Best aircraft for the job?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Guys, all really useful thoughts.
Glass cockpit was as much a thought for re-sale value as for current operation. Pressurisation not really an issue as the sector length of 250 nm is probably the tops for us currently. We are doing 150 nm at the moment.
A jet probably isn't the way ahead for the same reasons.
Avanti? Great idea but I think above our budget and field performance perhaps isn't as good as more conventional aeroplanes?(would take advice here)
If I was to say we would settle for 3 pax and pilot, would anybody recommend the DA42NG Twinstar?
We currently run out of an 800m tarmac strip on private operations. If we go to a C90, which we have looked at or even a Baron, we need to change our operation to larger, less convenient operations. I realise I am asking a lot of an aeroplane and this is currently the only light twin that can do this, allbeit with limitations.
Is it me, or has the new light twin market evaporated?
Glass cockpit was as much a thought for re-sale value as for current operation. Pressurisation not really an issue as the sector length of 250 nm is probably the tops for us currently. We are doing 150 nm at the moment.
A jet probably isn't the way ahead for the same reasons.
Avanti? Great idea but I think above our budget and field performance perhaps isn't as good as more conventional aeroplanes?(would take advice here)
If I was to say we would settle for 3 pax and pilot, would anybody recommend the DA42NG Twinstar?
We currently run out of an 800m tarmac strip on private operations. If we go to a C90, which we have looked at or even a Baron, we need to change our operation to larger, less convenient operations. I realise I am asking a lot of an aeroplane and this is currently the only light twin that can do this, allbeit with limitations.
Is it me, or has the new light twin market evaporated?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
402C? Cheap to buy, easy to fly, engines not as tricky as the geared monsters on the 404, 421 etc., truly spacious for just 3 pax, tough workhorse, acceptable performance for what it is (please note: C model, not B!) The higher per-hour fuel cost being negated by the much cheaper purchase-price, as compared to the finicky diesel-job. (Twinstar)
Last edited by Doodlebug; 6th Jul 2010 at 11:33. Reason: Added 'Twinstar'
@JonSeagull:
Regarding the DA42, have you considered MaxGross-EmptyWeight? With 4 people and reasonable fuel, not much left for luggage.
Also I have some misgivings about cockpit space, but I have never been inside. It does look smallish, though.
That said, I think the price/cost of acquisition must be hefty; lower cost of operation might offset this, if enough hours are flown.
And yes, twin pistons are more and more replaced by single turboprops à la PA46 / TBM700 / PC12.
Regarding the DA42, have you considered MaxGross-EmptyWeight? With 4 people and reasonable fuel, not much left for luggage.
Also I have some misgivings about cockpit space, but I have never been inside. It does look smallish, though.
That said, I think the price/cost of acquisition must be hefty; lower cost of operation might offset this, if enough hours are flown.
And yes, twin pistons are more and more replaced by single turboprops à la PA46 / TBM700 / PC12.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though you are only going 250 miles, don't discount the benefits of pressurization. Along with pressurization, you will find that the aircraft is more capable in other ways. DeIcing will become the norm and the ability to easily deal with some icing or other nasty wx is really a nice thing.
That being said, I would look hard at a Pilatus. True, it's a single, but as has been said here earlier, the PT6 is pretty much bullet proof. I know Europe has issues with single engine ops for commercial use, and I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of that, so of course it might be a big consideration for you. Personally, I feel much safer flying a single engine turboprop over a twin piston. And of course not that I would ever want it to happen, but the Pilatus has some very good crash-worthiness built into it. I have a friend that calls it a Swiss watch built inside of a tank!
Max gross weight at sea level, runway required is around 2,300 feet. Would easily carry 6 pax for 250 miles. Want to carry 4 pax and loads of cargo? Pull out the 2 rear seats and put in a pallet full of whatever!
Compare the cabin size with a Baron or even a C90 King Air. There is no comparison. The PC-12 has a flat floor, nice headroom and one of the quietest cabins around.
The new ones are full glass cockpits, but the older ones are kind of a mish mash of glass and steam. Still, a VERY easy airplane to fly, and tons of performance for the cost.
The way the used airplane market it now, if you can swing it, it is a great time to buy more capibility than you currently need. It has always amazed me that once you get a more capable aircraft, the owners will find a way to use that capability. I tell my boss that with a faster/bigger airplane, his "sphere of influence" grows that much more. Destinations that weren't even thought of before now become common place, and so his business grows because of that. Don't know if it works for everyone, but it has served me well so far.
As far as a Piaggio, it's a great airplane, but the purchase price hasn't dropped much (at least here in the US), and the runway required is actually quite a bit. I have a friend that flies them, and his company needs a minimum of 4 to 5 thousand feet.
That being said, I would look hard at a Pilatus. True, it's a single, but as has been said here earlier, the PT6 is pretty much bullet proof. I know Europe has issues with single engine ops for commercial use, and I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of that, so of course it might be a big consideration for you. Personally, I feel much safer flying a single engine turboprop over a twin piston. And of course not that I would ever want it to happen, but the Pilatus has some very good crash-worthiness built into it. I have a friend that calls it a Swiss watch built inside of a tank!
Max gross weight at sea level, runway required is around 2,300 feet. Would easily carry 6 pax for 250 miles. Want to carry 4 pax and loads of cargo? Pull out the 2 rear seats and put in a pallet full of whatever!
Compare the cabin size with a Baron or even a C90 King Air. There is no comparison. The PC-12 has a flat floor, nice headroom and one of the quietest cabins around.
The new ones are full glass cockpits, but the older ones are kind of a mish mash of glass and steam. Still, a VERY easy airplane to fly, and tons of performance for the cost.
The way the used airplane market it now, if you can swing it, it is a great time to buy more capibility than you currently need. It has always amazed me that once you get a more capable aircraft, the owners will find a way to use that capability. I tell my boss that with a faster/bigger airplane, his "sphere of influence" grows that much more. Destinations that weren't even thought of before now become common place, and so his business grows because of that. Don't know if it works for everyone, but it has served me well so far.
As far as a Piaggio, it's a great airplane, but the purchase price hasn't dropped much (at least here in the US), and the runway required is actually quite a bit. I have a friend that flies them, and his company needs a minimum of 4 to 5 thousand feet.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern England
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you might have reliability problems with the DA42 and this no luggage space to talk of - if its 3 pax a Seneca VI or V might be the answer if thats the price range and you can get them glass
Easily operate out of 800m - although if you are back to a Seneca the 303 will take some beating as you have more legroom and cabin space if you can put up with an older machine - could also look at the P68C which is pretty economic for a twin and deiced (although speed isnt that brilliant it will happily operate out of grass strips with plenty of ground clearance and carry the weight well
I think you have hit on a real issue though - there is no light twin currently being built for the market and there is a gap
Easily operate out of 800m - although if you are back to a Seneca the 303 will take some beating as you have more legroom and cabin space if you can put up with an older machine - could also look at the P68C which is pretty economic for a twin and deiced (although speed isnt that brilliant it will happily operate out of grass strips with plenty of ground clearance and carry the weight well
I think you have hit on a real issue though - there is no light twin currently being built for the market and there is a gap
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 04°11′30″N 073°31′45″E
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baron 58 pressurized
- Fast 180-200kts (I have to see it before
)
- Pressurized
- 6 seats
- twin engine
- Can take off or land in relatively short strips
- Anti ice
- New version is with G1000
- Fast 180-200kts (I have to see it before
)- Pressurized
- 6 seats
- twin engine
- Can take off or land in relatively short strips
- Anti ice
- New version is with G1000
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C208B
Anyone can fly this bird, cheap and plenty of room on board. think new one comes with TV screens up front too. Not that you really need them. Think there are a few similar types around like the 208 now as well.
Anyone can fly this bird, cheap and plenty of room on board. think new one comes with TV screens up front too. Not that you really need them. Think there are a few similar types around like the 208 now as well.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
originally Posted by suitcaseman
JAR / ICAO etc, whatever regulations are clear about take-off and landing factors to be applied to aircraft performance tables / graph's for wet or dry conditions. If a jet, turbo-prop or any other pilot cannot take-off or land when those factors are applied to the aircraft's performance figures they should not be in possession of a pilots licence. If you are implying that pilots should be using un-factored distances you should not be in this industry.
JAR / ICAO etc, whatever regulations are clear about take-off and landing factors to be applied to aircraft performance tables / graph's for wet or dry conditions. If a jet, turbo-prop or any other pilot cannot take-off or land when those factors are applied to the aircraft's performance figures they should not be in possession of a pilots licence. If you are implying that pilots should be using un-factored distances you should not be in this industry.
If so you're wrong and if you're not what factors are you using or prepared to use when flying privately.
Dont know about you but I always enjoy getting the boss somewhere he couldn't go public transport and comfortably making the second from the end turnoff, especially when the following AOC operator arrives on the smell so he can "legally" land......so much for AOC safety
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aircraft
You might consider the Rockwell commander 1000, one with the new EFIS and auto pilot mode, comfortable for 6 pax, hi performance, single pilot, fast, efficient, and if in the future you need extended range, has the capability. The 1000 series was the best of the Commanders, and the company that is putting the full EFIS cockpit has also designed an autopilot to mate with the EFIS mode. 300+ knots, FL350 service ceiling, probably about 1 to 1.2 million, best guess. The 303 Cessna was underpowered, and had a short production life, due to its weaknesses.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suitcase man...nonsense...just because a Cessna test pilot can land a Citation Encore into a 3000 ft field, doesn't mean that a freshly typed Citation pilot should be going in and out of short fields...nor should a guy that has 10000 hours of Citation time fly into short strips if all he does is land at major airports...
If you want discuss flying Citations and turboprops out of 2500-3000 ft fields single pilot I am all ears as to your vast personal experience of flying single pilot in jets and turboprops into strips most pistons only go into...
What peeps also fail to realize is that many 2500-3k runways...don't have jet fuel...all the turboprop and jet captains in here, should have noted that right off....
ahh the internet...everyone is pilot behind a computer...
If you want discuss flying Citations and turboprops out of 2500-3000 ft fields single pilot I am all ears as to your vast personal experience of flying single pilot in jets and turboprops into strips most pistons only go into...
What peeps also fail to realize is that many 2500-3k runways...don't have jet fuel...all the turboprop and jet captains in here, should have noted that right off....
ahh the internet...everyone is pilot behind a computer...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you typical turboprop captain tries to land at 100 kts..he's gonna have a hard time stopping that King Air in 2500 ft...
To cut it short, landings in a B100, B200 or B90 or a Cheyenne 1 &2(all the TPs I ever flew apart from one trip in a MU2) are not the issue.
Total or partial loss of one engine during T/O roll or just after rotation, thats where a pilot/crew needs really to be sharp in a TP. Happened to me in pre simulator trainng years, had a bleed valve gone bad and the torque dropped to 1400 (from 2150-2200) and that was a handful even on a big (wide) runway. With training, not such a big issue anymore.
What peeps also fail to realize is that many 2500-3k runways...don't have jet fuel...all the turboprop and jet captains in here, should have noted that right off....
A lot of small fields in Europe do have Jet A1, in fact its easier to get than Avgas these days. With a B200 one could even tanker enough, depending on installed equipment (weight) of the airplane. Certainly poss with the B90 I flew, although I don´t have the number ready now, put a Raisbeck kit on and yer good to go.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just because a Cessna test pilot can land a Citation Encore into a 3000 ft field
No Pax. no fuel. cold air and sea level and you can take 1000 feet off that figure of 3000 feet but whats the point unless as in my case your putting it somewhere for cheap storage.
Its the takeoff which is the bigger concern. the 3 Hs heavy, hot and high and you will disappear through the trees.
4000 feet is a good ballpark
Pace
short, one way, nasty. but the KA200 does it.
Grise Fiord Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The KA200 doesn't do anything the best, there are faster, higher, farther, Stol'er, etc.... But dollar for dollar it is the best bet out there
Grise Fiord Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The KA200 doesn't do anything the best, there are faster, higher, farther, Stol'er, etc.... But dollar for dollar it is the best bet out there
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What nonsense. if you're HOT in a B200, you stop her in a 1000ft run. - His Dudeness..
So do you fly with passengers in your world? I mean, do you have a boss in the back when you fly around?
I wanna see you land this magical King Air 200....let's see, you have a 2500 ft strip...so you drag the plane across the corn field at 100 kts...drop it onto the numbers, slam the reverse props and skid the plane to a stop in 1000 ft....very impressive....and I am sure the passengers will love that flying technique...
I don't think we even want to get into accel/stop numbers do we...because after all..it's all about 'just getting her in there'
I am not saying that you can't land a King Air 200 in 2500 ft, as I flew into 2500 ft fields for years in a Conquest I...but everyone came out to see me do it..because nobody flew turboprops into those fields, it was unusual.....and not something I recommend to everyone and anyone that wants to buy a plane...
So do you fly with passengers in your world? I mean, do you have a boss in the back when you fly around?
I wanna see you land this magical King Air 200....let's see, you have a 2500 ft strip...so you drag the plane across the corn field at 100 kts...drop it onto the numbers, slam the reverse props and skid the plane to a stop in 1000 ft....very impressive....and I am sure the passengers will love that flying technique...
I don't think we even want to get into accel/stop numbers do we...because after all..it's all about 'just getting her in there'
I am not saying that you can't land a King Air 200 in 2500 ft, as I flew into 2500 ft fields for years in a Conquest I...but everyone came out to see me do it..because nobody flew turboprops into those fields, it was unusual.....and not something I recommend to everyone and anyone that wants to buy a plane...
most of the arctic strips do not have a vasi, as it takes too long to clear the frost at -40, combine that with white out NDB approaches, and yes it is nasty, ASDA is not required in CAR 703 ops, so in the event it quits land straight ahead. Better than hitting the cliffs. Air Nunavut goes in here regularly. BTW it is a 1950' strip Panoramio - Untitled photo
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johns7022, where did I say it will be a gentle greaser? IF you´d care to read my post you´d know what I meant.
Raisbecks numbers are 2250 T/O dist (balanced field 3500ft) and landing dist 1970 ft and a tad more with standard wheels without reverse/beta at max gross I think.
I used to fly to a small field in Switzerland with 2625ft of runway quite often (old boss had a house there) and had no complaints about my landing techniques (maybe they where just good sufferers...who knows?)
That was done commercially under all engine T/O to 50ft by 1,15 and landing dist by 1,43. (JAR-OPS class B airplane rules, no need for balanced field - > maybe unsafe, but the regs)
Trip was something like 145nm each way, tankered fuel although the field has Jet - A1.
Have you ever flown a B200? From my point of view it is a very easy to land airplane, stable as a rock and with plenty of stopping power should the need arise (reverse those mighty 4 blade props and you`ll see)
If you like not to abuse the airplane, just use beta, then 2500 is ample room
I used to fly to a small field in Switzerland with 2625ft of runway quite often (old boss had a house there) and had no complaints about my landing techniques (maybe they where just good sufferers...who knows?)
That was done commercially under all engine T/O to 50ft by 1,15 and landing dist by 1,43. (JAR-OPS class B airplane rules, no need for balanced field - > maybe unsafe, but the regs)
Trip was something like 145nm each way, tankered fuel although the field has Jet - A1.
I am not saying that you can't land a King Air 200 in 2500 ft, as I flew into 2500 ft fields for years in a Conquest I...but everyone came out to see me do it..because nobody flew turboprops into those fields, it was unusual.....and not something I recommend to everyone and anyone that wants to buy a plane...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Boys...calm down. I was only asking!
B200 not the machine for us, for various reasons, but thanks for the passionate debate.
G58 considered but new very expensive and runway perf not appropriate.
Flew the DA42 yesterday. Very nice machine. Simple to fly accurately and good (private cat) t/o and Ldg figures. Correct about the payload. 4 people leaves very little for baggage but just about enough for us.
Will look at the Vulcanair products and also Seneca. Feels a bit like going back in time to a Seneca but maybe they've updated?
Once again, thanks for all your comments.
B200 not the machine for us, for various reasons, but thanks for the passionate debate.
G58 considered but new very expensive and runway perf not appropriate.
Flew the DA42 yesterday. Very nice machine. Simple to fly accurately and good (private cat) t/o and Ldg figures. Correct about the payload. 4 people leaves very little for baggage but just about enough for us.
Will look at the Vulcanair products and also Seneca. Feels a bit like going back in time to a Seneca but maybe they've updated?
Once again, thanks for all your comments.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually the BE200 is a fantastic airplane for that job and much more, maybe you should let us know what kind of budget you have. A strong piston single is much more cost effective than the light twin.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry suitcase man - not letting you off the hook that easily....
Read what I wrote. And then instead of pontificating answer the question that I asked:
1. Are you suggesting that Private operators should apply Public Transport Factoring to be safe for private category flights?
You have no idea which factors I apply so dont guess.
If the answer to that question you didnt answer is yes then you you're are imvho the kind of pilot that the multipliers are there to protect the public from.
I have my margin - lets hear what yours are.....
I dont carry minimum fuel to destination as I like to present my boss with options in case of deteriorating wx. We're not operating the aircraft at min cost at his behest. I also dont need advice on airline fuel policy as I dont work for an airline thanks very much (Couldn't afford to). And thanks for the explanation as to why we tanker fuel - I wondered what all that tranatlantic range was for
Its about managing risk and depsite having the captain of industries on board having the Cahunas to say "NO", doing that safely is why we get paid the money. If you're answer is just to not go - then in the words of AMS "You're fired"
Read what I wrote. And then instead of pontificating answer the question that I asked:
1. Are you suggesting that Private operators should apply Public Transport Factoring to be safe for private category flights?
You have no idea which factors I apply so dont guess.
If the answer to that question you didnt answer is yes then you you're are imvho the kind of pilot that the multipliers are there to protect the public from.
I have my margin - lets hear what yours are.....
I dont carry minimum fuel to destination as I like to present my boss with options in case of deteriorating wx. We're not operating the aircraft at min cost at his behest. I also dont need advice on airline fuel policy as I dont work for an airline thanks very much (Couldn't afford to). And thanks for the explanation as to why we tanker fuel - I wondered what all that tranatlantic range was for
Its about managing risk and depsite having the captain of industries on board having the Cahunas to say "NO", doing that safely is why we get paid the money. If you're answer is just to not go - then in the words of AMS "You're fired"