capable aircraft

[nano404]

Good day.

I'm in need of advice in regards to the best aircraft type to operate on some prospective scheduled airline routes.

Some information to help you:

The routes range from around 45 nm to 400-ish nm one way. However, the 400 nm route isn't very frequent and most routes will be around 250 nm or less one way.

Tropical climate so it gets really hot at times. All airports basically at sea level.

The aircraft being considered are the:

BAE Jetsream 31
SAAB 340 (A&B)
Twin Otter
Beech 1900
EMB-120 Brasilia

Both a 19 seater and a 30 seater will be needed.

I am missing fuel burn figures for the last three so if someone has experience operating them I would much appreciate the numbers.

I do have the specs to compare them but I'm unsure how they compare when it comes to operating costs, maintenance, and also what issues might plague the aircraft that can't be seen (or easily seen) by the numbers.

Also, if there are any other capable aircraft that I've left out, please let me know.

Many thanks in advance.

[Intruder]

Is this real, or some classroom exercise?

[nano404]

Real.

Of course no-one is going to make decisions based solely on the opinions of others on the internet but I do think it would be very useful to have input from the professionals on this forum.


Thanks.

[Piltdown Man]

You appear to have ignored the Dash 8 and Fokker 50. Forget the Jetstream (no payload or range and it loves runways) and Embraer (unless you enjoy engineering) and I don't think the SAAB will have the legs. The Twotter will be too slow unless you use it only for the short hops. Therefore, the wise money might be on a DeHavilland stable.

And if the customer thinks fuel burn figures are important, I'd tender for a boat service. Because operating small aircraft short distances is very expensive. Also if the customers can't afford to pay the difference between high and low fuel costs, they won't be prepared to pay the going rate for pilots nor maintenance. So they can swim or go by boat.

PM

[nano404]

Piltdown Man;

The problem with the Dash and Fokker is that they're too large. You may be able to fill them to capacity once every week but when you're constantly flying 25 or less pax I'm sure you'll begin to regret getting such a large aircraft.

The SAAB 340 is pushing the upper size limits already.

[Saint Jack]

I basically agree with Piltdown Man, but forget the Dash 8 and F50 and endeavour to achieve fleet commonality. The most suitable aircraft for you, based on the very basic description of your operating environment, is the B1900D - but only the 'D'. This is a very popular aircraft in Indonesia where the flying distances, the tropical climate etc. seem to mirror your requirements.

Spare parts are readily available together with an excellent product support organisation, plus it's PT6 powered which means it can be maintained just about anywhere. Go for it.

[Large fries]

How about an A380 but just go once every six months

[nano404]

I considered the '380 but the runways roun' these parts just can't handle her :sad:

[SloppyJoe]

DORNIER Turboprop Aircraft, Used DORNIER Turboprop Aircraft, DORNIER Turboprop Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com - Page 1 (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?bcatid=13&DidSearch=1&EID=1&LP=CNT&setype=1&ETID=1&catid=8&Manu=DORNIER&mdlx=Contains&SO=15&btnSearch=Search)

[Saint Jack]

The Dornier 228 is a very capable aircraft with a great short-field performance, although like some of the others mentioned here, it's getting long in the tooth and I don't know for how much longer any meaningful product support services will be available. Like the Twin Otter it's unpressurized but perhaps the biggest drawback of the Do-228 is that it's powered by Honeywell TPE331 engines - definitely not the easiest engine to maintain in the field plus finding good TPE331 engineers is becoming almost impossible in some geographic areas.

nano404: In your original post you said "...I am missing fuel burn figures for the last three so if someone has experience operating them I would much appreciate the numbers. I do have the specs to compare them but I'm unsure how they compare when it comes to operating costs, maintenance, and also what issues might plague the aircraft that can't be seen (or easily seen) by the numbers...." Try contacting Hawker Pacific in Australia or Singapore, they do a great deal of work with B1900D's and I'm sure they'll be able to fill in the blanks for you, or point you in the right direction if they can't. They may also be able to tell you where to look for suitable aircraft that are for sale.

[40&80]

A DC3....:D:D

[nano404]

Saint Jack,

Much thanks for the information on the Dornier. I know of the plane but haven't seen much discussion about it anywhere on the net. Guess it's not too popular and/or too loved.

All the advice I've received more or less point towards a single A/C type fleet, and that aircraft being the 1900D.

It's not my personal operation, I do think it's a bit risky to try, especially right now with a new competitor in a market that can't hold many competitors due to it's size. But I've been asked to help out in this regard so I'm just doing my bit.



40&80,

Flying a DC3 might only be barely more successful than flying 1900Cs with no seats.

[rich66]

I agree with the two contributors who have suggested the D228...its high wing design in tropical climates is a big plus for pax. 18 pax total if a toilet has been installed. Honest 200 to 205 knots in cruise without hammering the engines, and vref speeds of 80 kts at highest L.W., with a stall reference speed indicator all help to make it a great aircraft. Max. of 4155 lbs of fuel if light pax load was also useful. Price of spares was a complaint that I heard a few times though.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Or another PT6 shod steed common in hotter climes.

The mighty Shed. 30 odd seats.

You could even get hold of a Skyvan or two, 19 seats ISTR.