance charts for other aircraft with VGs fitted where the maximum temperature on the charts was 35 degrees C. Bit useless in Oz unless it is ignored.

[PALMIS]

About VG's.
We had Microairodynamics fitted to both the 402C and 421C.

There were no temp limitations as such but if I remember correctly, no new performance charts were issued with the kit. The CEO of Micro (Charles something, it's a long time ago) when I spoke to him before we became the first operator downunder to fit them, said that with the VG's fitted, the aircraft would perform better than the Cessna book figures even though there was a MTOW increase.
We also fitted Simitar props to the 402C which gave the same MTOW increase as VG's . When combined, you only got the one increase, not both, but the performance in high western temps (40+C) was amazing.

Pedestal seats were fibreglass, utility seats were tubular steel framed.