With all this talk of a trislander replacement I have never seen the beech 1900 mentioned. Can sit 19 people and apparently can operate from short runways. Could it operate the route?

Right aircraft for Alderney
 

No - the Beech 1900, any varient, would not work. It's got to be very good on STOL performance - Twin Otter ideal, Dornier 228 with restrictions possible. Otherwise it's Trilanders, Islanders and in an ideal world Cessna Grand Caravan (208) or PC-XII if the CAA ever got their act together and permitted sinle-engine IMC commercial operations. Not going to happen for a few years yet, but one day almost a certainty once commonsense sinks in.

Shame, reckon it would be a good fit for the route. Don't get many Beechcraft over here too. Don't think the trislander or islander are the future, certianly drive me mad with their noise. There must be plenty of cheap small planes out there, especially sitting in the graveyards over in the US.

Commonsense has sunk in - that's why single engine IFR public transport isn't allowed.

wake up guys. You dont want single engine into ACI. You need Do228, Let410 or skyVan (if u can find one) or Twin Otter. All can operate unrestricted on 1800m. J31/2 , Beech 1900 and Metroliners can get in but not out. Bout time you got rid of those old three engined piston jobs and went for reliable turboprops.

Why is it such a problem? Must be loads of do228, twin otters and let410's around. Look at manx2 for example. Why are skyvans so hard to find?

Just checked the skyvan out, only thing uglier than a trislander. :eek:

Guys, the length is 877m, it was 880m but it seems to have shrunk 3m in the last year! Unrestricted ops = twin otter. Let410 = forget it. Do228 will NOT operate off ACI unrestricted. I did a feasibility study for a new company some years ago, the Do228 only works if everything is going your way, ie dry runway, ISA, and +15kts straight down the runway. Something that doesn't happen here very often, in fact we took the previous winter's metars, plugged the numbers in, and we would have diverted 28% of the inbound flights to GCI. No use to anyone. The project died in the end because airport management refused to even consider regular Do228 flights as, and I quote, "it would breakup the tarmac". :ugh:
I do agree that ACI needs turboprops however it has to have 1200mtrs of tarmac first. The Tris are well past their sell by date - can't wait to see them go - whilst I still have a bit of hearing left. :bored:

Twin otter it is then. Why don't they get on with it, trislander is a nuisance!

Hold on a minute there Ortac, are you suggesting at the same time that the Twin Otter is the only option but that a quarter of all such flights would be diverted?

I am not sure that adding 1200m of runway is the only way to move past the Trislanders.

Hi Malthouse, no, I didn't say that. I said the Twin Otter could operate unrestricted, but a Do228 could not and would involve numerous diversions. Also I didn't say ACI needs to add 1200m to the runway, I said it needs a 1200m runway, ie extend 877m to 1200m.

Thanks for clarifying. :ok:

I guess things will change if the Tourgis development goes ahead, I doubt a convention centre will be satisfied with a dozen pax per flight.

To quote DC in a letter he sent to me: 'You never know, there may well be a longer runway in 5 years time'. This was in the context of retiring the Tris over that period. To get past the single engine problems, all you need is the Caravan Amphibian, problem solved :}.

five zero by ortac. Have you looked at the trislanders performance data recently in the same light as the Do228s? I think it shows the Tri has real problems getting out in the same circumstances, especially when its hot.......... Islander is OK though.

Aeromad - Is DC hinting at his company funding a runway extension do you think? :rolleyes:

Can't remeber the exact numbers, but I recall being told that a warm day in summer, the WAT limit on an islander was below MSA for the local area. Global warming would seem to knock them firmly on the head then:ok:

Do the above-mentioned limitations apply both for the D228-100 and the D228-200?

The study done some years ago was based on the Do228-201 with the higher MTOW. As far as I can remember the -100 was never considered.

It is very difficult to find comparative data for the -100 vs. the -200, but from what I gather, the -100 apparently has a shorter take-off distance (which seems logical given the -100s lower weights - there must have been some reason why Dornier offered the -100 in the first place). However, there were only 35 or so -100s produced and the NG version is only offered for the longer -200.

When the Tri dies, ACI dies. All the alternatives you guys are talking about here have been talked about for years. Like 5b4ort I also did a study in the early 90's for somebody. The 228 was a non-started financially and probably still isn't. Turbo-diesel Tris might be the way to go but that isn't going to happen either, nor, frankly will a runway extension. Nope, the Tri dies ACI dies. Sad day, but then they'll probably keep going for years and years and years and........