Gippsland Aero
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaz, they were nicknamed the Vomit Comet in Botswana.
They were way too under-powered when its hot and heavy. Couldn't get above the bumps and would end up with sick pax.
Think about it for a second, the GA8 has the same Horsepower as a C206. The airvan was designed to take 2 more pax!
We had a seat out in the rear so we could carry baggage as well as fuel. Put it this way, we could only climb due to the curvature of the earth....
They were way too under-powered when its hot and heavy. Couldn't get above the bumps and would end up with sick pax.
Think about it for a second, the GA8 has the same Horsepower as a C206. The airvan was designed to take 2 more pax!
We had a seat out in the rear so we could carry baggage as well as fuel. Put it this way, we could only climb due to the curvature of the earth....
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a few questions about the GA10 as well.
Looking at the brochure on the Gippsland website... It says the empty weight is estimated to be 2350lbs. With a MTOW of 4450lbs.
Gives you a payload of 2100lbs. 10 occupants at 165lbs each (Standard weight 75kg) is 1650lbs.
That gives you 450lbs for fuel and baggage. Assuming they all bought 20kg, or 44lbs each, thats 440lbs for baggage, leaving 10lbs for fuel....
That engine better be economical.
Next question is, the brochure also says it can carry 500 gallons of fuel. With a 2100lbs payload... well from what I remember in the caravan, 332 gallons is 2244lbs.
How can you carry 500 gallons when that works out to be roughly 3400lbs?
If you want to be carrying around passengers and baggage, I can't see any benefit to this aircraft with those weight restrictions. You'd be better off buying a GA8 and save on maintenance?
This plane is competing with the Cessna Caravan, the Kodiak Quest, and the PAC750 to name a few. All so far can carry a much bigger payload for a slightly higher fuel burn and they can full the seats and fly a decent distance.
Now if this is a typo in the brochure then I can understand!
Looking at the brochure on the Gippsland website... It says the empty weight is estimated to be 2350lbs. With a MTOW of 4450lbs.
Gives you a payload of 2100lbs. 10 occupants at 165lbs each (Standard weight 75kg) is 1650lbs.
That gives you 450lbs for fuel and baggage. Assuming they all bought 20kg, or 44lbs each, thats 440lbs for baggage, leaving 10lbs for fuel....
That engine better be economical.
Next question is, the brochure also says it can carry 500 gallons of fuel. With a 2100lbs payload... well from what I remember in the caravan, 332 gallons is 2244lbs.
How can you carry 500 gallons when that works out to be roughly 3400lbs?
If you want to be carrying around passengers and baggage, I can't see any benefit to this aircraft with those weight restrictions. You'd be better off buying a GA8 and save on maintenance?
This plane is competing with the Cessna Caravan, the Kodiak Quest, and the PAC750 to name a few. All so far can carry a much bigger payload for a slightly higher fuel burn and they can full the seats and fly a decent distance.
Now if this is a typo in the brochure then I can understand!
I thought the point of this aircraft was to fit between the 207-208/PAC/Kodiak, not compete directly with them. For skydiving a GA-10 may work out to be much more efficient that a 'van, depending on load factor. I assume it'll be much more economical than PT-6 powered beasties.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hair was red looooooong time ago, before ag flying career. Turned white after I strained an airframe. Strained it through a row of gum trees. The tailwheel survived
, they were nicknamed the Vomit Comet in Botswana.
They were way too under-powered when its hot and heavy. Couldn't get above the bumps and would end up with sick pax.
Think about it for a second, the GA8 has the same Horsepower as a C206. The airvan was designed to take 2 more pax!
We had a seat out in the rear so we could carry baggage as well as fuel. Put it this way, we could only climb due to the curvature of the earth....
They were way too under-powered when its hot and heavy. Couldn't get above the bumps and would end up with sick pax.
Think about it for a second, the GA8 has the same Horsepower as a C206. The airvan was designed to take 2 more pax!
We had a seat out in the rear so we could carry baggage as well as fuel. Put it this way, we could only climb due to the curvature of the earth....
I'd prefer a max weight van than a max weight 206!
I agree with the sick pax though. With that big wing they felt every bump! New pilots also had a tendency to over control and chase the altimeter. You had to let it ride the conditions a little more than other aeroplanes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once watched a pilot who accidentally* overloaded an Airvan.
He got out and described it as "a bit pitchy"
(* yes, it was an accident, hard to believe but beyond the pilots control on this occasion)
He got out and described it as "a bit pitchy"
(* yes, it was an accident, hard to believe but beyond the pilots control on this occasion)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: All over
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Oshkosh demonstrator pilot of the airvan told me to stick to me 206's ha...for the price of a scarevan you could have a fleet of em...
Donno how well the allison will work in one as they never seem to breath at aldtitlude (like the gonad...)
Donno about bringin the nomad back into frutition...the PA-31 may have a chance though...
Go MAHINDRA....
Donno how well the allison will work in one as they never seem to breath at aldtitlude (like the gonad...)
Donno about bringin the nomad back into frutition...the PA-31 may have a chance though...
Go MAHINDRA....
Donno about bringin the nomad back into frutition...the PA-31 may have a
chance though...
chance though...
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA10 specs
Yeah there are a few typos in that brochure!
MTOW is now going to be 4750 lbs and empty weight will be around the same as the GA8.
The 500 gallons is really only 500 liters (oops) and the fuel burn should be ALOT lower than other "brand-name" turboprops out there.
It fits in under the Grand Caravan (8000lbs MTOW) for co.s with greater frequency operations or smaller load factors to make money. The value proposition hasnt changed from the GA8.
(thanks Knox!)
Matt
MTOW is now going to be 4750 lbs and empty weight will be around the same as the GA8.
The 500 gallons is really only 500 liters (oops) and the fuel burn should be ALOT lower than other "brand-name" turboprops out there.
It fits in under the Grand Caravan (8000lbs MTOW) for co.s with greater frequency operations or smaller load factors to make money. The value proposition hasnt changed from the GA8.
very functional and offers a great financial return for any company running them
Matt
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks GA10. Makes a little more sense now!
@GG.
We were flying brand new out of the box GA8's with the 3 bladed props.
While they were good to get off the ground (use the collective on the right hand side to pop up off the ground...), the climb rate was around 100-200ft/min.
Density altitudes were around 5-6000ft on good days. Worst I saw was 9,500ft.
The C206 preformed much better on the days with high density alts.
A slightly bigger engine would have been fantastic to get say 400ft/min climb.
Don't get me wrong though. I loved the machine. Much more than a C206 thats for sure!
@GG.
We were flying brand new out of the box GA8's with the 3 bladed props.
While they were good to get off the ground (use the collective on the right hand side to pop up off the ground...), the climb rate was around 100-200ft/min.
Density altitudes were around 5-6000ft on good days. Worst I saw was 9,500ft.
The C206 preformed much better on the days with high density alts.
A slightly bigger engine would have been fantastic to get say 400ft/min climb.
Don't get me wrong though. I loved the machine. Much more than a C206 thats for sure!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HI Brian,
Yes that also was me. hair already white by then, so most of it fell out after that. there were other incidents in between, but that is for another thread.
Lilflyboy262,
or should i say Cessna salesman, I cannot accept your statements regarding Airvan performance without a little comment.
I may be a little biased to the GA8, BUT I used to fly charter in a Robbie U206 and have flown 207's as well. after close to 3,000 hours in GA8 normally aspirated, and turbocharged GA8 TC320, and after operating in them in more than 20 countries, including teh Subcontinent, equatorial tropics, central Australia, PNG highlands, all through Central and South America ( 5 Andes crossings) . I have operated from 10,000ft elevation (12K density Ht) fully loaded in normally aspirated, and never had the 100-200 ft ROC to which you refer, well maybe out of Quito on a hot day, fully loaded, normally aspirated 100-200 fpm is not unusual, but that is a bit of an exception.
If you fly an Airvan like it is supposed to be flown i.e. NOT like a cessna, it will perform within the performance specified in the AFM POH. the charts and table in that document for GA8 is very conservative, unlike the earlier C206 POH, a very slim document that was written to comply with a significantly lower standard of compliance. apples and oranges as far as the books and their figures are concerned.
I have flown with many experienced Cessna pilots who just don't get it. The Airvan has a different wing in every way, different flaps, in every way and completely different sight pictures for all flight regimes, yet many 206 drivers will apply their 206 tribal knowledge, numbers and attitudes to the Airvan, then complain that it's not a 206. DUH!
The GA8 will and does carry the additional load for several reasons, but in the main it is it's efficiency in the normal flight regime is what allows this. Cessna may be slimmer. sleeker in profile, etc, and whilst it has been backbone of the industry in the back blocks for decades, it has many aerodynamic deficiencies that limit its capabilities. the GA8 is a better moustrap which utilizes a lifting body fuselage, trimming stabilizer and lifting tail to provide the ability to carry more on the same power. maybe you should go down to the factory and give them the benefit of your deep understanding of aerodynamic principles, to explain why you believe that the GA8 wont lift as much as a 206 on a hot day. I know it will beat a 206 hands down as i have taken off from tropical airports on stinking steamy days overloaded like you can't believe (overwater ferry fuel allowance) and climbed away happily at Vy at a soggy 400 fpm, which i was quite satisfied with, for a 15 hour stint, on a standard seat, without an AP. happy happy happy.
Like i said, I am a little biased, but certainly not inexperienced on Airvans and 206's. Lilflyboy, you have had your say in a few posts on this topic, now i have had mine. I do not intend to enter a slanging match, just to put a few things right.
Gimme my Airvan any day. Oh and I love the elbow room, not so squeezy.
HD
PS: GA 10 is gonna be AWESOME. I will be operating them just as soon as i can get my hands on one.
Yes that also was me. hair already white by then, so most of it fell out after that. there were other incidents in between, but that is for another thread.
Lilflyboy262,
or should i say Cessna salesman, I cannot accept your statements regarding Airvan performance without a little comment.
I may be a little biased to the GA8, BUT I used to fly charter in a Robbie U206 and have flown 207's as well. after close to 3,000 hours in GA8 normally aspirated, and turbocharged GA8 TC320, and after operating in them in more than 20 countries, including teh Subcontinent, equatorial tropics, central Australia, PNG highlands, all through Central and South America ( 5 Andes crossings) . I have operated from 10,000ft elevation (12K density Ht) fully loaded in normally aspirated, and never had the 100-200 ft ROC to which you refer, well maybe out of Quito on a hot day, fully loaded, normally aspirated 100-200 fpm is not unusual, but that is a bit of an exception.
If you fly an Airvan like it is supposed to be flown i.e. NOT like a cessna, it will perform within the performance specified in the AFM POH. the charts and table in that document for GA8 is very conservative, unlike the earlier C206 POH, a very slim document that was written to comply with a significantly lower standard of compliance. apples and oranges as far as the books and their figures are concerned.
I have flown with many experienced Cessna pilots who just don't get it. The Airvan has a different wing in every way, different flaps, in every way and completely different sight pictures for all flight regimes, yet many 206 drivers will apply their 206 tribal knowledge, numbers and attitudes to the Airvan, then complain that it's not a 206. DUH!
The GA8 will and does carry the additional load for several reasons, but in the main it is it's efficiency in the normal flight regime is what allows this. Cessna may be slimmer. sleeker in profile, etc, and whilst it has been backbone of the industry in the back blocks for decades, it has many aerodynamic deficiencies that limit its capabilities. the GA8 is a better moustrap which utilizes a lifting body fuselage, trimming stabilizer and lifting tail to provide the ability to carry more on the same power. maybe you should go down to the factory and give them the benefit of your deep understanding of aerodynamic principles, to explain why you believe that the GA8 wont lift as much as a 206 on a hot day. I know it will beat a 206 hands down as i have taken off from tropical airports on stinking steamy days overloaded like you can't believe (overwater ferry fuel allowance) and climbed away happily at Vy at a soggy 400 fpm, which i was quite satisfied with, for a 15 hour stint, on a standard seat, without an AP. happy happy happy.
Like i said, I am a little biased, but certainly not inexperienced on Airvans and 206's. Lilflyboy, you have had your say in a few posts on this topic, now i have had mine. I do not intend to enter a slanging match, just to put a few things right.
Gimme my Airvan any day. Oh and I love the elbow room, not so squeezy.
HD
PS: GA 10 is gonna be AWESOME. I will be operating them just as soon as i can get my hands on one.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The additional post that i intended not to make.
a general rule of thumb for GA8, normally aspirated 2 blade prop at mtow:
600 fpm @ 5000 ft ISA
500 tpm @ 6000 ft ISA
i have had consistent 450 fpm in above config after take off at 6500+ DH in tropical mountains.
Density height charts for fixed wing are all well and good, but although they take pressure and temperature in to account they generally neglect humidity, which can be a significant factor. which is why i have quoted the above example as this was Humid (way humid) and as well as quite warm, and at 5000 elevation. airvan performed just fine at MTOW
HD
a general rule of thumb for GA8, normally aspirated 2 blade prop at mtow:
600 fpm @ 5000 ft ISA
500 tpm @ 6000 ft ISA
i have had consistent 450 fpm in above config after take off at 6500+ DH in tropical mountains.
Density height charts for fixed wing are all well and good, but although they take pressure and temperature in to account they generally neglect humidity, which can be a significant factor. which is why i have quoted the above example as this was Humid (way humid) and as well as quite warm, and at 5000 elevation. airvan performed just fine at MTOW
HD
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I totally respect your opinion.
I am definitely not a Cessna salesman, and I resent being called that.
I too prefer the Airvan to the C206. By a long way. And I have made that very clear.
All I have asked for is a few improvements to make a good plane, a great plane.
A bit more HP, a rudder trim, seat covers that are easier to take on and off (We had factory GA covers, not OEM), better brakes and better glue.
I feel it was under-powered for our operations in Botswana. Have you flown there?
Most of the time it was at or slightly over (Due to standard weights being used) MTOW with DH of around 7-8k.
With constant light to moderate turbulence all the way up to, and sometimes above 10,000ft MSL, A slightly bigger donk could have made the difference between sitting in it, and sitting above it.
We could not operate the turbo charged engines as a lot of our legs were 5 to 10 minute hops. Some as short as 2 minutes.
@GA10. Did they find a solution to the prop surging issues that they were having with those 3 bladed props? I'm guessing it was a CSU issue and obviously not a Gippsland issue.
Did Gippsland not come across this issue in testing though? Is it just unique to the new airvans in Botswana?
I am definitely not a Cessna salesman, and I resent being called that.
I too prefer the Airvan to the C206. By a long way. And I have made that very clear.
All I have asked for is a few improvements to make a good plane, a great plane.
A bit more HP, a rudder trim, seat covers that are easier to take on and off (We had factory GA covers, not OEM), better brakes and better glue.
I feel it was under-powered for our operations in Botswana. Have you flown there?
Most of the time it was at or slightly over (Due to standard weights being used) MTOW with DH of around 7-8k.
With constant light to moderate turbulence all the way up to, and sometimes above 10,000ft MSL, A slightly bigger donk could have made the difference between sitting in it, and sitting above it.
We could not operate the turbo charged engines as a lot of our legs were 5 to 10 minute hops. Some as short as 2 minutes.
@GA10. Did they find a solution to the prop surging issues that they were having with those 3 bladed props? I'm guessing it was a CSU issue and obviously not a Gippsland issue.
Did Gippsland not come across this issue in testing though? Is it just unique to the new airvans in Botswana?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, i feel better to have got that off my chest.
No i have not flown in Botswana, yet. Have you flown in the altiplano of Bolivia? This game could go on all day, so i will stop the p!ssing contest and accept that you have significant Hot and high issues, but i will say that flown to the correct loading and power speed configurations that it will do better than the 100 fpm that you claim at 6-7,000 ft. You may be back around 200 fpm at 9k, but at correct weight. Overloading will certainly diminish performance, the skydiving operators here in aus have proven that. All that space just asks for more bods, but there are limits.
I will pm you when i visit africa and we can have this chat over a beer as it should be.
Posted from the cockpit of a TC 320 airvan in cruise somewhere in the lucky country. Am on trans continental flight at the moment.
HD
No i have not flown in Botswana, yet. Have you flown in the altiplano of Bolivia? This game could go on all day, so i will stop the p!ssing contest and accept that you have significant Hot and high issues, but i will say that flown to the correct loading and power speed configurations that it will do better than the 100 fpm that you claim at 6-7,000 ft. You may be back around 200 fpm at 9k, but at correct weight. Overloading will certainly diminish performance, the skydiving operators here in aus have proven that. All that space just asks for more bods, but there are limits.
I will pm you when i visit africa and we can have this chat over a beer as it should be.
Posted from the cockpit of a TC 320 airvan in cruise somewhere in the lucky country. Am on trans continental flight at the moment.
HD
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is definately not hot and hi here today. Oat 9C. Rain pounding on windscreen. Low fzl and high LSA so am Staying out of (under more accurately) the CB's
Ipad on yoke with Ozrunways, ipod plugged into audio, 3G coverage, heater on, very comfy. 3hours down, 5 to go.
By the way GA10, when do i get the 'next gen' seat that i know exists in prototyical form. Not all my crew have the anatomically correct arse that i do, and they are keen for the upgrade.
HD
Ipad on yoke with Ozrunways, ipod plugged into audio, 3G coverage, heater on, very comfy. 3hours down, 5 to go.
By the way GA10, when do i get the 'next gen' seat that i know exists in prototyical form. Not all my crew have the anatomically correct arse that i do, and they are keen for the upgrade.
HD
So if you can't make the aeroplane climb, then it stands to reason then you are cruising at maximum power at about 100 kts. Remember in an airvan 1HP at the engine is about 6 fpm in rate of climb. I have flown in Botswana, and last time I sat in SAF she was cruising at 23/23 at about 110 kts. One pilot had her at nearly 120kts but that was 25/25. Now as I recall the 206 I also flew in in Botswana was running 23/23 and that was normally aspirated. The fuel flow meters seemed to be indicating 20US an hour at 23/23 which is about right. I've studied and applied the laws of aeronautics for 45 years,but if you know how a properly flown aeroplane can cruise on 75% power, but can't climb at 100% please enlighten me. Incidentally no pilot that I flew behind in Botswana climbed past the desired cruising altitude, set the power, and then pushed to a couple of knots above the desired cruising speed and let the aeroplane settle at the desired altitude and speed. And I've owned a PA28-180 with the orange band in the ASI so I know all about cruising piston singles
But hang on HD weren't you one of the contributors to the removal of the Coburg bus cushion around which the seat was designed to be replaced by the current item which seems to be little more than a kitchen sponge (and not as absorbent)
Ipad on yoke with Ozrunways,
Apparently you need and STC to cover the extra weight in the column bearings.
Yet another clayton's offence in the arsenal.