Caravan V's Chieftain

[bizzybody]

There have been some pots around regarding Twin Piston V's Single Turbine in a commercial situation. Last month i made a quick comment regarding the CHieftain V Caravan and i was all for the chieftain.

Looking back on it, what are you opinions? WHich is better, (saying we can get ASETPA)

Im not van endorsed so what would the differences be between the 2 regarding fuel, climb speeds, safety etc.

Bizz
(retracting last months comment)

[Captain Nomad]

From someone who is Chieftain endorsed and currently flies a single turbine I can say that the right single turbine is streets ahead of the old piston twins in so many ways. There is a reason why there are more new turbines appearing on the scene.

My machine burns barely 200lph on average, climbs like a homesick angel, carries more than a comparable twin, has nice toys for the pilot to play with (very important!) and EVERYTHING works :cool: That is only the start of it. They are smoother, quieter, and once you have flown one you will wonder why people bother with 30 year old piston twins anymore. There has to be a strong case for new technology and its associated safety and maintenance benefits. I think a lot of people in industry are starting to feel that just because a machine has two donks it doesn't necessarily make it safer compared with some of the current alternatives...

There is plenty more that can be said I'm sure!

[morno]

I've got nearly 400hrs Chieftain time, and now some turbine time to boot, and I don't see why people still operate those old buckets of crap!!

If I had a $1 for every problem I had with a Chieftain, I'd be rich. If you gave me $5,000 for every problem I've had with a turbine (so far), then I'd still be waiting to see anything.

I fly a single engine turbine, and I'm not kidding when I say I feel 10 times safer in that, than I was in any piston twin. As Captain Nomad said, they perform, they're quieter, they're smoother, and when you understand the workings of them, you realise there's not much that can go wrong compared to a piston. Much much easier to operate from a pilots perspective too. No mixtures to fiddle with, all that nonsense.

When you look at the fuel efficiency side of things, yeah, sure they burn a bit more per hour than most piston twins, but with most turbines, look at the fuel burn per Nm instead, or with slower ones like Caravans, cost per seat.

Turbine any day over piston thank you!

morno

[the wizard of auz]

I'm with both you blokes. After flying a van for a while, then climbing into my own personal. much loved, piston twin........ I didn't love it anymore. :uhoh:
I don't think I will fly a piston twin commercially again. the turbine is so much better in so many ways. and least of all, its much newer and far less abused than the old crap I used to fly.

[beeva]

Capn nomad, Morno here here, my thoughts exactly. I much rather flying the van than any piston twin I've flown. I feel much safer, whack a set of floats underneathh and you feel even safer!! I'm not cheiftan endorsed so I won't compare the specs, but the van (amphib) just under 200lph, BROC 98 and from 10k she'll glide about 18nm feathered...not bad

[bizzybody]

yeah ok thanks fo that. i long shot but does anyone have a soft copy of a POH or similar for a Caravan?

please keep the laughter to a minimum

Bizz

[Captain Nomad]

Don't know what your operation is but if carrying lots of kg's and getting off short rough strips and handling density alt is on the cards give the PAC 750XL a good look also.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"but does anyone have a soft copy of a POH or similar for a Caravan?"

Would the owners manual for a combi campavan do!

Dr :cool:

[Hailstop3]

I as well agree with the comments on the van. And any single turbine for that matter. So much easier to fly, so much more capable from takeoff and landing, to climb and even their glide capability is amazing. My only twin time is in a Twin Comanche and a little bit in a seminole, so i cant comment on the chieftain, but setting zero thrust quite high in the comanche and seeing how she glides, its like a brick. (all conducted under instructor supervision at substantial height for anyone who wants to have a go at me)

I have been lucky enough to have 3/4 of my total time on the van, and getting back in even a 206, its even a little bit more difficult to fly (mixture and no rev thrust to pin you on the ground landing on those gusty days), as well as nerve racking given the reliability of the turbine. Im not looking forward to 'downgrading' to a piston twin in the future, just for those elusive multi PIC hours.

The only big drawback for the operators is the initial outlay. I'm not sure what a chieftain costs these days but surely they wouldnt be more than 500k for a very tidy one. To get a very tidy van you are looking upwards of 800k min. New grands are 2mil. Its the cost of the interest from the bank that is the big problem there which is why i think in general we are still going to see the old klapped out twins around for a while yet.

And as said earlier, i have only ever had 2 times that i couldn't start the van, and that was due to old igniters combined with not ideally clean water used in a compressor wash. Waited 45 mins, started as normal.

Can anyone chieftain rated give a scenario for how much payload can be taken with full tanks and how far will that get you in nm?

[JUZ777]

Don't get me wrong..The van may be safer, more economical and easier to fly but she still goes in the SE column of the log book.:ugh:

[kiwiblue]

bizzybody: I got myself a C208 manual (NO you can't have it!!!) a few months ago from Aeromil in Sydney (YSBK). It cost about $90 delivered to my door, arrived within 2 days of the order. Brilliant service I thought.

Just in off a night-shift, so will hunt up the details for you later, PM them.




Phone Freecall: 1800 CESSNA

How hard is that!

Tail Wheel

[bizzybody]

Thanks guys. Its going to be for passengers at this stage at airfields under 3000ft.

The speeds etc seem to be very similar but im maybe thinking from a passenger point of view only seeing one engine on the thing.

[morning mungrel]

From my own experience with both, many things you all say are true, at least partly. Caravan will carry more, bit slower, 10 kts or so, bit nicer to fly etc. But the poster who mentioned initial price wins the bikkies. As far as freight is concerned, they don't yet compare cost wise. Contrary to popular opinion, you need to pay well over a million to get a reasonable caravan, with any kind of engine life left. Now remember, I'm talking about a freight operation...

We can buy 3 chieftains for the price of that one caravan. And when the market is driven by per kg cost, you can see what wins. The pa-31 operating costs, while higher in the maintenance area than your usual caravan, still burns less fuel, and is a tiny bit faster. Over our admittedly short sectors, the payloads are - pa-31- 950 kg, give or take, caravan 1450 kg give or take. Approx operating costs (including finance) pa-31 $550 give or take, caravan $900 give or take.

While I'd love to trade the chiefys for a couple of vans, ain't going to happen any time soon. We'd be out of business because the customers won't come at a 25% rate rise for the freight. Passengers might be another matter however.

You'll notice I haven't gone on about the supposed safety of piston twin v single turbine etc. Whether there are any real or percieved advantages one way or the other simply depends on your application.

[morning mungrel]

Just to answer the payload/range question, you wouldn't fill the tanks on the chieftain if you wanted to carry much. Standard tanks will get you approx 750 nm with std power and mixture settings(65%). That isn't flying to best economy however...... The payload with full tanks is (Pax config and vortex gen kit) 720 kg. They do vary, sometimes by a lot. Caravan full tanks will get you approx 1080nm. But your payload with that kind of fuel load is only 625 kg. That's 6.5 hrs flying tho remember.

Hope this helps.

[Flyingblind]

Good thread, and some very interesting responses as well, i often wonder why Gippsland hasn't released any plans for a stretched and PT I'd Air Van.

Something along the lines of a GAT-12? or are there secret plans afoot?
it would seem to make great economic sense as there would be no import duty on the frame plus a home grown mini-van would negate the fluctuations of the AUS$ to USD.

Any one heard any whispers? this is a rumour network after all!:)

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

The van may be safer, more economical and easier to fly but she still goes in the SE column of the log book.

Oh yes JUZ777, I can see you now, wisely passing up all those F-16's, P-51's, TBM700's etc as you run down the flight line for your Cri-Cri! :}:}:p

As was also mentioned, horses for courses. there are going to be days when a SE turbine will glide a 100nm. But then I can see times when that won't cut the mustard either. :ouch:

Both can make for interesting times.

[morno]

JUZ777, I'm sure no operator really cares what kind of time his pilot is logging, just so long as his aircraft is being flown, :rolleyes:.

And I'm also sure that those pilots out there who have plenty of twin time probably don't give a rats arse which column the time is going in.

I'm sure my career isn't being set back a heap just because I'm flying a single engine pressurised turbine, :hmm:.

morno

[russianthru_thesky]

Gotta agree with you there morno. You really only need any twin time if you wanna go fly them big 'ol airliners...which to me doesnt seem like 'real' flying but thats just personal preference. As for Caravans vs Chieftains, i saw someone mention the PAC 750XL. Those things can carry some serious loads. with full fuel, 840 odd Litres, you can still throw 14 or 1500kg of payload in. Plus they are brand spanking new and in full FAR 23 IFR configuration with weather radar and all the toys they cost US$500,000 less than a new 'van!! Collossal sized pod too. you can throw a coffin in no probs.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

IMHO,

C208, expensive to buy, very very reliable, a little underpowered in high ambient temperatures, parts support in fantastic and a real pilots aeroplane ( comfortable with aircon that works a treat ) and most importantly passengers love them.

PA31, cheap to buy, very very expensive to maintain and very unreliable. part are reasonably easy to source, uncomfortable piper piece of crap to fly, aircon do not quite cut it, on one engine, poor performer, in my opinion a C402C is a better product.

Cresco ( have not flown the XL ) , heaps of power, cheap to buy, very reliable in the hands of good engineers, parts support is attrocious (PAC), perform much better than a C208 and there are some interesting options available, aircon is good, dual tyre MLG, king avionic including autpilot etc etc. If you could get a contract with the manufacturer, that commits them to provide a proper parts service, they will prove to be far better than the C208, and you can use full reverse in flight :).

Just be aware if you are looking at this aircraft for mining contracts, talk to the auditing company regarding their needs, some insist on multi engine.

If money is not an issue, buy a B200, with the analog instrument panel.

[Captain Nomad]

LHRT,

Not the first time I've heard that comment about PAC and parts backup but I think things have changed over time. Management has changed recently also.

As for full reverse in flight :eek: I don't think so...!

[bizzybody]

yeah ok all very interesting posts. What about a Nomad...... referring to Captain nomad. any good. Are there any still around?

[Captain Nomad]

Sorry to disappoint you - don't have any insights to the 'go mad' Nomad.

My 'Nomad' title simply comes from a nickname based on my real name! :)

[the wizard of auz]

I flew the PAC 750XL and its a great ship, can carry a whooooole lot of weight and gets on and off pretty damn short. great cargo ship, but with the pax side of things, its pretty spartan and I don't think passenger will be that thrilled with it. sort of like deck chairs in the back of a landcruiser.

[morning mungrel]

LHRT, Maybe you had the wrong people maintaining your pa31's. Ours fly 600 hrs a year each average and we don't have any major reliability problems. We don't use the cheapest maintenance provider on the airport though, either. They aren't that expensive to maintain, I gave the figures ours cost in my previous post. That's based on 15 years worth of operating. Even leaves a little in the kitty to do some upgrading of the avionics, which we are undertaking.

Bizzy, with regard to your nomad questions, yes there are, if you look under the rocks, and NO YOU DON'T WANT TO!!!!

[JUZ777]

Well done Reverseflow and morno :ok::ok:
I am the lesser..:{:{

[russianthru_thesky]

Hmmm, full reverse in flight in the cresco...i dont think i'd be keen. Had the cresco go past beta once when the prop wasnt rigged right and it shook like a mo-fo. Had the power lever brought back forward in no time!!

The XL is a lot lighter in the controls than the Cresco, you need to be a wrestler to do aileron turns:ok:

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Full Reverse in flight is both safe and legal last time i looked in the flight manual, for the Cresco (Although i'd recommend you be shown how to do it, you could overspeed the gear box with the incorrect technique ).

Did some parachuting in Cairns in a Cresco a few years ago, reverse is a very handy tool for descent when operation at the DZ ( i.e. an airport ), 7000 plus ROD at 120-130 KIAS.

Infact, with tandems under a drogue, you could descend faster than them.

Aircraft such as the Porter and C208 have previously been allowed to operate like this, unfortunately a few in-experienced pilots did it too close to the ground and killed themselves, therefore the relevant flight manuals were changed.

[The Hedge]

From one of the C208 test pilots.....


I have flown the C208 in beta. At altitude, if you go into beta, the tail down force is killed and the aircraft pitches inverted. Unless you are in the middle of a flare in ground effect when you do this, the nose gear is going to hit the ground hard and you are going to break the airplane.
If you let the airplane stabilized inverted in full reverse, at altitude, with the fuel topping governer controlling the engine, you will be descending in excess of 8000 fpm. We had a spin chute installed, we were wearing parachutes, and we had a door jetteson mod installed in the cockpit.
As soon as beta was removed and the tail started generating down force again, we were able to recover from the resulting dive from inverted position. (This is my reason for doubting any claims of positive tail force on the aircraft. We did this at forward, and aft cg.)

[Hailstop3]

Exactly why it was always stressed to me to never put the caravan into beta in flight, no matter what people said. Glad ive never been tempted reading that. Sounds very nasty.

From one of the C208 test pilots.....


I have flown the C208 in beta. At altitude, if you go into beta, the tail down force is killed and the aircraft pitches inverted. Unless you are in the middle of a flare in ground effect when you do this, the nose gear is going to hit the ground hard and you are going to break the airplane.
If you let the airplane stabilized inverted in full reverse, at altitude, with the fuel topping governer controlling the engine, you will be descending in excess of 8000 fpm. We had a spin chute installed, we were wearing parachutes, and we had a door jetteson mod installed in the cockpit.
As soon as beta was removed and the tail started generating down force again, we were able to recover from the resulting dive from inverted position. (This is my reason for doubting any claims of positive tail force on the aircraft. We did this at forward, and aft cg.)

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Here is the full post ( Frogo a test pilot ? ):
http://www.caravanpilots.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=380&view=previous

It must be pointed out that the use of Beta and Reverse in a C208 is not an airframe or engine limitation. ( i did my C208 at Flightsafety at Wichita and asked this and many other scary questions ).

Re-read the blurb, especially with regards to "inverted", if the aircraft was physically inverted, it is because the pilot washed off too much airspeed.
With regards to the "reversal" of the TDF, that is bollocks, when the aircraft goes into beta or reverse, the airflow over the tail will only "reverse flow" at an airspeed significantly below Vs ( as shown on the IAS ).

What will happen is much the same as at stall, due to the significantly distrurbed/low velocity airflow over the tail the TDF will decrease and the aircraft will pitch down, remember the arm between lift and gravity ( in the stall the aircraft should pitch down gently and accelerate out of the stall).

When the power lever is in the rear part of the quadrant,

1) the beta light is rigged on a microswitch, which does not really indicate anything exactly other than the microswitch is working ( i have not flown a pefectly rigged PT6 yet ).

2) Beta ( blade angle ) will be felt, like an airbrake activating.

3) the prop will not go into reverse untill there is an underspeed condition within the engine, for eg prop is set to 1900 rpm and the actual speed drops to 1899 rpm or less, then the PPC mode is available, you will then be physically manipulating the pitch of the blade ( thats what that funny slip ring and carbon block at the front of the engine is for ), note the "do not select reverse with the engine shut down" sticker on the power lever quadrant.

[pw1340]

G,day all,
I am a first time poster but a long time reader.

For anyone tempted to try beta close to the ground (ie way too hot on approach) there has been cases in the past where the beta valve had corrosion in it and when pulled into beta has actually stuck. As a more desirable airspeed is reached and power added the result is more reverse. Unfortunately the instinctive reaction is more power which gets vey untidy very quickly and will most likely end with bent metal. Feathering the prop is the only quick fix.

pw1340

[nomorecatering]

You cant really compare a Chieftain that was designed in the 60's and now are 30 year old airframes with a caravan that was designed 30 years later. A lot of adbances in aerodynamics, airframes and powerplants has happened since the Chieftain was designed.

What WOULD be interesting is a new design 10/12 seat piston twin to replace the Chieftain, using up to date materials.

From reading, I believe that a turbine engine costs about 3 times per hp to buy and operate than a piston engine, what is the cost of a new PT-6? How much is an overhaul?

A friend of mine in the US who is an aeronautical engineer and designes and has built 6 of his own desgnes using some wizz bang CAD programms came up with a design arond 2 of Theilerts V8 diesels. 10 seats, a fuselage 12 inches wider than a chieftain. preliminary calulations shows it does 230 kts at 10,000 ft, will carry 1200 kgs 1000nm at 230 kts and use about half the fuel (Jet A) than the 208.

Hes usually on the money when he builds his designes so you can bet the real thing would perform to his calcs. he also recons a price of 1.8 Mil USD would be in the ball park.

How much is a new 208?

[Dixons Cider]

1.8 - 2.0 mil US$.

[NNB]

there is "one" still flying on the Australian register VH-ATO (airframe 108)
she's being used for camera work by Don Wells (Airlines Tasmania) these days after being sold by Commando Skydivers
great bus to drive, had a lot of enjoyable flying in her:D