Caravans in S.A.??

[Ace on Base]

I was glancing over the Civil A/C register, when I thought "WHY is the best single engine turbine aircraft that the almighty Chief Pilot put jetA1 into, not in South Oz?"

Considering the direct operating cost of a single turbine opposed to a twin (piston or turbine), and the worn out twin Cessna’s, and Pipers operating out of AD Int A/P, and the fact that KSC, Whyalla, Mt Gambier, etc.. Not to mention the mine work, the sectors would be long enough to keep the cycles down, and the hours up, I would have thought it would have been a viable option.

Is it the low U.S. $ conversion rate that is preventing the operators purchasing one (or Three)? or merely the fact that it is single engine? (I suspect the later!).

Would be good to here the opinion of those with marketing knowledge, those that have/are operating the machine, and those opposed to S/E RPT or S/E Turbine Charter Ops.

BTW..... Here is a concept, an Aviation Co-Op, Imagine this, 20 major companies (mines, ag etc) that have high travel requirements, purchase into a 10 year purchase plan agreement for a C208B in South Oz, The Co-op is a managed affair with costs being evenly distributed amongst the shareholders on an annual subscription. This would enable low cost travel to the purchasing companies in the co-op, and a profit could be drawn from making the machine available for charter? It could become a hit, and spread into every major city in Oz. This would probably help retire some of those old and worn out clunker piston twins getting around.

Any further ideas?

[OpsNormal]

A noble idea! Firstly, you must go about the task of convincing them that one engine is better than two, turbine or otherwise.

It wont be easy.

[Woomera]

In the US that's called Fractional Ownership, a rapidly expanding business.

Hasn't caught on in Australia yet.

W

[Pinky the pilot]

OpsNormal; Re your post... Given some of the comments I've heard 'round the traps' over time I suspect that convincing some people will be next to flamin' impossible!:{
Reckon it's still worth a try 'though.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[OpsNormal]

It certainly is worthwhile, there must be however, a change in mindset by the companies concerned that the bottom line of turbine ops is a higher level of safety through more advanced technology and equipment. Difficult when many of them feel that two donks are better than one, turbine or otherwise.

They will have to 'come-over' to the idea eventually, even if it means operators having to bypass the SE turbines and head into a Kingair, Conquest etc. The $$ (i.e. how much the mining companies want to spend and utilise the asset), will be the other primary driving force behind any decision for an operator to include a turbine on their AOC.

[EngineOut]

The mighty Caravan is a great machine. The direct operating costs are extremely low (especially considering you can put 13 bums on seats in a 208B) and simple systems ensure it is very reliable.

I feel the problem is the purchase price, a well equipped van will set you back around US$1.8M, so unless you get some good utilisation out of it, the financing cost per hour is enourmous. The fractional ownership will work well here if you can sell it.

CASA are another hurdle (pretty standard). To enable a caravan (or any other ASETPA) to fly pax CHTR or RPT, the operator has to have a check and training organisation, escape procedures for every runway used in the event of an engine failure, runway specific turnback procedures etc, in this regard it is a bloody joke, trying to get CASA to approve a C & T organisation within a reasonable budget and time frame, does not happen.

Another downside is that it only does 165 odd knots, a PC-12 is much better in this instance, but they are nearly twice the money to buy.

[Torres]

EngineOut: A Van may do 165 without a pod, but reality is a fully equipped Van, with pod, is good for early 150's.

The secret to serviceing Van capital costs (US$1.8 upwards) is utilisation and yield. Utilisation must be 1,000 hours plus per annum, and yield $1,000 plus per hour.

I don't think there is a corporate mind set against a S/E turbine aircraft - but I do think operators have not effectively sold the benefits (and safety) of the C208 and PC12. In Queensland, where I operated three different Vans for a number of years, I don't recall one customer comment against the Van, but remember hundreds of happy customer comments for the Van.

Also in Queensland the S/E turbine concept is well established. The Queensland Police operate two Vans and there is (or was) more Vans operating in Queensland than any other State. The RFDS Queensland also operate PC12's.

Getting tired of the dinky toys, Ace, and hankering for Jet A1 again? :}

[bush mechanics]

PC12?I dont think it makes a great airliner.Aboriginal Airlines are still trying too flog theirs.Lets say 5mill Ozy.8pax,60kg max baggage.This is the explanation I got from a few people X MAF.
They were talking of running the centre run in the pc12 when ANR scales back.I used to help load the metros and we were always puting atleast 60kg of freight on,let alone pax bags.Good air ambulance!!!!!

[Ace on Base]

Torres, you know that Lift = Jet a1, And yes..... The smell of turbine....once in the nose, stays in the nose!!


I just recall flying those big cash registers with wings and loading 11 plus T.S. Islanders on the damn thing on charter and pullin' out of a 515 m strip (thank god it had a three hundred foot drop of the end to the sea), getting back to the office and finding out that the company earned >1.5K per hour (on some occasions..... Particularly Footy god damn season). What old tin can, clunkin' piston, bug smashing, worn out waste of avgas space, 402 or Chieftain can be proud of sporting that title?. I see so much potential - Particularly in S.A.

I wasn’t aware of fractional ownership, but it makes sound cents!!

Let’s see:

$1.8 Mil / 20 purchasers = $90 000 per share / 10 years = $9000 per year

Hourly rate of say $750 to share holders

Minimum up front paid utilization 1000 hrs per year / 20 share holders at $750 per hour = (50 hours paid for (taken or not))= $37500 PA on going costs.

50 hours @ 155 kts (with pod) = 7750 nms per shareholder pa for travel.

60% load factor per hour = $8.06 cents per pax (seat) per NM.

Torres, you are the number cruncher - do these numbers make sense. I am sure there are many other factors not considered here such as tax benefit etc etc etc. How would a King air 200 shape up against these numbers? Sorry I am not a bean counter - just another pilot trying to make sense out of insanity!

Mr. Ducker has won my support in his endeavor in multiplying the population of C-208's in Oz!!:ok:

[Torres]

Son........ Your spelling hasn't improved!!! :yuk:

"...but it makes sound cents" I would hope it would make solid dollars, not cents. I think you meant "sense"?

"..endeavor..". Endeavour!!!

Fractional Ownership works through an operating company managing, operating, maintaining and crewing syndicated aircraft. The syndicate members pay an annual fee (to cover indirect operating costs plus management fees) and a reduced hourly rate when using the aircraft. Any surplus utilisation (not required by the syndicate members) is then sold off to charterers at a normal hourly charter rate.

Fractional ownership usually works with corporate aircraft, but could be applied to any aircraft type.

Syndicated private ownership of aircraft in Australia operates in a similar manner, where the syndicate members fly the aircraft at a reduced hourly rate, and the remaining available utilisation is generally taken up by an aero club etc.

Gottom Two Bucks. The PC12 has significantly lower seat/mile costs than a Beech King Air 200, and the SKA200 has been successfully operated on RPT services in Australia. (Flight West Airlines and Norfolk Airlines being two examples that come to mind.)

However, I agree with you. The PC12 (or King Air 200, Conquest etc) is not the most appropriate RPT aircraft, but is far more cost effective in corporate and aero medical roles than older multi turbine engine aircraft such as the SKA200 and Conquest.

[EngineOut]

Torres- You must have flown a slow van (or we have a fast one), we operate ours to the book Max cruise figures and get 163-167 knots without fail and that is with the pod on at MTOW (with the higher gross weight kit(4110kg)). These figures are also what the flight manual states, and we get slightly better fuel flows than the book.

P.S.-By the way this is a 208B and these are cruise figures not block figures

[cjam]

Do you think that the 750 xl might encourage more turbine action in SA seeing as it has a greater payload, slightly lower cruise of 156kts and is only US1 million? Probably lower maintenance costs as well being that it is quite rugged.

[Hugh Jarse]

Freudian slip there, Torres;)

How ya going, Ace?

[Ace on Base]

Good H.J., Have a new email address now, will P.M. you with it.

Torres, no, Im sure the 'van makes good sense to operate, but it makes bucket loads of CENTS:ok:

[Torres]

Hugh. Gave the boy a computer - and he's been driving us all mad ever since! :}

cjam. What's a 750 XL? (Sounds like a motor bike!)

EngineOut. Don't remember exact speeds but thought the book figure was around 167 TAS without pod? Memory dims - either age or too much XXXX!:\

[troppo]

hey torres
check out these....

http://www.utilityaircraft.com/specifications.html

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/ouraircraft/ouraircraft.htm

17 meat bombs...now imagine what you could do with this a/c in PNG:ok:

[splatgothebugs]

From the makers of the CT4, flecther and cresco.

Basically it's a cresco on steroids, stall speeds i think are in the 40-50 kt range and operating feild length around 400m. The Yanks are looking @ them also for troop carriers. Taupo has the first one in operation now.

For correct figures see the website ;)

[onya]

Hey Torres,
You guys still gonna get a B1900? Will they hang onto the 350?
Onya

[Torres]

Troppo. Looks neat. The price is definately right! And the great PT6A-34 donk too!!! I see the web site says "minimum 17 meat bombs"! Wonder if they plan to produce an approved IFR version?

Hmmm. Highland Labourers. No seats. A cargo net. Dangerous Dave. The sky (or getting into it) would be the limit!!! :}

Onya. I think you may be thinking of one of my nefarious relos - not me. I'm not into B1900's or 350's - but I agree, a B1900D would better suit their needs than the 350. Not into anything that flies these days! :ok:

Torres can pick his friends - but can't select his relos, including relo PPRuNers! :yuk:

:D

[cjam]

Torres....that "mimimum 17 meat bombs" is just so that they didn't have to get certification as a VTOL aircraft, it costs more to certify them.

[Ace on Base]

CJAM,

"Do you think that the 750 XL might encourage more turbine action in SA seeing as it has a greater payload",

- looking at the specs at a glance it looks good but the airstreams from the SW we have been getting here over the last 5 months would have seen the machine on the ground most days (either pre-take off, or at its alternate!!) 15 knots max demonstrated X Wind component makes the A/C almost as useless as breasts on a bull!! - I would hate that to be the case if I was the owner paying a heap in interest on a loan!!:{

Speaking of Caravans (and meat bombers), there is one in S.A. at the moment, only for the next 10 days. Al McVinnish flew his down today for the S.A meat bombing championships.

[cjam]

That is just the max demonstrated cross wind, I'm sure it lands perfectly well in a 20kt cross wind. The cresco has a max demonstrated of only 1 knot higher and it's not too tricky to land it in a 25kt cross wind.
I think that if there is a world market for the 208 at US1.6 million then this should be very successful at US1 million with a comparable set of performance figures. Have to wait and see I guess but maybe it will be just what the doctor ordered. Hope so.

[208inICE]

Caravans are o.k. aircraft. they are easy to pay for if the utilization is 1000 hrs or more per year. maintenance is a non issue and what you guys call RPT they do here with only 9 pax as it is the max. approved number for single engine turbine ifr a/c up here (canada). crews have to do a sim course about US$ 5000.00 and an endorsement.
highly profitable plane, but in my humble opinion the environment this a/c is to be operated has to be carefully selected, because it is only a single.
you can plan 160 TAS for a 208B. a newer option is a conversion to a PT6A-42A (the same engine as on a SKA 200 i believe), 850 SHP.
you think unloading a pod on a caravan is a bitch, try that on the low wing PAC 750 with 4*8s in it. you'd have to take a second crew just because of that. also why not equip that aircraft with the PT6A-135 istead: newer alloys, better performance, less maintenance and longer life.
the true contender for the caravan will be the italian built
Mission 600. Same airplane as a caravan with a eastblock turbine (pretty much a rip-off of the PT6), but at the price of US$ 1 Mio.

[cjam]

Hey 208, I hadn't thought about unloading the pod, I don't think the operators will lose too much sleep if the pilot sweats a bit more though. I'll have to look up the mission 600, I hadn't heard of it before, at the same price as the XL it would have to have pretty wicked performance for me to want to swap the PT6 for something else.

[Farcome]

Ace

The PC12 also has a max demonstrated xwind of 15kts (at full flap). How have they gone in the xwinds?

[OpsNormal]

I was always under the impression that the inclusion of the word 'demonstrated' was just that, a demonstrated crosswind component that the airframe was able to handle using what would be considered 'normal' control inputs at the time of airframe certification but not always limiting?

Many, many moons ago when I subjected myself to the PPL flight test (with a well known and highly respected ATO at an east coast GAAP), upon our return to the aerodrome after the test the x/w was higher than the 'demonstrated' for the aircraft I was flying. I mentioned this to said examiner so we discussed this matter briefly upon transitting from the reporting point to the circuit. It turned-out that it wasn't a limiting factor for this aircraft, but of course other factors come into play after this (think insurance company involvement if things turn to poo). We continued, landed uneventfully, and tied-down.

Some aircraft will still retain adequate control authority to counteract much more crosswind than the actual 'demonstrated' component, but with the involvement of insurance companies of late, product liability etc, only lower numbers will become the norm, perhaps to protect 'Joe Average' a bit from him/herself.

Regards,
Ops. ;)

[Torres]

208inICE. The PT6A-42 conversion - is that a Cessna option of an "aftermarket"???

It is the later model King Air 200 engine (early 200's had the -41, which can be converted to a -42). It would certainly make a Van get up and go, but I suspect the specific fuel burn and maintenance costs would be higher on the older technology -42, than on the -114A.

Unloading the pod on a 'Van is OK ... compared to the under wing pod on a King Air!!!

Can't find any internet reference to a "Mission 600" aircraft. If you are talking about the Walter gas turbine engine, no prizes for guessing who is now the majority shareholder.... Messrs Pratt and Whitney! The Walter seems to be an excellent turbine, cheap to buy, cheap to overhaul, HSI and fuel nozzel Interval is 3,500 hours, same as engine life. Problem is it's a long way off ASEPA (IFR and night) approval and without ASEPA approval these days, you have a day VFR machine or good meat bomber!

[troppo]

torres,

http://www.vulcanair.com/new_projects.html

try searching for VF600W

:ok:

[Torres]

Geeze, Troppo, looks like someone nicked the plans from Cessna whilst the troops were at Smoko! :} It's going to cost someone a sh:mad:it load of Shekels if they have any thoughts of approved IFR commercial operations.

And I see that are also building PartBananas! Thought those things were almost extinct since Partenavia went bust a couple of years ago.

I like this:
With the correct inspections and repair we have some P68 Series aircraft that have reached total airframe times close to 18,000 hours."

No mention of the AD's - and cost - to extend the wing to 18,000 hours! :yuk:

[bush mechanics]

Anyone intrested have a look at www.explorer aircraft.com
Australian designed and built but now in the usa,Theres 4 models,bottom of the line piston 8pax upto the turbine 12pax,all with retractible undercarrage.Looks alot beter than the GAslowvan,spuvan!!
worth a look
cheers

[208inICE]

hey gents,

i will find that link for the -42 conversion for the C208B and post it. it is aftermarket and mainly offers more speed and higher gross take-off (9250 lbs) and landing weights (9200 lbs). the conversion if i am correct is about US$ 550,000.00. all in all i think that it would absolutely pay for itself.

[208inICE]

here's the link to the -42A conversion for the C208B:


http://www.soloy.com/CV42/Caravan-42.htm

[cjam]

It's good to see a few of these a/c are coming onto the market. For Australian operators I think it would have to be an advatage to purchase an a/c built downunder as far as after market service goes,correct me if I'm wrong, the comparisons I found were
MISSION 600.........750 XL
ROC -- 900fpm... average 1200fpm to 12000ft
Vne 185kts ... 175kts
endurance 5.3hrs ... same
max payload 1600kg ... 2005 kg

at the same price the XL still looks best to me, especially with its agricultural heritage, time will tell I guess. Thoughts?

[Square Bear]

208in Ice

$USD550,000 (althought from Soloys figures I worked it out to be between $USD428 and $USD498,000) seems a lot to pay for an increase in payload of 212 lb considering that for less than $USD10,000 an increased gross weight kit could be purchased that (again using Soloys figures) would gives an increase in payload of 217 lb.

The extra speed, power, ROC, etc certainly would be nice but I suspect that this conversion with its associated cost would only benefit a small number of and certain types of operations as opposed to general Caravan operations.

Perhaps I am missing something and therefore correct me if I am wrong.

[compressor stall]

Your PC12 figures are incomplete...

The flight manual states:

Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind Component (Not a limitation):

Flaps 0 - 30 kts
Flaps 15 - 25 kts
Flaps 30 - 20 kts
Flaps 40 - 15 kts

The factor to consider is that if the aircraft is to be landed with 0deg flap, the LDR increases by a factor of 1.83, for 15deg, by 1.31.

In rough or xwind, Flaps 40 is not a good idea:ugh:

CS

[Torres]

Wonder what happened to Soloy's PT6 Twin Pac Caravan conversion? Great piece of engineering, but I always doubted it would make commercial sence.

The 4 inch increase prop diameter in the C208 - 42 engine conversion is a worry on unsealed surfaces. My one criticism of the 'Van is the extent of prop damage, even exercising great care.

[EngineOut]

Torres - have to agree with you on the prop damage thing, we operate ours with very smooth rolling starts and it gets chewed up badly on unsealed strips (some times looks like a worn out hack saw). But back to the speed thing:

these are book figures (ISA +10), MTOW, 10,000':

with pod: 165 kts

without pod: 174 kts

From experience these are fairly accurate and increase slightly with a drop in temp.

EO

[Torres]

EngineOut. All the care in the world plus the nose leg extention, and a Van prop still always seems to end up damaged or de laminated on the leading edge. I fear a larger prop could be more susceptible to damage. I see the original plastic prop is no longer available.

You are probably correct on speeds, although in practice, one tends to "discount" book speeds. How much quicker would it have been if the undercarriage had a simple reverse swing retract?

[troppo]

there was a nz van operator that used to allow pilots to clear stones from beneath the prop before takeoff using reverse thrust ?? until one day too much was used and it sat it on its tail with a thud...the funniest bit about it tho was that it happened more than once

:suspect:

[Torres]

With the added benefit of a high ITT on a cold morning?

I vaguely recall there may have been a reference in the 'Van POH that reverse was not to be used below a certain forward speed - maybe 30 kts?

Often used to see certain surveillance twins using reverse thrust to park the aircraft. Aside from the potential engine damage (especially with short exhaust stacks), I wondered if it was really necessary............

[208inICE]

Gentlemen,

the prop clearance on the -42 conversion for the 208B is +2", meaning there's an extra 2 inches clearance as opposed to the standard prop. standard prop diameter on a 208B is 106" or 100" depending on model. the prop that comes with the conversion is only 96" in diameter. always remember more blades means smaller diameter.
also, i assume on gravel strips everyone sweeps the spot below the prop tips before startup. at leat that's how one avoids damage.

later,
208

[Torres]

Interesting 208. I stooopidly assumed a larger diameter prop, rather than counting blades!! :( That extra 2 inches would be a big plus. :ok:

A change of engine model would require the whole IFR/ASEPA process over again in Australia (and possibly other countries.) I seem to recall Pratts classify the -114 as a "commercial" engine, whereas the -42 was not classified a "commercial" engine (although the -45 derivative is "commercial" :confused: ). Pratts are again in partnership with Soloy, so assume this is not insurmountable.

[neville_nobody]

We plan our vans at 163 knots and that seems reasonably accurate. One of them is slightly quicker another a tad slower
(Talking 2 knots here). The caravan would be awesome down south with shorter sectors and no turbluence!!!!!! Passengers generally love flying in the thing as long as it's a smooth ride. And if you had them all geared up for icing nothing will stand in your way!!! Been flying them for a while now and had no real dramas with them mechanically, are very nice to fly, however they are too slow if you are operating them over a long distance. From a pilots perspective the engine mod would be nice.

However as a pilot DO NOT touch a caravan unless you have 500 multi. In terms of recruiting caravans get ZERO respect.

[208inICE]

I agree 208 drivers don't get considered for a lot of jobs because it's a caravan. i guess that's the same down under as it is up here. i had a hard time convincing my co-workers that the 208 deserves the same pay scheme as the other planes we operate (that was in a move to get better pay from our employer), especially since we do the same work as they do.
in regards with icing and the 208: unless the pilots get proper flight into icing training specific to the caravan, it should not be operated into icing. flying that thing in icing condition almost throughout the whole year is not fun and takes nerves and early decisions. there's a reason for the t/o weight limitation of 8500 lbs when icing is forecast: this a/c collects faster than you can spell ice. generally i like the plane, but in regards to icing it is probably one of the worst a/c ever.