Caravan for ****** Airlines?

[Gnd Power]

Noticed in Cairns the other day a Cessna Caravan painted in ****** Airlines livery.

Considered it interesting to see a reasonable size 3rd level airline operating a single engine turbine.

Anyone shed a light on the routes it will operate and how they will crew it.

Has the Van come of age and now a contender and player in the airline game?

[compressor stall]

AirNorth used to have one on the RPT, with F/Os.

Good to see the van making it into the airline scene. Much safer than 30 year old 402's and chieftians.

[jerrry]

Does ****** = MAKAIR? (-K + C)

[Torres]

What is so remarkable about a decision to operate an aircraft on RPT services that:

* Provides optimum passenger comfort in a low capacity aircraft.
* Provides the lowest seat/mile cost of any aircraft in it's class.
* Has a demonstrated safety and reliability record which exceeds that of piston twin aircraft.
* Is very rugged and able to operate into unsealed airstrips as short as 400 meters.
* Is modern technology with minimum maintenance burden.
* Has a greater payload over a 250 nm sector than a DHC6-300 Twin Otter or Embraer EMB110 Bandeirante.
* Has a range in excess of 1,000 nm.
* Is simple to operate, no vices and a delight to fly.
* Powered by the greatest small turbine to ever turn and burn.

I could go on, and on, and on - but I think that will give you enough to argue over for now.

Caravans, flying cash registers - LOVE THEM!!!!! :ok: :ok:

Cheers

Torres

(Edited to mention that the above "Dot Points" are from personal experience, not the Cessna sales brochure.)

[The Strez]

Apparently, one of the Cairns operators who already have "a couple of vans", will be doing the runs for ****** airlines to some of the lovely tourist destinations that they currently serve. This caravan is supposedly straight off the production line.
Great machine the ol' van. It is the ideal aircraft for these runs.

[Gnd Power]

Jerry,
you are right, MAKAIR (didn't realize ****** would be xxxxed out).

The Stez,
I gather from your post that those destination may be Dunk and Lizard. If that is the case am I right in thinking that the Caravan would be replacing the Otter.

Torres,
you surprise me, a whole 11 hrs + to reply and expound the values and virtues of the 208.

Regards

[Meeb]

To reiterate Ground powers question, will these aircraft be operated single crew or with a rated (or unrated) first officer?

[Torres]

Gnd Power. Yeah, I was a bit slow off the mark there! :}

But look at it this way - it's been 24 hours and not one of the usual posts about single engine safety etc, etc, etc, from the multi engine brigade.

Meeb. Unless the resort owners stipulated two crew, I would think the 'Vans would operate single pilot, nine pax seat limit. But that's only a guess.

[Loving-Life]

Torres, I couldn't agree with you more about the van...fantastic aircraft for what we do with them. In fact we are looking at another one and so far have clocked up over 20,000 hours with the others that we have! The company wouldn't be where it is today were it not for their reliability, load carrying ability (you try getting 7-8 pax and 300 kg of freight in a 402/Chiefy), easy maintenance, passenger appeal, ease for pilot training and operation but most of all because of their cheap operating costs. The only improvement I would make is maybe an extra 100-150 HP up front to give it a bit more go when heavy and hot plus an extra 15-20 kts cruise.

However I do have a beef with them. I have nearly 1000 hrs PIC on vans and you know how much use those hours are to me?? Zipo!! The reason being that they are in the wrong column in my logbook! Doesn't matter that the aircraft is more sophisticated than most GA twins, costs 10 times more to purchase, carries more than any GA twin and has a Turbine up front. I would be better off (according to all the operators I have talked to about jobs) with 500 BS hrs in a seminole/duchess!! I fail to see how IFR RPT experience in a van is not as good as flying circuits in a Duchess as an instructor!! Getting a job with S/E turbine hours is like pulling teeth even with an operator who flies vans!! Every one wants 300 - 500 multi (or more in some cases) and no-one is prepared to look at you unless you have that figure. Don't tell me that it is an insurance requirement because I know better than that. I understand that some contracts require min twin hours for mining etc. but there are also ways around that as well.

This may sound bitter but is not, rather I am frustrated that people don't recognise the value in SE turbine hours, particularly some of the bigger operators/regionals. I love flying the van but like all pilots want to fly the bigger better plane, its just very difficult finding an operator who will give me the chance. My advice to pilots seeking work, get the twin hours first before looking for S/E turbine expereince (if you want it!).

[Torres]

Loving Life. I understand where you are coming from. Many operators (RPT and charter) have a mind set about a 500 hour multi engine bench mark. In my opinion, your IFR experience in an ASETPA approved single turbine aircraft operating RPT is far more valuable to airlines than ME time. My son is in a similar position - 3,000 hours, Grade 1 Instructor (with META and IFR training approval), 100 hours C208B, over 1,000 hours remote area (C206 and Bongo Vans) - but only 300 multi!

Perhaps your covering letter of application should place greater emphasis on your RPT, IFR and turbine experience?

Interesting question about the PT6A-114/114A max power - I have a theory: The 'Van's 165 kts cruise speed (no pod) is almost comparable to the old piston clunkers (C402/PA31 etc); what is the max economical cruise speed for a Cessna, with stuts and fixed gear? (old formula: to double the speed, square the power); and there was no alternative, suitable "off the shelf" PT6A available with higher power output. The -114/114A family is a 900 HP core, but if pushed beyond the current 650 HP, ITT rises and reliability falls, and fuel burn and maintenance costs increase.

Of course, it could go faster if it had a simple, robust, rear swinging undercarriage. Come to think of it - that's been tried right here in Australia, resulting in a pod landing. Can't say who otherwise OzMate Hauler may get upset......... :} :} :} The conversion is very simple - reverse the undercarriage locking pins and bolts in the fuse trunion blocks.

:8

[The Strez]

Gnd Power

The van is going to be doing the "scenic" runs as well as the runs to Kowanyama and Pumpyatyre. All multicrew.

[maximus]

pumpyatyre , where on earth is that. Do you mean Pormpuraaw???

[Cyclic Hotline]

I echo everything Torres says here. The Caravan is a phenomenal aircraft.

The Caravan could certainly use a little more power, to round of the performance. The difficulty with the existing PT-6, is the -114A at 675HP, is the maximum performance that can be extracted from the single exhaust PT-6 configuration. Considering that they squeezed another 75HP from the basic -114, simply by changing the compresssor (from yet another dash number), they have done pretty well with it!

Although I am personally sold on the PT-6, - they are fabulous engines, - there are a number of major modifications for the Caravan in the works.

Aerotwin (http://www.aerotwin.com/newslet/index.html) has a 850HP Garrett (sorry Honeywell) conversion out there. They are very happy with this installation and the performance. A friend of mine has just purchased a Garrett powered Otter, and he seems highly satisfied. Not my favourite motor, but maybe I'm wrong?

Soloy (http://www.soloy.com/CV42/Caravan-42_files/slide0041.htm)is sticking to the PT-6, but tackling the not insignificant challenge of installing a dual exhaust model. Again 850HP.

The most recent entrant is A.O.G Air Support (http://www.aogair.com/index.html) who are developing some very interesting mods. They are going to produce the first STOL kit for the Van, which will be of interest to many operators. They are also going to re-engine the Caravan with the 750 HP Walter M601. They are preparing to start their flight test programme in the near future. It is amazing that the Van has been out this long without a significant STOL kit being available.

The Caravan is really only starting out in it's career and is probably (no, definitely) going to go into history as one of the most significant developments in Aviation history.

If your competition buys one and you don't have one - be worried!;)

[scud_runner]

I wouldn't be to worried is our competitors bought a Caravan because it is not a twin. Passengers want twin engine aircraft and that is that. I agree that a van is a fantastic aircraft and safer than a 1970's Chieften. HOWEVER, the customer is always right and if the customer wants twins then that's what he wants!!! Doesn't matter how good or safe vans are.......... customers are ALWAYS RIGHT!!!! I don't think you'll be seeing to many Government or Mining companies employees piling into a Caravan in the near future. Hopefully that attitude will change but from my experience they would rather be in a piston twin than a van.

[Torres]

Cyclic. No prizes for guessing who is a major share holder in Walter - PWC! However, I would imagine the demonstrated reliability part of ASETPA approval would preclude a Walter engines 'Van being approved for IFR and RPT in Australia. I'm sure you would be aware of the hang up the Regulator has about Soviet Block aircraft and engines........

I think Soloy are hung up on their first twin pac conversion. Not sure I can see the economics of a twin pac 'Van.

scud. You obviously have no perception of passenger, politician, public servant and mining staff acceptance of the Caravan. I operated 'Vans for over four years and in that time don't recall one single passenger comment about it being a single engine aircraft.

You are sprouting hogs wash about public servants, mining staff and politicians refusing to ride on the aircraft............ Two Caravans are owned by mining or mining related companies in Australia. Two Caravans are owned by a Police Force and regularly transport senior Police, the Commissioner and Minister for Police and mebers of the Force. (Hi Hauler :ok: )

In my experience, the following have travelled on Caravans which I operated: The Governor General of Australia, a number of Federal Ministers, most Queensland State Ministers, a plethora of politicians, numerous Public Servants of varying degrees of self importance - including the Director of CASA, the odd Ambassador or two, more deportees than I care to remember (internationally, over water!) along with their Federal and State Police guards, loads of illegal immigrants, with their guards ...... and of course, those you say won't elect to travel in the aircraft, thousands of happy passengers on both RPT and charter service.

Don't let your ignorance show........ :\

[sprocket]

Most pax will get in whatever A/C that is going to get them to their destination, even metros. :D
It is true ( and I guess most of us are aware) that mines and other contracted flying, have specified for multi engine A/C and some will probably continue to do so.

Torres : How do I disable that annoying "ching ching" sound (like a cash register) whenever I turn the door handle of a 'Van?:ooh:

[Torres]

Sprocket. Don't touch that!!! That is normal and indeed is a no go item on the MEL!

If it really worries you, remove the cash draw (inside no 2 compartment of the pod), empty mountain of cash, reinstall and lock wire! :ok:

'Van's - the most fun you can have with your pants on. And that's only the accountant's opinion!

[TurboOtter]

I agree with all you guys.

I sucks flying a machine that has everything and more than a small twin yet the big boys don't even know what a van is!!

THe general public a startng to love the van, scud runner you mentioned that we would never see a mining company in a van, well for your info I am driving a van for a mining company and they love, in fact a few other sites are looking at it.

Torres I agree with 400% percent.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I'm curious, how does the van stack up against a PC-12 in weight, range, payload and performance?

CS

[Torres]

Snoozer. That's like comparing a race horse to a draft horse - horses for courses! But you touched on another of my favourite aircraft, the Pilatus PC12 which really aims at the B200/B350/Citation II market, at a fraction of the capital and operating cost. The PC12 is faster than the B200, with better payload and greater range than the B200 and Citation II.

The Caravan aims at the very broad C402/PA31/C404, Twin Otter and Bandit markets.

I don't know current prices, but the the Van was around US$1.8 megabucks; PC12 around US$2.9 megabucks; B200 around US$4.0 megabucks and the B350 around US$5.0 megabucks.

Here's some comparisons:

Cabin Volume:
C208B: 340 cubic feet
PC12: 330 cubic feet

Maximum Range:
208B: 6.0 hours, 1000 miles
PC12: 2,261 nm/4190 kms

Cruise Speed:
208B: 180 m.p.h.
PC12: 270 KTAS

:8

[Black Maria]

Snoozer

I dragged the following figures out from my flight planning program which includes a data base of sample aircraft.

I Can vouch for the 208 (Grand Caravan) figures but I have no personal knowledge of the PC12.

There are a couple of kits available for the Van that increases the Ramp and MTOW. One I know of increases Ramp to 4076kg whilst the other even more. Don't know if this type of mod is available for the PC12 or not.

Empty Wt:
C208: 2400 kg
PC12: 3040 kg

ZFW:
C208: 3969 kg
PC12: 3700 kg

Ramp Wt:
C208: 3985 kg
PC12: 4120 kg

TOW:
C208: 3969 kg
PC12: 4100 kg

LW:
C208: 3856 kg
PC12: 4100 kg

FUEL CAP:
C208: 2224 lbs (1000kg)
PC12: 2674 lbs (1215kg)

FUEL FLOW:
C208: 330 lbs/hr (around 9/1000 feet)
PC12: 400 lbs/hr (mid 20's)

TAS:
C208: 155 kts
PC12: 250kts

SEATING:
C208: 13 Pax seat (single pilot) in the "international option".
PC12: Don't know.

As Torres said, horses for courses, From what I have been told the C208 into Mabuiag Island (400m) would certainly be more preferable than the PC12 but the extra speed, cruising levels etc of the PC12 would be an attractive option for longer legs, when runway lengths are not super short and you don't need 13 pax on board.

[Torres]

Black Maria. I think all the 'Vans in Australia have the increased gross weight kit. There are/were two kits, however the highest gross weight kit (was US$10,000+) is only practical on very long range ops, as ZFW and landing weight don't increase.

Ahhh. Yes, Mabuiag. 400 meters of mud and slush in the wet season, although I heard it was being or will be extended. A 'Van will go into Mabuiag at the original length (400 meters) with seven pax, but the day a PC12 goes into Mabuiag I want to be there with a camera. Should make for some spectacular photographs.......

Incidentally, the original 'Van concept was that payload should equal empty weight - i.e. payload half max gross weight - but it has grown a little in empty weight since then. The Soloy Twin Pac, from memory, is 12,500 pounds gross, on the original undercarriage.

The new one in Cairns joins another two with the same operator. The only thing better than one 'Van - is two Vans (or in their case, three! :}

:8

[Chronic Snoozer]

I know the -12 a little but not the 'van'. But it seems somewhat like chalk and cheese. Both have that fantastic PW engine though. Has anyone here flown both?

Cheers.

CS

[Jatz]

all this caravan talk is making me really homesick!

Jatz G.A.L.A - but at least half of it was turbine :D

[neville_nobody]

Gee Torres I think that you better come and have a chat to a few of our customers!!!!!!! The company I work for has lost two mining contracts basically because we replaced 402's with C208's. We also lost alot of government work as well because they would not fly in a single engine aircraft turbine or not.

Both the mining companies switch aviation companies and now fly in a 25 year old 402 instead of a 5 year old C208. I also know for a fact that these an operator was going to cross hire our C208 for a job because the load won't fit in the 402 but was told by the mining company that they won't travel in a C208!!!!!!!!!!!

I once did a charter for some government people whoose piston twin had broken down in the sticks and 'as a last resort' hired our C208. The passengers loved the aircraft and commented how comfortable it was but said they would never hire one normally as it wasn't twin. Even when I gave them a speel on engine trebd monitoring, GPS & the benefits of turbines they still were not convinced!!

I also know of an operator who was going to replace a PA-31 with a C208 but was advised by the government contractor that if he did that then he would lose his contract as it had to be a 'twin engine' aircraft.

So maybe it is time that Cessna went on a bit of an education campaign and get a few of the decision makers onside about how safe ASEPTA is compared to 20 year old piston twins!!!

[Torres]

Nifty Nev:

"So maybe it is time that Cessna went on a bit of an education campaign and get a few of the decision makers onside about how safe ASEPTA is compared to 20 year old piston twins!!!"

Call 1800 CESSNA and ask for their esteemed Sales Manager, tell him the problem and ask him to contact Torres if he won't get his finger out. I have no problems helping to educate the unwashed masses! I have had some success in changing Government policy on single turbine engine aircraft.:p

Harvey, you obviously aren't doing your job there Old Son! :hmm:

DISCLAIMER: I am not and never have been employed by any Cessna company, subsidiary or Agent. For all my efforts to promote their fine aircraft all I ever got was a free T Shirt! But you gotta admit, absolutely nothing beats a 'Van in it's class!!! :ok:

[Loving-Life]

Hey Mister Nobody!

How goes it??

Unfortunately the story about the old piston twins being more favourable to the s/e turbines is a legacy of old statistics and dumb insurance companies!! Interestingly though some more recent statistics I read in B/C A would tend to indicate that the S/E turbine is approaching the same safety level as M/E turbine aircraft and far exceeds the safety levels of M/E pistons! Amazes me that people still refuse to understand!!

Torres - as you say Mr Cessna does need to pull the finger out, however I have heard rumours that the boss down there has been trying to convince the RAAA of the merits of the S/E turbines. Not sure how successful he was though. Me thinks it will be one of those long drawn out battles...much like the ASETPA battle is - although I think we are finally getting the upper hand with that one!

[Torres]

Harvey, I know you're watching.

Prooners are saying you aren't doing your job! :{

Get your act together son, and extol the virtues of Mr Cessna's greatest to the great unwashed masses!:*

Loving-Life. I am aware of a B/C A survey some time ago which verified the reliability (through in flight engine failure per 100,000 hours) of certain PT6 engines (including the -114/-114A and -67R) in certain airframe installations and confirmed the failure rate on these engines was less than the double engine failure rate on certain multi engine aircraft with early versions of Brand X turbines. Whilst I appreciate Brand X's later engines (-10, -11 and -12) seem to be reliable, the pre -8 engines weren't all too flash!

The double engine failure rate on multi piston engine aircraft wasn't in the race against the single PT6A-114/114A engine.

But the inescapable fact is machine reliability is a product of adequate and correct maintenance.

[Motor Plane Driver]

Here are some actual facts. The PC12 is slower than the B200.
The B200 S/E TAS : 275 kts, The PC12/45 TAS : 250 Kts
The /45 stands for the fact the MTOW & MLW on the PC has been increased from 4100kg to 4500kg and MZFW is 4100kg.
:rolleyes:

[Torres]

"The B200 S/E TAS : 275 kts"

Motor Plane Driver: what is the "S/E"? 275 kts TAS is rather a slippery B200!

[Motor Plane Driver]

It is a Super Kingair B200 Special Edition ( EFIS model ), 275 kts ( mid to high twenty's ). Old B200's are around the 250 kts.

[Sheep Guts]

Caravan is workable and is proven. Torres totally agree. Where I am in the Carbbean and in the Central America Reason, they are doing very well indeed. Operators are payin them off and buying or leasing more and more. Once you own them cause these days there around 2.5uSD a piece you a re really on top. But until then ot can be a struggle. In Australia thats why some of the intitial Operators had trouble with them. Once over this hurdle, it should be all singing and Dancing.

Me well Im an Otter and and King Air man, but hey I just found out my Company here in the Carib is me Otter home to Canada and we are getting THE ROYAL. Hey Torres know of positions for me in The Straits. HAVE CARAVAN GRND SCHOOL if thats any consilation. 600TWOTTER Multi Crew Command and 1400C90 COMMAND.


Regards
Sheep:( :{ :( :{ :ugh:


Lost sheep in Jamiaca maybe coming home......................:( :* :hmm:

Motor plane driver . SoRry mate but your dreaming with those speeds. More like the S/E Tas would be around 210-200 and normally they run around 250 -260 tops absolute temped out at alt.

Stallie please back me on this.

275 is MU2 or TurboCommander or Conquest Speeds Mate.


Regards
Sheep

Even B350 AND B1900 Bolck at 260 Plan.

DREAMING. By the way depends alot in Altitude with TAS eh?

[The Strez]

Sheep Guts

B200 SE only 210 - 200 kts????? Think you may be thinking of the C90!!!

The B200 SE definately 270 - 275 kts TAS. The older B200's with -42 engines TAS around 250 - 260kts. The -41 engined B200's between 240 - 250kts. These speeds are achieved with an ITT of 750C for the -42(max 800C), 700C with the -41(max 750C) and around the FL250 mark.

I flew a B200 out of Cairns with a cargo pod and -42 engines and that still had a TAS of around 245kts.

And a PC12 doing 250kts TAS?? Hmmm think that might be a bit optimistic. I believe our company plans around a 230 - 240kt TAS. Anyway, a B200 is faster than a PC12. Even so, I'm looking forward to having a pole of the PC12 when we eventually get one sent to our base.

I should also note that the B200's that I have flown have all had various Reisbeck mods done, so maybe that makes a slight difference with regards to TAS.

[Torres]

What engine is in the B200 SE? PT6A-42? If so, how do they get the 10% increase in TAS?

[Sheep Guts]

Sorry Motor miss read you thought SE was for Single Engine

How new are these SE s? Have you flown one? They must have more grunt surely? As the Jaguar edition C90 has -21 engines uprated I believe.

PC-12 are SLOW no doubt about that. C90 speeds vary if you have a New Jaguar Edition it will TAS 230 been told. Never had the luxury.

All the C90s and B90S and A90s, that Ive flown, are around 200kts depends on weight ie if your heavy or not

I used to A90s on a 1060nm leg regularly once a week return so thats 2120nm a week. At max weight you would start off at around 180 TAS at FL210 then Climb half way to FL230 and start Tasing around 190 then 250 to go Tas 200-205

Was a max temp and Best Fuel burn 350Lbs /hr. I know sounds too hard on the engine, but I worked for a Company that had bought the entire US Army inventory of parts so PT6A-20s were a plenty.

These SE models must be fairly new. And must cost a packet especially now when a new BARON is around 1 Mil USD

[Torres]

Sheep. They'll need the US Army inventory of -20 parts! Parts are getting hard to find and -20's have a habit of burning up hot sections well before normal TBO (1,200 hours?)

I recall seeing an original A90 in Manila with an original PT6A-nothing. No reverse.