C340(A) and C414(A) for bush operation
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have the numbers to hand anymore, but I know that the range you calculate for the 402C is too high. The 404 may get up around there. Neither can reliably be blocked at 180, 175 is closer to the mark, unless you find a rare, unbent gem. Chuks is right regarding the 340's pavement requirements, it needs more than the 402C or the 404, which is one of the reasons why it's out for your planned mission. The maintenance-people in Namibia, the closest real AMO to your proposed operation, are geared more toward the Cessna-twins, with expertise and parts-backup developed accordingly. Sorry, no gen on the bigger Pipers, just had fun in Cubs and Aztecs. I think Orstraylya has quite a few bigger Pipers in the G.A.-scene, perhaps try their forum for this info, too? Re: the AVGAS-theft-worries, it's a given that an aircraft needs to be guarded or locked up in a very secure hangar in these locations, your old-timer will know. Even then, leave it unlocked and empty, as otherwise the locks will be smashed. Anything not riveted in place is gone, obviously. 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody got information about the Chieftain for bush ops?
The aircraft was designed around 1 hour sectors with fuel at either end. They will handle bush flying but not as well as the Cessna 402 or 404; they are more difficult to load stretcher patients (narrower fuselage); like lots of AVGAS; are getting depressingly old and difficult to maintain without any real support network in place. At least Cessna will still talk to you and are interested in the 400 series.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 404 can hold a lot of fuel with its big wet wings, so that it has much more range than a 402C.
If it's affordable, I think a 406 would make a good, basic machine for this sort of work. The Twin Otter is still tops in my book, but what do I know?
The C404/406 cabin is significantly larger than the C402C's as well.
It was simple to load a patient on a vacuum mattress through the C404's double doors and the flight nurse had room to move next to the patient. A useful option is the little clamshell door for the pilot, so that he can close the back door from the outside and then get in without stepping on the patient by going up the left wing. That is kind of an uncool thing to do, I guess, stepping on the patient, so that I tried to avoid doing that.
I liked the airplane. It was a good instrument platform and it gave a pretty good ride in turbulence. The knee-action gear meant that you had to be a real plonker to make a rough landing.
Rough strips and landing close to max landing weight made the skin come apart around the wheel wells so that you had to keep an eye on that, and you want the upgraded brakes. The engines demand consideration from the pilot.
Nowadays I suppose you can have twin Garmin 430s and perhaps one of those trick satellite weather thingies that works like a really good weather radar. Dual ADFs and an HF used to be good to have for Africa. De-icing gear is just a pain; the boots rot in the sun and come apart.
The best part was listening to the counterweights in the crankshafts rattling like mad at idle as you taxied in, thinking about that first cold beer at the Watering Hole. Ah yes, Champion, the Wonder Beer!
If it's affordable, I think a 406 would make a good, basic machine for this sort of work. The Twin Otter is still tops in my book, but what do I know?
The C404/406 cabin is significantly larger than the C402C's as well.
It was simple to load a patient on a vacuum mattress through the C404's double doors and the flight nurse had room to move next to the patient. A useful option is the little clamshell door for the pilot, so that he can close the back door from the outside and then get in without stepping on the patient by going up the left wing. That is kind of an uncool thing to do, I guess, stepping on the patient, so that I tried to avoid doing that.
I liked the airplane. It was a good instrument platform and it gave a pretty good ride in turbulence. The knee-action gear meant that you had to be a real plonker to make a rough landing.
Rough strips and landing close to max landing weight made the skin come apart around the wheel wells so that you had to keep an eye on that, and you want the upgraded brakes. The engines demand consideration from the pilot.
Nowadays I suppose you can have twin Garmin 430s and perhaps one of those trick satellite weather thingies that works like a really good weather radar. Dual ADFs and an HF used to be good to have for Africa. De-icing gear is just a pain; the boots rot in the sun and come apart.
The best part was listening to the counterweights in the crankshafts rattling like mad at idle as you taxied in, thinking about that first cold beer at the Watering Hole. Ah yes, Champion, the Wonder Beer!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The land of chocolate and cuckoo clocks!
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done medievac for 5 years around East Africa (although sometime ago) using C-402C and C-404, if I had a choice between the two, I'd take the C-404. If you are the pilot flying it and look after your engines you will find you have a great machine with reasonable performance. 175kts is a safe block speed and with full fuel you have over 1000nm range with reasonable alternates, subject of course to fuel if you divert! :-0
The only weaknesses are:
AVGAS
Pilot induced engine fatigue
Maintenance induced engine fatigue
Weak nose wheel (can be an issue on soft strips)
If you go down this route, please get a decent checkout from someone with experience on the aircraft, not someone looking for a quick sale!!
Turbine options such as the 406 are hard to come by and expensive although the PT-6 is fairly bullet proof :0)
Good luck with it all!
The only weaknesses are:
AVGAS
Pilot induced engine fatigue
Maintenance induced engine fatigue
Weak nose wheel (can be an issue on soft strips)
If you go down this route, please get a decent checkout from someone with experience on the aircraft, not someone looking for a quick sale!!
Turbine options such as the 406 are hard to come by and expensive although the PT-6 is fairly bullet proof :0)
Good luck with it all!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe and Africa
Age: 31
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
running out of planes, seems like 402C and 404 are gonna be the only two possible... budget is not enough for a 406 or any other turbo prop due to the fact that he wants to buy two planes, same type to have one as a back up.
Regards
running out of planes, seems like 402C and 404 are gonna be the only two possible... budget is not enough for a 406 or any other turbo prop due to the fact that he wants to buy two planes, same type to have one as a back up.
Regards
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another alternative not discussed!
Why not look at a LET 410 E ?
These have strong trailing gear,tip-tanks, US Avionics & A/P & use JetA1 in their sturdy Walther turbines. No pressurisation though.
The UVP models are rather older, thus cheaper, but with less range & usually everything written in Russki, Kilometers & metres/minute!
All the previous types discussed, have the same weak link inherent in the gear, particularily turning in soft sand.
A collapsed nose gear is not only expensive, but very inconvenient!
These have strong trailing gear,tip-tanks, US Avionics & A/P & use JetA1 in their sturdy Walther turbines. No pressurisation though.
The UVP models are rather older, thus cheaper, but with less range & usually everything written in Russki, Kilometers & metres/minute!
All the previous types discussed, have the same weak link inherent in the gear, particularily turning in soft sand.
A collapsed nose gear is not only expensive, but very inconvenient!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: through the door, left
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like you have made up your mind against pressurization. Which is a good thing. It's not only the turbulence that you will fly into because the little radar didn't quite show you the right colors. But at FL200 and above you will encounter severe icing, which is going to bring you down anyway. Those levels are the worst to fly in, even in turboprops such as B190. You want to stay below or way above that icing zone.
Regarding the Piper twins: I have sent you a contact, he does operate a Navajo and knows about the strong and weak points of Navajo and Chieftain. Bush operations is possible, same as Cessna twins. Range is less than in a Cessna and so is cabin space. We did a few ambulance flights in a Cheyenne, very much a pressurized turbine Navajo. It is rather cramped and one has to wrestle the aircraft all the way. It's easier to push an angry Brahman Bull by it's horns backwards into a horse trailer. The Cessna 400 twins are much nicer aircraft to fly.
Regarding the Piper twins: I have sent you a contact, he does operate a Navajo and knows about the strong and weak points of Navajo and Chieftain. Bush operations is possible, same as Cessna twins. Range is less than in a Cessna and so is cabin space. We did a few ambulance flights in a Cheyenne, very much a pressurized turbine Navajo. It is rather cramped and one has to wrestle the aircraft all the way. It's easier to push an angry Brahman Bull by it's horns backwards into a horse trailer. The Cessna 400 twins are much nicer aircraft to fly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe and Africa
Age: 31
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well an option as well, but it should still be a C404 since it has the best features.
In case any of you guys knows about a C404, 1980 or later that is on/off market exact the German, Spanish or the one in New Zealand, then please let me know.
Thanks
In case any of you guys knows about a C404, 1980 or later that is on/off market exact the German, Spanish or the one in New Zealand, then please let me know.
Thanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe and Africa
Age: 31
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
shouldn't the C404 be with 2+6 the much better plane than the C402C or am I mistaking?
According to avubyer Aircraft Performance Data from Conklin de Decker at AvBuyer.com
If you compare the two planes, it says that C402C has the much better performance.
Further, if you put in the C414 with RAMV, it says that the plane is almost as good as the other two.
Hard to believe, theory and real life, isn't it?
Regards
shouldn't the C404 be with 2+6 the much better plane than the C402C or am I mistaking?
According to avubyer Aircraft Performance Data from Conklin de Decker at AvBuyer.com
If you compare the two planes, it says that C402C has the much better performance.
Further, if you put in the C414 with RAMV, it says that the plane is almost as good as the other two.
Hard to believe, theory and real life, isn't it?
Regards
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you really 19 years old?
You are probably looking at the book figures for aircraft that are at MTOW. If you want to haul the same load with a C404 as with a C402C then the C404 will perform better because it won't be as close to its MTOW.
Grossed out, yes, as I mentioned, the C402C on paper, is the better performer. It only has 2x325 h.p. where the C404 has 2x375 h.p., but the C404 has a much higher MTOW. Just divide the C402C's MTOW by 650 and the C404's MTOW by 750 to see what I mean, when it's excess power that makes one go up, the usually desired direction after take-off.
I flew five or six different C404s, including the last one off the production line. That one was an absolute pig! Go figure.
Those STOL kits promise the Moon, but again, those are book figures for an airplane with new engines, tires and brakes, some hotshot at the controls under optimum conditions... that might not be what you get in the real world.
There, the way to go, if you can afford it, might the bigger C404 not loaded to the gunwales, when you have more of a margin for error.
Better yet, forget this piston-banger BS and get yourself something with turbine power. A Twin Otter with PT-6-34s, made all shiny-new for a mere $4 million? Or ask Viking how much a brand new one is. Make sure you are sat down when they tell you the number, though.
Grossed out, yes, as I mentioned, the C402C on paper, is the better performer. It only has 2x325 h.p. where the C404 has 2x375 h.p., but the C404 has a much higher MTOW. Just divide the C402C's MTOW by 650 and the C404's MTOW by 750 to see what I mean, when it's excess power that makes one go up, the usually desired direction after take-off.
I flew five or six different C404s, including the last one off the production line. That one was an absolute pig! Go figure.
Those STOL kits promise the Moon, but again, those are book figures for an airplane with new engines, tires and brakes, some hotshot at the controls under optimum conditions... that might not be what you get in the real world.
There, the way to go, if you can afford it, might the bigger C404 not loaded to the gunwales, when you have more of a margin for error.
Better yet, forget this piston-banger BS and get yourself something with turbine power. A Twin Otter with PT-6-34s, made all shiny-new for a mere $4 million? Or ask Viking how much a brand new one is. Make sure you are sat down when they tell you the number, though.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: underworld
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Medevac.
A kingair F 90 will outperform all, and you will not need a backup.
Most capable piston, C404
Most expensive to run C404
Dont fool yourself, I spent most my flying life where you are off to, no way in hell I will fly a piston twin there, not even a single turbine, a pressurised 400 series as mentioned will put you in the worst weather you can think of, I flew a air ambulance for many years, Chieftain and E90, the 90 was a bit faster and warmer, but also iced permanently, lightning strikes 4 times a year or more, hail..
If you go tar to tar, the C441 is your best machine bar none, it will outrun a Citation on a 1000 km leg.
Most capable piston, C404
Most expensive to run C404
Dont fool yourself, I spent most my flying life where you are off to, no way in hell I will fly a piston twin there, not even a single turbine, a pressurised 400 series as mentioned will put you in the worst weather you can think of, I flew a air ambulance for many years, Chieftain and E90, the 90 was a bit faster and warmer, but also iced permanently, lightning strikes 4 times a year or more, hail..
If you go tar to tar, the C441 is your best machine bar none, it will outrun a Citation on a 1000 km leg.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but...
The C441 has a pretty small door for air ambulance work. I don't think it would be easy to get a litter patient through that door, and I cannot remember if I ever did. I loved flying it, though.
The nose gear is kind of puny and the props don't much like loose surfaces, but what a performer it is! It would true out close to 300 knots with -10 engines, at ISA +15. That was with those trick 4-blade propellers; I think they are part of the kit.
If you can get a King Air for cheap, well...
There's no question that turbine engines beat piston engines all around. The thought of lining up on a short strip at a high density altitude, with a full load... you would really want to bet the farm on piston engines? No, not really, although most of us have done that quite happily, for a while at least.
I can think of at least three fatal accidents in piston twins that were EFATO, two Navajos and a C404.
The nose gear is kind of puny and the props don't much like loose surfaces, but what a performer it is! It would true out close to 300 knots with -10 engines, at ISA +15. That was with those trick 4-blade propellers; I think they are part of the kit.
If you can get a King Air for cheap, well...
There's no question that turbine engines beat piston engines all around. The thought of lining up on a short strip at a high density altitude, with a full load... you would really want to bet the farm on piston engines? No, not really, although most of us have done that quite happily, for a while at least.
I can think of at least three fatal accidents in piston twins that were EFATO, two Navajos and a C404.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe and Africa
Age: 31
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt that MET beats MEP, but if budget doesn't allow it to go for turbo prop then you have to stick to the things you have available and that's why the C402C and C404 seem like the best choice!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe and Africa
Age: 31
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody state how great the difference is between the standard AP on the C402C and the S-Tec 55X AP?
If anyone knows, please advice!
Regards
If anyone knows, please advice!
Regards
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP, the standard autopilot on the C402C was a Cessna 400 series which, for their age, work surprisingly well. That was what was fitted on the C402C that I flew aeromedical work with and all modes (heading, navigation & altitude hold) worked well. On the three C404 that I am currently flying two are fitted with the 400 series autopilot and one with a Bendix-King. One of the 400 series works ok in heading mode, doesn't work in navigation and altitude hold is only so-so. The other 400 series and Bendix-King are excellent.
I have also flown a Baron and a Vulcanair equipped with S-Tec 55 autopilots. The Baron was excellent, the Vulcanair was appalling when it came to altitude hold but I suspect that the problem was caused by the interface between the servo and the aircraft.
A summary, both are good but the S-Tec is probably going to be better for a longer period. The 400 series autopilots are getting long-in-the-tooth and will require regular servicing.
I have also flown a Baron and a Vulcanair equipped with S-Tec 55 autopilots. The Baron was excellent, the Vulcanair was appalling when it came to altitude hold but I suspect that the problem was caused by the interface between the servo and the aircraft.
A summary, both are good but the S-Tec is probably going to be better for a longer period. The 400 series autopilots are getting long-in-the-tooth and will require regular servicing.
