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.

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

Thanks for the gouge
 

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

all this caravan talk is making me really homesick!

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

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!!!

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:

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!

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.

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:

"The B200 S/E TAS : 275 kts"

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.