Restarting out of production aircraft

[Nulli Secundus]

The twin otter appears to be a huge success again after years out of production.

I thought I'd ask the panel what other aircraft could back again and what could make them viable today given new technologies and emerging markets.

For mine, the Short SD360 made sense for its spaciousness and simplicity. Just iron out a few imperfections (bit noisy) and maybe there's a new market opportunity. Is pressurisation all that necessary for sub 100nm sectors?

Any comments?

[Jabawocky]

Chieftan, Comanche, 210, Cessna 400 series……

V Tails :E

[Lancair70]

I'd like a C210 made from composites :}

[solowflyer]

Good ol Beaver

[c100driver]

The only reason Viking is succeeding with the Twotter is that it is a specialised aircraft with a specific market.

Airframe wise a Kingair has probably the same labour component as a Chieftain or a 402. If a Chieftain or 402 were reintroduced to the market they would probably cost in the region of 1.5m. Yeah right!

It is the capital cost that is the big killer to restart aircraft in a tight market, where Joe and Jane public expect to pay $59 for a seat for a 1 hour trip!

After Cessna butchered the C206H to make it heaver, slower and less payload I am pleased that they have not continued and bastardised their finest. The C180/185!

[yr right]

V tails OMG.

Viking was taking about turbine single otter and beavers some time back but as with the 400 series twin otter cost is prohibitive. They not selling as many as the thought Shame. Great aircraft done a heap of work on them all over the place.

[fencehopper]

Gippsland before they where bought out talked of the Nomad :bored:

[gassed budgie]

After Cessna butchered the C206H to make it heaver, slower and less payload I am pleased that they have not continued and bastardised their finest. The C180/185!

No, but they could pump out a few more of these!

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/2410/sjxWYj.jpg

And just for you Lancair, Cessna's take on where they thought the 210 was headed.

http://imageshack.com/a/img42/6748/imagewsu.jpg

Other than the stillborn Cessna NGP and the misconceived 162, this was the last time that Cessna put any serious R&D into their S/E line up, just on 30 years ago!

The wing was of composite construction with a NLF airfoil, same span but a lot smaller in area and full of fuel. With the larger tanks and bigger tail Cessna were on the way to somewhere else with the 210 airframe. What a shame it was the General Dynamics came along and buggered things up.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dash10 C441 Conquest

[27/09]

Chieftan, Comanche, 210, Cessna 400 series……

So far as the single Comanche goes check out the Raven 500. Ravin Aircraft (http://www.saravin.com/)

[Walking Ballast]

Mosquito, Lancaster, Beaufighter

[triton140]

Jabiru :E

[peterc005]

Airtourer.

[Pinky the pilot]

If a Chieftain or 402 were reintroduced to the market they would probably cost in the region of 1.5m. Yeah right!

Dash10 C441 Conquest


Really have no idea m'self as to whether or not that would be an accurate figure c100driver, but does anyone else think that the day will come where the abovementioned aircraft, suitably modernised/updated will have to have production restarted simply because the existing fleets will be too bloody old?:eek:

Walking Ballast; To that list you can add the Hawker Tempest V.:E

[SOPS]

The whole Cessna line. Produced in 2014. They would be lovely aircraft.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ooooooohhhhh pinky....that was so cold:{

[yr right]

A new Barron is over the 1 million mark. One would think you be looking around the 2 mill plus for a chieftain. Last time I looked the 400 Viking was nearly 5 mill

[Nibbles2310]

Turbo prop Chieftain would be nice

[kingRB]

Turbo prop Chieftain would be nice

Piper PA-42 Cheyenne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-42_Cheyenne)

[Lancair70]

Turbo prop Chieftain would be nice

To be honest don't you mean PA-31T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-31T_Cheyenne)

[PLovett]

I heard recently that a Chinese company, the same one that bought Continental engines, had bought the C406 design from Rheims. It was also rumoured they had bought the C404 design as well. True or not, I have no idea. Just something I heard on the grapevine.

[gassed budgie]

Affirm regards the C406, not sure about the C404.

[gerry111]

solowflyer,


There's a highly experienced LAME and pilot at Cowra who's slowly building a Beaver from scratch! He's the guy who also operates the bowser there.


I don't know his name, but me thinks it's possibly not 'yr right'..

[Fratemate]

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Beech-Staggerwing/IMAGES/Beechcraft-D17-Staggerwing-Inflight.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/6/0/1377068.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8440/7871301598_5f15856bd0_b.jpg

[AdamFrisch]

Any of the more bush capable turboprops, like the Commander 1000 and the MU-2 would sell well. They're still very sought after.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Turbo prop Chieftain would be nice

I have about 1600 hours in the Chieftain and if I never fly one again it will be too soon. The only reason they are still so common is because there is bugger-all SIDS or ageing aircraft management going on, so they are cheaper to maintain.

Give me a Titan over a Chieftain any day, and how many commercial operators do you see operating a Cheyenne? Mmmmm Conquest. :E

[Pinky the pilot]

Ooooooohhhhh pinky....that was so cold

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

[neville_nobody]

Turbo prop Chieftain would be nice

It was called a T1040. Chieftain with PT-6's, unpressurised.

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1982/1982%20-%201909.PDF

[c100driver]

Airwork NZ had one 1040 as the Piper agent. They could not find a buyer so operated it themselves.

No market for TP Chieftain.

[yr right]

Turbo prop Chieftain would be nice

Is actually T1040. Not a lot made. T1020 was a commuter version of a pa31-350 made to a higher FAA spec.

[yr right]

Oh Gerry your such a tool. I've forgotten more about Dhc-2 than you would ever know. Buy the way we actually own two and rebuilt them. Plus beavers on floats and land planes and Ag. What have you done ? Me thinks sfa !!!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Pinky...my sincerest apologies there. Didn't even notice C100driver as a poster.
Thought I was the butt of a dig at choice of C441 Dash 10 Garrett powered machines...bloody economical and were a bit cheaper than the equivalent A100 King Airs.

[yr right]

Whilst the c441 is a little cheaper on fuel. Maintence is much higher than a b200. Have trouble with a engine computer $25k straight up then may be added costs same with an fcu then the you have to have a box to rig computer and then a flight test to set final parameters.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02712/Concorde_3rd_last__2712290k.jpg

[Oakape]

Now you're talking! (much as I like most of the others).

[gassed budgie]

Cessna (or perhaps it's management) as far as single engine aircraft are concerned these days, are probably beyond saving. They're rapidly on their way to fcuking up the arse a once iconic GA manufacture.

http://imageshack.com/a/img905/6642/mIBvD5.jpg

If they had any sense at all, the sporty little two-seater pictured above should immediately be put back in production.

[junior.VH-LFA]

As much as I'd love to say the Lancaster or similar, from a practical stand point one would think the Cessna 210 family would have been a useful aircraft to see a comeback.

[43Inches]

The C152 does not cost that much less than a 172 or Warrior to maintain and most students would rather fly the larger aircraft for the extra few dollars. Not sure there would be much of a market as the initial price would be up there with most of the 4 seat aircraft. That being said it's an excellent trainer, very good for early sequences.

Is actually T1040. Not a lot made. T1020 was a commuter version of a pa31-350 made to a higher FAA spec.

The T-1000 designation was purely marketing for Piper's new airliner division (from the ashes of the PA-35 project). T-1020 was a stripped Chieftain with 11 seats, low weight, for commuter airlines.

T-1040 was a Chieftain fuselage with Cheyenne everything else, wings, nose, tail, systems, so not really a turboprop Chieftain. T-1050 was a stretched version in design that added 11ft stretch to the T-1040 fuselage allowing 15 seats, looked sort of like a metro.

The closest to a pure turboprop Chieftain is the Emb-821 Caraja, which is a straight PW conversion of the Emb-820 (Embraer made PA31-350).

I reckon a new PA31 would be close to $3 million now looking at what the PA34s and B58s retail for. A turbine version would nudge $4 or $5mil. In perspective you can get a new Do-228NG for around $7mil. Or just buy an old PA31 and do it up and have the same thing for under $1mil.

The same would apply to all the other piston twins from that era.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Honestly, if GA was as buoyant as it was pre-1980 it wouldn't matter what was built...They would sell everything!

[Pinky the pilot]

Pinky...my sincerest apologies there.

All cool Man!:ok:

Honestly, if GA was as buoyant as it was pre-1980 it wouldn't matter what was built...They would sell everything!

And agree with the above. However, I believe that back in GA's 'glory days' from about the mid 60's to the late 70's there was a Government incentive for the purchase of new GA aircraft in the form of some sort of tax writeoff.

I am unsure as to exactly how it worked but I know that Gaunty, who used to lurk on these pages, could explain it all. Possibly Tailwheel could do also.

Unfortunately I could not imagine a Federal Government of any political persuasion doing anything remotely connected with assisting GA, now or at any time in the future.:{ No Statesmen with any vision anywhere.:*:ugh::mad:

[compressor stall]

Are there not a few modern day design criteria / regulations that would prevent some/many of these aircraft from being built again today? It's not as simple as getting the old plans and building them again.

[yr right]

43 inches I'm sorry your incorrect about the T1020. It was built to a higher spec. It had different u/c and and Hyd system for a start. Built to Far 25 specs rather than the Lower far 23 as I recall. Complety different m/m and ipc. Whilst it may look the same it is a different aircraft

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

However, I believe that back in GA's 'glory days' from about the mid 60's to the late 70's there was a Government incentive for the purchase of new GA aircraft in the form of some sort of tax writeoff.Long time ago and I don't remember the details. However, I think the basic tenant was the any plant or equipment purchased for income generating activities - commercial vehicles, aeroplanes, machinery tools etc attracted an "investment allowance" of some % of the purchase price that was a tax deduction - and then you could still depreciate it. At its peak I think the investment allowance was 100% or even better (200% ?).

You could even lease equipment and still claim the investment allowance provided the leasing company passed the right to claim the allowance on to you.

The scheme certainly stimulated investment in new plant and equipment, but is often the case, it led to some activities for which it was not intended.

For example, high disposable professionals (read doctors, dentist etc) used the scheme to pay for their toys, ie bought an aeroplane and paid a young pilot to fly it for them on commercial ops, or bought a big game fishing boat and employed a skipper to charter it etc.

I guess you can debate whether that is good or bad - certainly brought a lot of new gear into the country and provided employment for many starting out.

It is the reason that back in the 70's and 80's I got to fly many brand spanking new aircraft - C150, C172, C182, C185, C206, C210, PA28, PA32, Mooneys and Barons, in particular!

Imagine being able to private hire a brand new C210 today! I had my pick of two back in the early 80s.

I have not flown a brand spanking "new" aircraft since the late 80s.

Dr :8

[Howard Hughes]

I have not flown a brand spanking "new" aircraft since the late 80s.
I have, even drove it out the factory door, sadly it wasn't mine...;)

[hiwaytohell]

However, I believe that back in GA's 'glory days' from about the mid 60's to the late 70's there was a Government incentive for the purchase of new GA aircraft in the form of some sort of tax writeoff.

If I recall correctly there was a 40% investment allowance on new equipment in the late 70s. I think around 30 June 1980 it was either discontinued or wound back. That is why there was a big influx of Titans & Chieftains (along with other Beech, Cessnas, Pipers) at the time.

Some years later I remember Peter Costello us what a champion he was for aviation by letting us depreciate our aircraft at 10% pa, when he was trying to tell us that aircraft don't actually depreciate.

A 40% depreciation allowance in its first year would be a boost to GA and see not only investment in new equipment, but high tax payers investing in commercial aircraft and businesses.

However with the Government so far in debt I can't see it!

[Nulli Secundus]

Or, rather than restarting production lines, Ikhana in the US re-life airframes and wing boxes back to '0 hours'. How smart is that!

RWMI DHC-6 RE-LIFE FUSELAGE™

The IKHANA RWMI DHC-6 Re-Life Fuselage™ STC provides an FAA approved “Zero-Time since new” Twin Otter fuselage. Utilizing proprietary Re-Life methodology, IKHANA replaces all fatigue critical structural components with new components. IKHANA’s RWMI DHC-6 Re-Life Fuselage™ is certified to new life limits of 66,000 hours/132,000 flight cycles while maintaining similar inspections and maintenance requirements as a new Twin Otter.


Could we do that here, say under licence from Ikhana and re-life certain airframes?

[Ultralights]

Imagine being able to private hire a brand new C210 today! I had my pick of two back in the early 80s.

I have not flown a brand spanking "new" aircraft since the late 80s.



theres a few around, been keeping some time up in a new C172 recently, well, its probably past 100 hours by now. and the C182 we took to tasmania last year only had about 300 hours on it.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Cessna just announce the delivery of the 10,000 "Restart" piston aircraft. So 10,000 aircraft comprising 3 models over the last 18 years.

In the year 1979 Cessna produced 17,000 piston aircraft comprising 41 models....

[Ultralights]

http://www.719skvadron.no/images/dhc6/DHC-4-01-640.jpg
Always loved the bou..

http://allaircraft.net/4images/data/media/659/oy-grf-002-01.jpg
flew in one of these long ago, the take off acceleration was phenomenal, off the ground in about 500 mtrs. if i won a huge lotto win, or was super rich, would have one as my personal aircraft to tour Oz in.

[27/09]

Cessna just announce the delivery of the 10,000 "Restart" piston aircraft. So 10,000 aircraft comprising 3 models over the last 18 years.

In the year 1979 Cessna produced 17,000 piston aircraft comprising 41 models....

These figures are a stark reminder as to how much GA has shrunk.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

It has to be this..... Beautiful!!!!

http://www.modelflight.regheath.com/mf150/images/gcproctorreal.jpg

[Horatio Leafblower]

Quote:
Cessna just announce the delivery of the 10,000 "Restart" piston aircraft. So 10,000 aircraft comprising 3 models over the last 18 years.

In the year 1979 Cessna produced 17,000 piston aircraft comprising 41 models....
These figures are a stark reminder as to how much GA has shrunk.

Amazing isn't it? The CASA -Haters would have you believe that Australia is the only place in the world with declining GA, because CASA is killing it off....

[Howard Hughes]

Haters would have you believe that Australia is the only place in the world with declining GA, because CASA is killing it off....
CASA is only picking at the carcass that was left behind by lawyers and insurance companies! ;)

[halas]

All those that say the 210 should return....mmmeeeee.
It was nice to fly but in the tropics it was not a comfortable machine with all the wing flex in turbulence exacerbating the whole experience.

Been lucky to fly a brand new 777. The smell is amaaaazing! No BO!

halas