Medevac Aircraft Required
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Medevac Aircraft Required
Have a client looking for a Medevac Aircraft with 1500 - 2000nm range, easily convertible to corporate config.
Requirements for 1 casualty, 3 medics, Oxygen, Ventilator,Defibrillator etc.
Any ideas on suitable aircraft?
Requirements for 1 casualty, 3 medics, Oxygen, Ventilator,Defibrillator etc.
Any ideas on suitable aircraft?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Learjet 45.
1,800 nm range - arguably 2,000.
Room for two stretchers, one definately.
Three medics + stretcher OK.
$10m.
Older aircraft.
Hawker 700.
Similar range.
Room for two stretchers. Loading over the wing through the emergency exit - a bit of a nuisance.
Three medics + relative.
$5-7m. Probably less with the US recession.
I thought you were an Aviation Analyst though?!
1,800 nm range - arguably 2,000.
Room for two stretchers, one definately.
Three medics + stretcher OK.
$10m.
Older aircraft.
Hawker 700.
Similar range.
Room for two stretchers. Loading over the wing through the emergency exit - a bit of a nuisance.
Three medics + relative.
$5-7m. Probably less with the US recession.
I thought you were an Aviation Analyst though?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those of you that replied overtly and covertly, thanks very much.
I am now the keeper of a number of specs.
Lear 35 + 55's the order of the day I feel.
I am now the keeper of a number of specs.
Lear 35 + 55's the order of the day I feel.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Uranus
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daifly,
Many years ago I did a lot of ambulance flying in Hawker 700's and never once had to use the overwing exit for loading. Also this same plane would be put back into exec. config very quickly. The medics on board always used to prefer the 125 over the Lears because of its extra space and headroom. I've never flown a Lear but for the description given at the top of this thread I would think a Hawker is hard to beat.
Cheers.
Many years ago I did a lot of ambulance flying in Hawker 700's and never once had to use the overwing exit for loading. Also this same plane would be put back into exec. config very quickly. The medics on board always used to prefer the 125 over the Lears because of its extra space and headroom. I've never flown a Lear but for the description given at the top of this thread I would think a Hawker is hard to beat.
Cheers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Stressfree,
Interesting one that - certainly there are two in the UK on HOSP work that load through the emergency exit. Perhaps it's to do with the bar/baggage store area on those particular aircraft?
LGW Vulture
I'd be intrigued to see the costs involved in making the 35 EGPWS/TCAS/RVSM equipped - it's the reason why most European operators are getting rid of them. I think the 55's probably got enough room to add all the kit - if it wasn't in there already?
Interesting one that - certainly there are two in the UK on HOSP work that load through the emergency exit. Perhaps it's to do with the bar/baggage store area on those particular aircraft?
LGW Vulture
I'd be intrigued to see the costs involved in making the 35 EGPWS/TCAS/RVSM equipped - it's the reason why most European operators are getting rid of them. I think the 55's probably got enough room to add all the kit - if it wasn't in there already?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daifly - Not too concerned about European regs, but you're right, the Lear 55 has just about everything and at the right price.
Not sure about the corporate config interior of 700's these days, they always look a little dated to me.
Not sure about the corporate config interior of 700's these days, they always look a little dated to me.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Uranus
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning Daifly,
I expect youre right, if there are the usual obstructions around the 125 door then the overwing could be your only choice. I must have been lucky.I spent years flying 125's and always found them solid and reliable.
All the best.
I expect youre right, if there are the usual obstructions around the 125 door then the overwing could be your only choice. I must have been lucky.I spent years flying 125's and always found them solid and reliable.
All the best.
Grandpa Aerotart
I am currently flying a Falcon 200 on Medivac ops all over South East Asia with the odd trip to the ME.
2000+nm range.
2 life ports,2 medical crew and 3 relatives.
A real seperate toilet at the rear.
A good size galley.
Good size external baggage.
Easily made RVSM/RNP10 etc, many are already.
EFIS/TCAS and Dual FMS basically standard fit.
Cruise up to FL410/Mach .80
Fantastic payload/range from short runways.
10 for sale world wide, 5 mill would see you into a reasonably low time mid 80s model.
Yes they cost probably USD250.00 more in MSP Gold costs than some comparable midsize corporate jets but capital costs are low and therefor lease costs.
Any older Hawkers will send you broke on airframe maintenance alone.
Our medical crews occasionally go out in a LR35 when the Falcon is on a trip or in for maintenance. In their opinion if a patient suffers a coronary or some such in flight all they can do is sit back and hope they don't suffer long, there is no room to work over a patient in a LR35. There is no room for ANYTHING in a LR35. LR35 RVSM approval expensive and problematic. RNP10 approval almost impossible as no room for dual approved area nav equipment. LR55 a little better but capital costs much higher. LR45 a very good aeroplane but over operating costs almost identical to Falcon 200 due to the capital costs. i.e. LR45 lease payments USD100,000.00/mth, DA200 USD49000.00/mth. We average 50-60hours/mth, I'll leave you to calculate the difference in capital costs as an hourly rate!!
DA200, a truly great little jet.
Yes I'm biased
Chuck.
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
2000+nm range.
2 life ports,2 medical crew and 3 relatives.
A real seperate toilet at the rear.
A good size galley.
Good size external baggage.
Easily made RVSM/RNP10 etc, many are already.
EFIS/TCAS and Dual FMS basically standard fit.
Cruise up to FL410/Mach .80
Fantastic payload/range from short runways.
10 for sale world wide, 5 mill would see you into a reasonably low time mid 80s model.
Yes they cost probably USD250.00 more in MSP Gold costs than some comparable midsize corporate jets but capital costs are low and therefor lease costs.
Any older Hawkers will send you broke on airframe maintenance alone.
Our medical crews occasionally go out in a LR35 when the Falcon is on a trip or in for maintenance. In their opinion if a patient suffers a coronary or some such in flight all they can do is sit back and hope they don't suffer long, there is no room to work over a patient in a LR35. There is no room for ANYTHING in a LR35. LR35 RVSM approval expensive and problematic. RNP10 approval almost impossible as no room for dual approved area nav equipment. LR55 a little better but capital costs much higher. LR45 a very good aeroplane but over operating costs almost identical to Falcon 200 due to the capital costs. i.e. LR45 lease payments USD100,000.00/mth, DA200 USD49000.00/mth. We average 50-60hours/mth, I'll leave you to calculate the difference in capital costs as an hourly rate!!
DA200, a truly great little jet.
Yes I'm biased
Chuck.
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the biggests problems I have with the Falcon 200 is the engines. Yes, there is presently MSP available, but I have heard rumors that the day the US Coast Guard parks their last Falcon, Garrett will stop supporting the engine. There are not enough of those engines out there for anyone to consider supporting it on their own.
I have done medievacs for many years. Generally the patient is stable before they leave for transport. Even when they are being moved from poor care to a much better facility, they are more or less stable before moving.
So a Lear would be usable. My experience with medical teams are that they wouldn't be happy unless they were in a BBJ with a full surgical suite.
I have done medievacs for many years. Generally the patient is stable before they leave for transport. Even when they are being moved from poor care to a much better facility, they are more or less stable before moving.
So a Lear would be usable. My experience with medical teams are that they wouldn't be happy unless they were in a BBJ with a full surgical suite.
Grandpa Aerotart
Interesting point about support for the ATF3! How far away is the CG from parking their aircraft I wonder? Still you could probably re-engine with the TFE731 and still not have spent as much as a new 800xp and the Falcon is the better aeroplane, IMHO.
Chuck.
Chuck.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere south of the north pole!
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW:
There is a company in Copenhagen, Denmark who operates a Learjet 35 and Citation I & II for medivac flights all over the world. The Learjet has extended range and can easily do 2000 nm (I've heard
). Very reasonable pricing to 
.
Check out www.northflying.com
Good luck!
Will
There is a company in Copenhagen, Denmark who operates a Learjet 35 and Citation I & II for medivac flights all over the world. The Learjet has extended range and can easily do 2000 nm (I've heard
). Very reasonable pricing to .Check out www.northflying.com
Good luck!
Will
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my understanding that the Coast Guard already has a few HU25's in storage at Davis Motham (Boneyard). While it may be a few years before the last one is parked, it is coming. As for a 731 conversion, it isn't economicly fesable. Besides I don't think the 731 has enough growth in it to push that heavy an aircraft. And the 200 is heavy.
Avcon has a mod for the Lear 35 and 36 to expand the fuel load about 800 pounds. They expand the tip tanks about 18 inches. The full mod also adds delta fins and increases the max take off and landing weights. It may also increase the zero fuel weight. Garrett has a mod to the 731-2 to increase the power, I believe it is the -2C mod. And I have heard that there is an STC in the works to put -3's on the 35 and 36.
Avcon has a mod for the Lear 35 and 36 to expand the fuel load about 800 pounds. They expand the tip tanks about 18 inches. The full mod also adds delta fins and increases the max take off and landing weights. It may also increase the zero fuel weight. Garrett has a mod to the 731-2 to increase the power, I believe it is the -2C mod. And I have heard that there is an STC in the works to put -3's on the 35 and 36.
Grandpa Aerotart
There is lot's of modded Falcon 20s with 731s, the later 20Fs are very similar to the 200 airframe wise 
As to whether it's worth it from a financial point of view, that's another question. If it can be done for less than 12mill all up it probably is if you operate from less than about 6000' of black top.
Chuck
As to whether it's worth it from a financial point of view, that's another question. If it can be done for less than 12mill all up it probably is if you operate from less than about 6000' of black top.
Chuck
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimba, the problem here in the USA is that there have been serveral rule changes in 14CFR Part 25 in the recent past. I understand the FAA is now saying that if you make a major change in an aircraft you have to meet the current regulations completely. So it makes a certification program expensive. For a few aircraft, it is outside the resources of a small company. As for weight, I don't have the figures in front of me, I am of the understanding that the 200 is considerably heavier than the 20F. I do know that the construction is much different in the 200 than the 20's.
As for the 200/20 being better than the Hawker. I personally diagree. I have operated both as a pilot and as a manager. Both are very fine flying machines. But maintenance wise, the Hawker is much easier to maintain. Granted I was not operating the latest or greatest of either aircraft. The 20 was s/n 16 at the time the highest time 20 in the world (27,000 hrs) and the Hawker was a 600 fan. There is something positive to be said about "KISS" "Keep It Simple Stupid".
As for the 200/20 being better than the Hawker. I personally diagree. I have operated both as a pilot and as a manager. Both are very fine flying machines. But maintenance wise, the Hawker is much easier to maintain. Granted I was not operating the latest or greatest of either aircraft. The 20 was s/n 16 at the time the highest time 20 in the world (27,000 hrs) and the Hawker was a 600 fan. There is something positive to be said about "KISS" "Keep It Simple Stupid".