310R's in the Bush

[jonjie]

Hi..i operate a part-135 operation here in the Philippines. Currently with a 206 and an Aztec "C"..( 2 tried and tested, supremely reliable, short-field load haulers)..I'm now in a position to purchase another Twin, and seriously looking at a 310R. The specs (speed) and the range look good, not to mention the Elle McPherson sexiness! Barons wouldn't work here cause 3 of my competitors' Barons nose collapsed one time or the other, and it easily "cubes out".

Any feedback out there if 310R's work as nice as the Aztec on rough 2500-foot strips with 650kg of cargo on board? Most specially interested in the integrity and reliability of the Landing gears.

My pilots Mike "attorney batalyoney" ,Felix "the Cat", and Lawlaw "catfish" await your reply!

[mattyj]

If you want rugged..go for the PA-31..as you already know from the Aztruck..parts when needed are pretty available..its an 8 seater (navajo) with heaps of excess capacity..and 175 kt..no worse than 310..probably reasonably priced..and with a set of vortex generators, gets off an 800m grass strip with the right technique

..and both aircraft have equally ridiculous fuel systems

[chief wiggum]

forget both the 310 and the chieftain, go for the AEROCOMMANDER.

165TAS, more cubic than a PA31, 40lt per hour less fuel burn. Built like a sherman tank, and fantastic STOL.

[OzExpat]

I'd be very surprised if a 310 is more capable on and off a rugged strip than a Baron. I flew one of very few 310s that were in PNG many MANY years ago and was never very impressed with them. By way of contrast, there were LOTS of Barons in the country at the time. They were regularly going in and out of strips that would've killed the 310 - and probably everyone else on board.

[Woomera]

I'm with Oz. The 310 bad a bad record in PNG. The C/D/E55 Barons were far more rugged and reliable.

[xer]

Piper is terrible in the heat. The 310R are excellent and reliable. Go one better and get a C404 TITAN!

[Induced Turbulence]

The 310 is not really practical for the operations you described. In addition they are known to crackup inside the gear well when heavily loaded and experiencing side loading on the undercarriage.
I agree with Chief Wiggum, try the Aerocommander or the Islander

[StuntDriva]

Dont think a a 310 or a Baron will carry 650Kg, though I dont know the rules in the phillipines but if they want you to stick to the POH I think you will be out of luck!

The PA31 will, as for short field performance though I'd have to say its crap in the tropics. Haven't flown the aerocommader but would say it would be definitely worth a look as from what I know it can match the PA31 and prob have better field performance.

Good Luck.

forgot to mention that if a lighter weight is acceptable more like 450kg then 310 is ok on rough airstrips, but would be no different to a baron. 310's(unless a gear mod has been done) can be prone to a main gear collapse though.

[OzExpat]

can be prone to a main gear collapse though
I saw that happen to a 404 a few years ago. The aircraft had made a normal landing and was taxying slowly as it started turning left off the runway onto the taxyway to the apron. That's when the left main gear leg collapsed...

[turbinejunkie]

Have to agree with Chief Wiggum.

The Aerocommander 500s Shrike is just the thing you need!

http://www.aerocommander.com/aircraft/images/500s.jpg

Basic weight 2102kg (4635lb), Max TO 3060kg (6750lb).

Heaps of space, very stable, very very strong, great to fly, fantastic stol ability (used widely in the Torres Straits with 450 metre strips and in night freight throughout Australia for all-round reliability and payload capability).

Only thing a bit tricky is learning how to taxi and steer it on the ground. :E

TJ :ok:

[jonjie]

Ok guys..you've just derailed what was to be the first Cessna 310R in the Philippines !

I'd just probably get another Aztec "C". The last W&B of mine showed an empty weight of 3010 lbs, so at 5200 lbs MTOW, gives 2190 lbs of useful load. Enough for 650kgs cargo and 2.5 hours of fuel at 160 knots TAS. Not too far from a Shrike.

Lusted for a Navajo but my mechanic hates turbo's also useful load is about the same..404 Titan has great useful load but too expensive..also those geared engines are scary (abandoned twin bo's and queenairs scattered on almost all the strips we go to).

With the money i save for not buying a 310R, will probably just put a gns 430 on the aztec a new Impreza WRX for me!

Thanks for the Info guys, will buy you a cold one when you're in the area!

Turbinejunkie...my chief pilot Felix "the Cat" is wringing my neck and convincing me to get the shrike instead..he keeps saying the name " Bob Hoover ", and making acrobatic gestures with his hands, i shouldn\'t have showed him this thread.

Will be going to the Subaru dealer now before these guys stage a Strike! hehehe

[Icebreaker]

Jonjie,

I owned/operated several 310Rs a couple of years ago - the advice you've been given is good. The rough strips would mean , at the least, lots of reshim work at each inspection - and don't forget the issue of prop clearance - we had some bad nicks from the unsealed strips.

[Torres]

Take your turbo charged aircraft to Mani Cortez at Olympic Aviation - he loves Queenairs!!! :} :} :}

From my observation of Phils aviation I'm surprised you only get 650 kg into an Aztec. I would have thought it would be good for a ton at least!

If you bought a 310 it would not be the first in the Phils. There used to be an old straight tail 310 near the Soriano hangar some years ago.

(As an afterthought, there was also a Cessna 195 and a Beech A90 - first edition, no reverse thrust - in the same area.)

[tinpis]

From my observation of Phils aviation I'm surprised you only get 650 kg into an Aztec. I would have thought it would be good for a ton at least!

Thats if they removed all the Jeepney decor Torres.

[gaunty]

OzExpat,Woomera & Torres and the rest with the greatest respect your observations about the ruggedness or not of the C310 are total horsefeathers.

Insofar as any sort of performance against the Baron, it is at least as good and better in some respects.
The Baron is built better than the (insert aircraft type here) is total crap.

C404 "can be prone to main gear collapse" don't think so if you understand the design and how it works, it's simple and very rugged.
Any gear will collapse if it gets broken or is not serviced properly.

Which aircraft manufacturer is still the largest manufacturer next to Boeing and which aircraft manufacturer is still using the same 1940's technology.

One of these days I'll get around to telling you about the legendary Finus Wandell and why Barons are overepresented in the Australian market, by world standards.

Find it hard to disagree with chief wiggum re the AC but I'm not sure now tolerant all those bungees and hydraulic accumulators to age, distance from service and parts and the climate. It's a great aircrfaft as an aircraft but couldn't make it in the charter market here or most anywhere on an economic basis, mostly maintenance.

jonjie be very careful and do your own research as ALL of these types are about to become functionally and financially obsolete in the very very near future due to the CPCP programme and manufacturers SID requirements. The hangars of the world are becoming full of these types with Chief Engineers trying to explain to disgruntled owners that the fix will cost more than it's worth without any relief in sight. Spend hundreds of thousands on maintenance on keeping them going or invest it in an assett that will still be worth something at the end.

Any aircraft that are NOT supported by a manufacturer who is still in business as the original OEM are even more at risk. The owner or the whoever now owns the comany will have to contstruct their own programme. Esspensivo.

Piper which is on it's third resurrection at last count don't have the interest or economic motivation to look after Aztecs in this regard, less so Commander.

Sorry but I'd save your money on the WRX, and go find a modern aircraft, put Felix on prozac for the moment :} and ride it out whilst your competitors go broke trying to keep their old junkers going. Then it's all yours.

Tell Felix to go buy his own AC.:E, you are in the business of making money.:ok: :D

[turbinejunkie]

jonjie,

thanks for making us part of your decision making process.

I have had far more experience in C310R than I have had Baron than I have had Aerocommander Shrike. But I wish it was in the reverse order.

If you're talking a great workhorse with plenty of appeal for the punters, IMHO stick with the Shrike. Just take another look at that picture I posted earlier and tell yourself this is not a magnificent aeroplane!

Aside from the replaceable bungee cords on the gear, the gear is rock solid, as is the airframe. Yes, it is a hydraulic aircraft but it doesn't let go in a hurry. A durable aircraft much like your Aztec (which incidentally while not a luxury machine, is a good economic choice). I suggest you try having a chat with the guys at GAM in Essendon Airport (Australia's largest AC operator), Hinterland Aviation in Cairns or Tasair (who also have PA31) in Hobart.

In so far as Barons go, probably the best bet is the E55. Goes like a bloody cut cat, carries the load your after (contrast that with a B58 which really is a pax machine only). Economics would have to be good in terms of kg/lt/gnm (or whichever way that formula is expressed!). ;) It will still carry the 5 pax comfortably but STOL is not its best point given the little wheels and slippery shape.

The 310R has a nice wide cockpit, making it comfortable for punters and can take a reasonable freight load. Undercarriage seemed to take everything I dished out to it. Has very stiff legs and it is a fluke when you make a smooth landing. Big wheels help stopping quickly and they are used in STOL versions up in the Torres Straits (Skytrans).

In so far as cabin class aircraft go, a Cessna 402C IMHO craps on a PA31 whatever. Again, like the Titan and 310R it has a nice roomy cabin and is perfect for punters and freight. There was a drama with the spars having two lifes (or some such) in OZ but with a certain mod or service, the aircraft keeps on going.

As for STOL, well you can get vortex generators for them and they are simpler to operate than the PA31 and I would think last longer with a lower boost level. They have been operated successfully in PNG too.

These are all pilot perspectives. Perhaps the same question posted on an engineering section of Pprune may get another response.

Cheers,

TJ :ok:

[OzExpat]

I wondered how long it'd be before I got a bite from gaunty! :D However, I have to agree with TJ about the 402C! :ok:

[Continental-520]

The 310R has a nice wide cockpit, making it comfortable for punters and can take a reasonable freight load. Undercarriage seemed to take everything I dished out to it. Has very stiff legs and it is a fluke when you make a smooth landing.

Phew! So it's not only my inability to land the thing then. ;)

Can't seem to pull off those landings in a 310 where the wheels are rolling on the runway, but the wings are still producing enough lift to support the weight, and it settles smoothly as speed dinimishes...don't know why, but at least I know I'm not alone.

520.

[jonjie]

Thanks for the great inputs guys! was talking yesterday with Mr Ryan of Ryan Aircraft Sales in Archerfield, he's got an Aztec C with mid-time engines for Aus$115 g's, the average prices i got on 310R's in Aviation Trader is in the 200's. I reckon Shrikes will cost probably in the middle of the two. Doing the math, i'd need at least another year or two to get my investment back on the R instead of the Aztec..not to mention the tons of experience my maintenance guys have on them.

I've also thought of selling my 206 to add to my funds and get a more modern plane as Torres said..but just can't think of anything short of an old MU-2 or Kingair 90. A competitor of mine bought a 402-B and promptly crashed it on it's first revenue flight (didn't get airborne on a 2000 foot strip in a 35 degree cels day and no wind). Islanders are expensive, and too slooow for the daily 280nm trip (one-way) my aztec flies to.

Torres, the old 310 here is the short-body B-model. Hasn't flown in 10 years, and had gear problems from what i last heard. Wil say hello to Manny Cortez for you. Yes he loves Queen-air but as of today, only ONE is left flyable in the whole Philippines!

Looking forward to ferry that Aztec from Brisbane..will keep you guys posted..

[gaunty]

Continental-520

Smooth landings aren't all that hard :rolleyes: just need an understanding of what's happening.

My 2 cents worth.

The Cessna twins have a zero or even slight negative angle of attack when standing on their legs and very efficient wings.

Thus when taking off unless you actually rotate the aircraft you will generally drive off the end before it flies off on it's own.
Thats why it is a good idea to leave it in that mode until you ARE ready to rotate, as due to the lack of lift until you put on angle of attack and therefore associated drag it accelerates faster and according to the book.

Likewise on landing, (mostly too fast) if you unload the wing prematurely by lowering the nose to get it on to the runway it will quit and dump you.

Angle of attack is the answer, you control that.

My observations are that most pilots leave the rotation too late beyond the book speed in the assumption that extra speed is their friend in the event of an engine failure. :rolleyes: Fly the aircraft off rotate on the numbers and hold blue line to 400 ft.

And land too fast beyond the book speed after a landing is assured and wonder why they get dumped.

Get the book out, have a look, calculate the speeds, fly it by the numbers and how the book recommends and it will be kind to you. Roll on landings are then a cinch.

You're the boss of as long as you do it the way the aircrafts' most happy. :}

BTW I've got some spare periscopes and free chiropractic vouchers left over from the Barons I've flown if anyone is interested.:p

[Towering Q]

520...does your 310 have a VG kit?

I'm not sure if it's my imagination but the 310r's with vortex generators seem easier to land smoothly than the clean versions.:ok:

[Continental-520]

Gaunty,

Working on that. Must be a time on type issue.

TQ,

Some do and others don't, which keeps it interesting.
I find the one(s) with the VG kit easier too.

520.

[gaunty]

It's great fun ain't it. :ok:

Vg if I understand how they work, as I've never flown one with it, clean up the airflow and keep it attached for longer and invite you to be able to land even slower ??

Modern aerodynamics have the VLJs and most of the small jets and some of the bigguns with Vref lower than your C310R.

The C310 R like the Baron, started life as smaller lighter ships with less HP and like topsy just grew.

Walk around your C310 and have a look at all of the straps around the rear fuselage/wing and double skins here and there tp pick up the extra weight.

That's why Cessna gave the C310R away in 1981 and concentrated on the Crusader.

You can do assymetrics in that with your feet on the floor, C182 type landing and TO speeds. :} drop gear and flap at CRZ speeds wthout any trim change, pull 60degree accelerated stalls one or both engines and it will simply fall out straight and level. etc etc .
Basically pilot proof and I would have no problems giving the keys to a proficient single pilot.

Have fun

[Continental-520]

So why was the T303 so dismal sales wise compared to the 310?

And why did Cessna stop producing piston twins altogether??

Raytheon are still rolling out new Barons...


520.

[gaunty]

Simple, the aircraft was stillborn as it was introduced at a time when there was a huge economic downturn in the US and then as a result of getting another gazillion dollar judgement against them just for having built a C172,, the worlds safest aircraft, they stopped piston production altogether.

An old VFR C172 out of maintenance, flown by a VFR pilot in IMC into the side of a hilll killing himself, son and next door neighbour and his child was somehow the fault of the aircraft manufacturer. :rolleyes:
Those were the days when losing a loved one in a GA aircraft accident was the equivalent of winning the 1st Division Lotto Megadraw.

Why keep building USD$20,000,000 dollar liabilities.

Had they continued production it was to be pressurised to take advantage of its flat rated engines and would have beaten the pants off anything else in it's class.

They determined that the future for the company was in the mega succesful transport category performance Citations and the Caravan.

The Citation does everything safer, higher, further and faster than the King Air for the same or cheaper costs.
The Conquest was too popular and diverting sales from the bottom end Citations without any of the transport category type safety benefits.

There was no where to go in piston or turboprop twins in following that philosophy.

They wouldn't comtemplate starting the piston twin line until there was a legislated limit on aircraft age in regards to the liabilties.

When the time was right and legislation was passed, they restarted the single line..

Why are they still building Barons, dunno ask Raytheon. I guess people will buy a brand whatever.

Why do people buy King Airs, dunno beats me, they always have and still do cost more to operate than a Citation

[Woomera]

1999 - 2000 price for a new, equipped Beech 58 was US$1,000,000.

Bet they don't sell too many......... :}

Dunno about your claim you can operate a C550 at lower seat/mile cost than a B200. You checked out JT15D engine overhaul costs lately?

As an exec aircraft, it's probably a matter of choise - and the C550 is much nicer - but if you need to worry about the cost you shouldn't be buying one.

But in general charter (excluding specialised operations) you probably need at least 16 plus bums aft in a turbine twin to be cost effective. As GAF discovered some years ago!

Woomera

[Spotlight]

Gaunty

Quite so with the technique. The 210 is possibly the most prone to exhibit the characteristics of which you speak. New pilots on type can not know the vagaries of a particular airplanes W&B, without that they listen. Gone are the days I think, of a keen fellow delving into the very unhelpful manual of an old Cessna to do a page of mathematics to estabish a MAC. Only to find that the only benefit was practice as the Elevator Trim Indicators particular relationship with the angle of incidence of the servo tab can be arbitrary to say the least. Screw drive wear, engineer dyslexia when driving an inclinonimeter, cable stretch all add error. Oh, and the dicky little bent indicator needle dropping a notch or three on the trim wheel.

Its been a long time since I was told (and subsequently advised) that if the tail comes up your okay. (Cessna singles only)

Sorry! Senior moment, this is about light twins isn't it?

The purchase price of the Aztec and Commander are considerably lower than the 310 and Baron. Hmmm?

All the talk about landing gear strength is crap unless you know what you are talking about. 58 Barons have a problem with spar box cracks if operated away from tar, as the Bonanza. Once repaired thats it! Other consideration is the use of magnesium in a number of components. It does not like salt air. There has been a SB requiring expensive replacement of elevator skins on some serial numbers. And wing bolts. Spar box and wing bolt status must be established before purchase. As for the rest its the same as the 310, the odd tie rod end breaking, bushings, shims and rigging. Occasional shock strut seals. The odd flap motor or gear motor gearbox giving out. (O/H times also to be checked pre-purchase).

Then again, what am I saying? Aeroplanes are all expensive.

I must admit to a chuckle over the previous posters advocating VGs for the 402. The grief that bright idea caused!

And Gaunty, I am sure you know the old shoe slide followed by a lasso type catch of the Baron rudder lock. Saves on chiropractor expenses.

[OpsNormal]

.... As for STOL, well you can get vortex generators for them and they are simpler to operate than the PA31 and I would think last longer with a lower boost level...

I'm not sure that the VG kit can be utilised for the higher take-off wgt when flying with the latest version of the SIDS modded spars. I know that we now cannot use ours, but I believe that may be related to getting the full life out of the modded spar... ie; using the VG kit to get the (3342kg?) mtow on a SIDS modified 402 shortens the spar life... so I am led to believe by our maint controller. 'Tis a pity, that is a more than useful gain.

I agree about being not as "highly strung" boostwise as a PA31.

520, I flew Daisy last year when she was brought to Alice for a visit. I hadn't flown one, lest a stubbie, for going on two years. The poor buggah in the RHS (G'day mate....) showed remarkable restraint when I started to flare around the same ht as a PA31..... with the resultant "I choose to stop flying...... NOW" arrival. Caught on video no less.... :( . Very humbling. Suggest leaving a trickle of power on through the flare and onto the ground, but not somewhere like Bulman.

They have a vulnerability around the construction of the nose gear support tunnel if operated on very rough surfaces, like many aircraft.

OpsN. ;)

[gaunty]

Spotlight :ok:

It's all a bit like comparing the merits of an Alvis drop head coupe a very sexy car with those fabulous Lucas P100 headlamps and with a Bentley blower coupe not nearly as pretty but very quick in a straight line.

Had the pleasure of the Alvis not so long ago, it was very much fun, but was even more impressed with the comfort and smoothness of my new Volvo on the way home.:}
Now where did I leave my zimmer frame.

BTW the Cessna's that we ordered new had that dinky rudder lock lever next to the rudder.
An unlocked Cessna rudder left to bang about in the breeze is a very expensive exercise indeed.
One flick and she's locked.
Much safer than those Heath Robinson thingyshad to remember to remove and the instant you applied any aft stick it unlocks automatically and every one does a "full and free" as part of their prestart checks don't they.

That was then this is now.

The game is over for these types as of about now if you have followed my comments in another thread.

Whatever the owners paid for it or think that it is worth, try Sims metal for the latest scrap Ally price X approx empty weight for the real value.

Woomera it's your turn now.

1999 - 2000 price for a new, equipped Beech 58 was US$1,000,000. it's even more now and a bloody good reason why revenue rates for these types should be around $1,000 ph PLUS.
The rates that are actually being charged is why that part of the GA industry is doomed unless they get their act together real soon.


Bet they don't sell too many......... they do actually, not as many as they would like, but enough to make it worthwhile.
There is still one born every minute you know.:}

The new VLJs (Eclipse etc.) that are fast approaching at similar prices will probably do em in.

Dunno about your claim you can operate a C550 at lower seat/mile cost than a B200. You checked out JT15D engine overhaul costs lately?
It's true and not so long ago Cessna ran a programme offering to pay the difference in operating costs (inc O/H etc) between your turboprop, ANY turboprop except the Conquest for 5 years and the new Citation if you bought one instead.
They sold a heap and never wrote a single cheque.

Now if you are going to compare the cost of superannuated crap v current model or new that's a more complex argument, but still comes down on the side of the Citation, but we are talking about the US not the way we "practise our hobbies" on our passengers in Oz.:rolleyes:

As an exec aircraft, it's probably a matter of choise - and the C550 is much nicer - but if you need to worry about the cost you shouldn't be buying one. true but they do worry about the cost a lot and we spent heaps more time with the accountants than the pilots, who had to leave the room while the grown ups were talking. :p
One of the problems with the older pilots was that if they hadn't gotten around to doing their ATPL or felt a bit intimidated by the jet, guess which way they wanted to go.:rolleyes:
Why, escaped me as the Cessna philosophy was and still is that as the worlds No1 Business Airline they design them to be owner flown.

But in general charter (excluding specialised operations) you probably need at least 16 plus bums aft in a turbine twin to be cost effective. As GAF discovered some years ago! circular argument see point 1. ;)
If they were charging the real cost for everything in the inventory you dont need any more bums than the aircraft is actually designed for.
And it's not 12 bums in a KingAir or 10 in a Conquest or Citation.

The last time I looked the pax load factor for the types in the US is around 3-4 across the fleet, whether you include the owner pilot or it is crewed.

It is only in OZ and other third world countries that we try to make them be something they are simply are not, "airliners".:rolleyes:

Your serve I believe :)

Oh,.... come in bushy the doors not locked. :p

[Continental-520]

Hey there Ops,

Can't say I've ever had the pleasure of taking Daisy for a spin, though I have been offered in the past... :D

All too familiar with those "I choose to stop flying.....NOW" arrivals, too. Definitely an aircraft with VERY unique handling characteristics, of sorts.

All good fun though.

Will hopefully find a spare few hours one of these days to catch up.

Cheers mate.

520.

[Westaussielame]

RE -Vortex gen kits and increased max weight kits ,wing tips etc on Cessna aircraft that are covered by a SIDs program.

The fitment of any of the above alters the aircraft from the original type certificate and renders Cessna Life limits basically invalid.Its then the resposibility of the STC holder or aircraft operator to provide an alternate program which is a huge ask (I have already seen a few A/C with kits removed although you would then have to ask what effect this has on fatigue life).

Apparently all aging aircraft will have to have a program in place soon and if the manufacturer does not provide it the operator will have to.The Cessna program when printed out is the size of a small telephone directory!

[OzExpat]

I flew "Daisy" many years before it was given that name. It was an old machine even then, but I'm sure that's not the reason that it didn't like the environmental conditions in PNG... :}

[Pseudonymn]

520, I flew Daisy last year when she was brought to Alice for a visit. I hadn't flown one, lest a stubbie, for going on two years. The poor buggah in the RHS (G'day mate....) showed remarkable restraint when I started to flare around the same ht as a PA31..... with the resultant "I choose to stop flying...... NOW" arrival. Caught on video no less.... . Very humbling. Suggest leaving a trickle of power on through the flare and onto the ground, but not somewhere like Bulman.

Ahhh, but what Ops forgot to mention was who was doing the videoing.... :}

From what I could tell from the back seat, Daisy is a very nice machine. Pity 'bout that landing. :) I know Wiz got a personal guided tour sightseeing over the Western Macs that day. :ok:

[Continental-520]

Westaussielame,

I quite often find myself thinking about that (what you've said regarding spar fatigue). Particularly when I enter a CU cloud and I see the tip tanks wobbling about in my peripheral as the wing flexes...oh what a feeling!

I wonder what's going to happen before ANYONE, be it the manufacturer or operators speaks up and says "hey guys, do ya think maybe the spars are getting a tad tired....?"

As handy as they are, I wouldn't have thought the VG kits reduce fatigue, lifespan or spar strength...


520.

[woolie]

Why hasn't the Caravan been thrown in as a machine that is capable of meeting the requirements for this job. Does it have to be a twin that uses technology that is out of date????

Woolie

[Westaussielame]

cont-520,
The spars are lifed on most Cessna twins and can be replaced when time expired (huge job).
The lifes vary depending on model.The fuselage is even lifed on some ie C-421.

[gaunty]

The solution is simple, quit throwing good money after bad and use it as woolie suggests to buy a Caravan to do the C206/210 work and the PC12 for the piston twin work.

Flogging a dead horse is well.....flogging a dead horse.:}

When I win the Lotto I am going to do what a discerning Sydney gentleman has done, buy the nicest cleanest C310R I can find put it the shop for a top to toe bare metal restoration to original mint condition, new transparencies the lot, park it in it's own airconditioned hangar and wheel it out on the odd Sunday, maybe just to look at it and give it a bit of a polish, show it in the vintage concours d'elegance or go for a trip to the vineyards for lunch, good wine and a snooze then dawdle home the next day. :ok:

[jonjie]

Gaunty n Wooly..thanks for your suggestion on the Caravan and PC-12.

The answer to this is... I don't have US$650g's for a used Caravan Cargomaster, or $1.5m plus for a PC-12.

Update on the Aztec...found one for Aus$90k's from David O'Connor in Melbourne. Guess this is it!

[bushy]

I know of an organisation that bought a pc12, for six million plus, then tried to make it pay for some years,and sold it for 2.5 million.l

[Woomera]

Votex Generators on a C310, C402, PA31 etc are like fat tires and a V8 in an FJ Holden. It may go faster, with far less safety but it's still an FJ Holden and 1955 technology.

Whatever your aviation task, you need to buy an aircraft that the manufacturer guarantees will do the job.

Your problem Jonjie is that Phils aviation will never pay the true commercial rate for you to invest in the right equipment and gain a return on capital.

Geezus - they getting $90K for an Ashtruck these days..... or do you get two for the price of one??? For that price I'd be looking for chrome spinners, sheep skin seat covers, mag wheels and oil cooled choke cables!

Woomera

[gaunty]

bushy

I know of an organisation that bought a pc12, for six million plus, then tried to make it pay for some years,and sold it for 2.5 million.l

Now I wonder who wasn't up to the task, was it the aircraft or was it the operator?

The aircraft will do exactly what it was designed for and it's guaranteed by the Government.:rolleyes:

[OpsNormal]

gaunty I have a feeling bushy is referring to an operator who does have a "few" C208's belting around the traps.

Said PC12 didn't go all that far after being sold if I'm not mistaken either.

[the wizard of auz]

I would have taken the controls and saved us Ops, but I was ducking from the sniper that was shooting at us. :}
Anyone want to buy a vidio.......slightly blurred at the touch down stage but otherwise alright. ;)

[OpsNormal]

Now where is that icon with its middle finger sticking up?:E

[neville_nobody]

The said operater did not pay $6.5 million for the PC-12!! They operated it in to many short low-level sectors which wasn't the best for the airframe and or the engine. The cost of spare parts was also an issue. PC 12 really needs to have more seats in it to make it pay. A multi million dollar nine seat aircraft will always be expensive to operate.

[GW_04]

Hi there jonjie,

have a few tech details for you on the 310R if your still thinking..

BEW 1722
MZFW 2222
MTOW 2495
MLW 2449

Flight fuel approx. 115 litres - 120 litres per hour
Holding approx. 90 litres per hour

Usefull load at min fuel (MZFW) 500kg
Gives you full mains (tips)379 litres) which in still air IFR with fixed res. plus vari. gives you around 413nm range with 180 TAS.

With a 80kg pilot gives you 420kg for pax/bags

Not really a six seater with bags, but a couple of lighties in the back will see it full.

Shes a bit touchy in the aft C og G range with pax so a bag or two in the nose will sort that OK.
Freight no probs.
Cube will be the concern as when the nose is full unless you can lose the seats in the back you will be looking for places to put the big boxes if you have a pax or two.

Wing lockers are useless unless you have some small heavy items. I believe there is an approval to exceed the MZFW by putting more in the wing lockers if you can.

The 310 is a stable IFR platform with little vices and small trim changes once you have it sorted.

Yes the 310 is a b***h to land at first but with practise can be tamed. I put it down to long legs with low ground effect, and the fact it has no washout leading to a snappy stall with little warning.

As was stated earlier, stick to the numbers for Vref.
I like to see 90 knots decreasing over the fence as an average, closing the throttles completly (no power dribbles) and slightly rase the nose to hold attitude and drive it on.
If you hold this aircraft off waiting for a greaser...it will bite.

My two cents.
Cheers GW

I think the VG kit gives you about another 70 odd kilos but its only fuel though...?

[Continental-520]

Typical variations to the above with a VG kit installed:

BEW 1722
MZFW 2280 - 2404 (Varying with CG pos'n. Aft CG = higher MZFW)
MTOW 2576
MLW 2449 (unchanged)

VMCA 10 kts lower, stalling speeds a little lower and 175kts TAS.

Think that's about it.


520.

[Towering Q]

GW_04....agree with you on all but one point. The 310R is a bit touchy in the forward C of G range. It's a lot harder to load behind the aft limit.

There was a flight training organisation not far from here who departed on their IFR navs with the a/c loaded beyond the forward C of G just by having full mains with only the instructor and student on board.

A heavy nav bag stored behind the rear seats may have got them back within limits.:uhoh:

[GW_04]

Hi TQ

not sure what loading system they were using to get that but here is an example load.

Empty C of G index 74.

Put 2 big fellas/gals at 100kg each in the front. Throw 50kg in the nose, and full mains.
This will give you about index 55 at 2245Kg TOW which is well within fwd C of G.

On the other hand, put 6 avg pax (incl pilot of course) at around 83 Kg plus full mains, gives you 2493 TOW, and an index of just over 100. By our loading system this is 5 or so out the back.
So throw a lightie in the back and a bag in the nose, and your sorted.

Continental-520 talks about the VG kit having a little more friendly MZFW. This might adjust the C og G range too? Maybe its not such a prob with the kit installed.
About $2500 I believe. Not a bad investment considering the extra capacity!

Cheers GW

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Does anyone have similar figures for the Aztec? I'd like to do some flying in a 6 seat twin and would like the option of carrying six blokes. I had been considering the Aztec (for hire around Sydney) ? Anyone know of a frame that can do better for the above? (for under $450 an hour)

PAF