Caravan for ****** Airlines?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caravan for ****** Airlines?
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?
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?
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.
Good to see the van making it into the airline scene. Much safer than 30 year old 402's and chieftians.
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!!!!!
Cheers
Torres
(Edited to mention that the above "Dot Points" are from personal experience, not the Cessna sales brochure.)
* 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!!!!!
Cheers
Torres
(Edited to mention that the above "Dot Points" are from personal experience, not the Cessna sales brochure.)
Last edited by Torres; 27th Jun 2003 at 11:15.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: FL250
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Great machine the ol' van. It is the ideal aircraft for these runs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Crew composition?
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!).
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!).
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.
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.
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 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 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 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!
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 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 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 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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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 )
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........
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
)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........
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most pax will get in whatever A/C that is going to get them to their destination, even metros. 
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?
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?
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!
'Van's - the most fun you can have with your pants on. And that's only the accountant's opinion!
If it really worries you, remove the cash draw (inside no 2 compartment of the pod), empty mountain of cash, reinstall and lock wire!
'Van's - the most fun you can have with your pants on. And that's only the accountant's opinion!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sometimes here usual out there!
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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