4/5/6 place charter ship - Any suggestions ?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
Got to agree that the C441 was a fine aeroplane. Operated a fine low time example back in 1982. However if you do have the funds then the new range of Cessna Citations deserves a close inspection. In 2002 I am fortunate enough to have one on line and the thrill I got in the C441 twenty years ago has returned in the form of a C560.
Forget the term crustacean. 435 knots at FL410 with a burn of 1100 lbs per hour is the norm. With two crew and 4300 lb of fuel there is enough capacity to shove 2,200 lbs in the cabin and baggage compartment. That is one tonne. On a typical flight we had ten passengers. With a 4,300 lb fuel load we departed a 1204 metre runway and flew 995 nm in 2hr 45 minutes against a slight head wind carrying normal reserves plus twenty minutes traffic holding. We still had the option to climb to FL450.
Fully equipped for gravel operations, EFIS, FMC and galley. Direct operating costs (Fuel, Spares, Maintenance, Enroute Charges and Landing Fees) come in less than $100/hour more than our B350. And about thirty cents per nautical mile cheaper.
The smile on my face is a fixture!
Think 21st century!
Edited to remove ambiguity.
[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: dragchute ]</p>
Got to agree that the C441 was a fine aeroplane. Operated a fine low time example back in 1982. However if you do have the funds then the new range of Cessna Citations deserves a close inspection. In 2002 I am fortunate enough to have one on line and the thrill I got in the C441 twenty years ago has returned in the form of a C560.
Forget the term crustacean. 435 knots at FL410 with a burn of 1100 lbs per hour is the norm. With two crew and 4300 lb of fuel there is enough capacity to shove 2,200 lbs in the cabin and baggage compartment. That is one tonne. On a typical flight we had ten passengers. With a 4,300 lb fuel load we departed a 1204 metre runway and flew 995 nm in 2hr 45 minutes against a slight head wind carrying normal reserves plus twenty minutes traffic holding. We still had the option to climb to FL450.
Fully equipped for gravel operations, EFIS, FMC and galley. Direct operating costs (Fuel, Spares, Maintenance, Enroute Charges and Landing Fees) come in less than $100/hour more than our B350. And about thirty cents per nautical mile cheaper.
The smile on my face is a fixture!
Think 21st century!
Edited to remove ambiguity.
[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: dragchute ]</p>
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dragchute. .Now you're singing my song.
Used to be a purveyor of said types and have operated the odd one as well, cannot say enough good things about them. There ain't nothing else that can do ALL of the things that a Citation can.
Glad to see someone around here understands about aviation in the 21st Century.
Yup, the pilots with the big grins are usually Citation drivers.
As for the Citation X driven the sim and would be tempted to sell my kids, to own one.
But my dumb practical self tells me that the new Sovereign is going to be the big ALL round winner for cabin size payload/range/speed field performance and economics, Citation X cabin straight wing simplicity. . .<a href="http://www.cessna.com" target="_blank">Go to the Citation/Sovereign page</a>
Shaping up to be THE legendary Citation like the Conquest II was in turboprops. One day soon I'm gunna have me one of those.. .
[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>
Used to be a purveyor of said types and have operated the odd one as well, cannot say enough good things about them. There ain't nothing else that can do ALL of the things that a Citation can.
Glad to see someone around here understands about aviation in the 21st Century.
Yup, the pilots with the big grins are usually Citation drivers.
As for the Citation X driven the sim and would be tempted to sell my kids, to own one.
But my dumb practical self tells me that the new Sovereign is going to be the big ALL round winner for cabin size payload/range/speed field performance and economics, Citation X cabin straight wing simplicity. . .<a href="http://www.cessna.com" target="_blank">Go to the Citation/Sovereign page</a>
Shaping up to be THE legendary Citation like the Conquest II was in turboprops. One day soon I'm gunna have me one of those.. .
[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAS, What is your market? I have been in the charter business for almost 25 years and that really drives what aircraft you purchase. Is your market price driven? Or is it upper end? Who are your competionors and what are they flying? Are there contracts out there that would justify a particular aircraft? You need to answer these questions first. Next what kind of airports would you be operating out of? What services do they have? What kind of facilities and staff do you have? These are other important questions.
Next forget a Lear 23. I fly Lears regularly and love them. But a 23 is a violation waiting to happen. First of all the newest 23 is 36 years old. They only made 99 of them, so parts are difficult to find. Next the Basic Operating Weight (BOW) averages 7000 to 7600 pounds. Add that to the fuel capacity of 5388 pounds gives you a weight of between 12400 pounds and 13000 pounds. Which considering that the Max Gross Takeoff Weight is 12500 is somewhat limiting. Add to it that the systems are from just a little bit different to very different from the rest of the Lear family. Besides the noise rules in Australia are such that most if not all the Lear 20 series are dead. If you go that class a Lear 35 or a Westwind would be a much better choice. Better range and flexibility.
In the light twin class, I would go with a Navajo Chieftain. One thing I found, passengers dislike climbing over the wing, especially women. The parts are a little easier and less expensive to get than Baron parts. Don't get one with the Panther mod. That mod works well on the smaller versions (C and CR) but hurts the Chieftain. And before any of you experts out there make any smart comments, I also operate a Chieftain with the Panther mod. I flew it before and after the mod. After the mod I considered it the sickest flying Chieftain I have ever flown.
In the turboprop area, the King Air is a very conservative aircraft. The CE441 or the AC690 make good charter aircraft. But I would get one that had the -10 mod done. All the stories you hear about the Garret 331 really only apply to the early engines. Starting with the -10 they started to get it right. I have flown Metro 2 with and without the -10 mod. The difference is like between day and night. I found that I could operate a Metro 2 or 3 cheaper than I could a King Air. Better speed, range and capacity. But you start getting into different rules.
A Citation 500 would also be a good choice. Cost per mile equal to or less than a King Air. A jet.
What it comes down to is what you need. What the market will support. And what you can afford.
Good luck.
Richard
Next forget a Lear 23. I fly Lears regularly and love them. But a 23 is a violation waiting to happen. First of all the newest 23 is 36 years old. They only made 99 of them, so parts are difficult to find. Next the Basic Operating Weight (BOW) averages 7000 to 7600 pounds. Add that to the fuel capacity of 5388 pounds gives you a weight of between 12400 pounds and 13000 pounds. Which considering that the Max Gross Takeoff Weight is 12500 is somewhat limiting. Add to it that the systems are from just a little bit different to very different from the rest of the Lear family. Besides the noise rules in Australia are such that most if not all the Lear 20 series are dead. If you go that class a Lear 35 or a Westwind would be a much better choice. Better range and flexibility.
In the light twin class, I would go with a Navajo Chieftain. One thing I found, passengers dislike climbing over the wing, especially women. The parts are a little easier and less expensive to get than Baron parts. Don't get one with the Panther mod. That mod works well on the smaller versions (C and CR) but hurts the Chieftain. And before any of you experts out there make any smart comments, I also operate a Chieftain with the Panther mod. I flew it before and after the mod. After the mod I considered it the sickest flying Chieftain I have ever flown.
In the turboprop area, the King Air is a very conservative aircraft. The CE441 or the AC690 make good charter aircraft. But I would get one that had the -10 mod done. All the stories you hear about the Garret 331 really only apply to the early engines. Starting with the -10 they started to get it right. I have flown Metro 2 with and without the -10 mod. The difference is like between day and night. I found that I could operate a Metro 2 or 3 cheaper than I could a King Air. Better speed, range and capacity. But you start getting into different rules.
A Citation 500 would also be a good choice. Cost per mile equal to or less than a King Air. A jet.
What it comes down to is what you need. What the market will support. And what you can afford.
Good luck.
Richard
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Who had it correct.
The only aircraft is the Tardis..... Unlimited weight, fast, efficient and very modern.
Pax can turn up with an extra footy team no worries.
Now wheres that red box???
p.s. Sorry about the sarcasm in an otherwise sensible thread. Look at the Reims 406.
The only aircraft is the Tardis..... Unlimited weight, fast, efficient and very modern.
Pax can turn up with an extra footy team no worries.
Now wheres that red box???
p.s. Sorry about the sarcasm in an otherwise sensible thread. Look at the Reims 406.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lear, you missed a very important word in the original posting "CHARTER". Looking cool has nothing to do with being a viable charter operator. There are many reasons why I recommend that a Lear 20 series Not be in the picture. One is noise. The hush kit is fine but will the Australian FAA (CASA) accept it? Two is the age of the aircraft. As aircraft become older they become less reliable. And one thing that is extremely important to a charter operator is reliability. Three fuel burn. Fuel costs here in the States is bad enough. There it is a heart attack. Availability and cost of parts. I'm running two 25's right now and I am having a hell of a time getting acceptable parts and I'm here in the States. Engine overhauls are getting out of hand. I paid almost $350,000 for my last one almost three years ago. I have heard that they are running $450,000 plus depending on how many wheels you have to replace.
I do not recommend any charter operator even look at a 23. It is a wasted effort. I had one offered to me late last year. I turned it down. Trying very hard to get out of Lear 20's altogether. One will be leaving shortly, being replaced by a Westeind 2. The other, the owner loves it like you love the 23's. He'll probabily be buried in it.
The charter business is just that a business. And it needs to be treated that way.
I do not recommend any charter operator even look at a 23. It is a wasted effort. I had one offered to me late last year. I turned it down. Trying very hard to get out of Lear 20's altogether. One will be leaving shortly, being replaced by a Westeind 2. The other, the owner loves it like you love the 23's. He'll probabily be buried in it.
The charter business is just that a business. And it needs to be treated that way.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Beech 90 would make a good choose if you have regular customers. Otherwise the B200 is the better option. Here we operate them both and also a couple citations. It all depends. All good charter planes. B200 and the Citation can also be used as air ambulance. Personally, well I would swap them all for Lear 23’s any day. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Gaunty. You may be a Garett fan, but I feel the PT6 powered Conquest I (Cessna 425) is a very under rated aircraft.
Dragshute. Is it the Citation V or the VB that leaves a permanent smile on ya dial?
Dragshute. Is it the Citation V or the VB that leaves a permanent smile on ya dial?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres. .You're right the C425 is the second best Turboprop after the C441. Flat rated 450 HP out of a 625 HP? rated engine, if my memory serves me right a bit over 10 minutes to FL250 GW TO ISA+20 and then 250KIAS ISA+25 all day long when you get there. And the quietest of ALL of them.
Soup nazi
They stopped making them because they were too good and were competing against their own Citation product at which time they were, (they don't have to now), gauranteeing in writing, that they would pay, in cash for 3 years, the difference between the operating cost of a new Citation and the owners previous turboprop (any brand, as long as it was not a Cesnna Conquest 1 or 11) if they bought a new Citation, same capital cost BTW as a new King Air. They never wrote a cheque. Period. Game set and match.
I know, I operated all four alongside each other and I can tell you which ones made the most money.
Build quality Beech v Cessna, sorry but that is just plain unadulterated BS perpetuated by the Beech mob to try and justify the price difference for seriously old 1940's technology caught in a time warp, tarted up as something modern. Do you want to talk about the V35 AD or the B200 wing mods, now or later?
Soup nazi
They stopped making them because they were too good and were competing against their own Citation product at which time they were, (they don't have to now), gauranteeing in writing, that they would pay, in cash for 3 years, the difference between the operating cost of a new Citation and the owners previous turboprop (any brand, as long as it was not a Cesnna Conquest 1 or 11) if they bought a new Citation, same capital cost BTW as a new King Air. They never wrote a cheque. Period. Game set and match.
I know, I operated all four alongside each other and I can tell you which ones made the most money.
Build quality Beech v Cessna, sorry but that is just plain unadulterated BS perpetuated by the Beech mob to try and justify the price difference for seriously old 1940's technology caught in a time warp, tarted up as something modern. Do you want to talk about the V35 AD or the B200 wing mods, now or later?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Lear 23,
You are correct in musing that no Lear has ever been certified for single pilot ops. Whilst in a round about way you might get it with a Citation.
That was not the point of my post however. The original post set a requirement for "pilot" not pilots. The original post also questioned B58/PA31.
In my simple way I simply trying to point the punter to the pitfalls of his and the other suggestions without slinging sand at those who had departed from the original posting.
Whilst you might say, and I'd agree, that those who would charter a Lear 23 ad hoc would probably not miss the cost of the extra crew someone in the B58 market is another kettle of fish altogether until this industry gets with the program.
You are correct in musing that no Lear has ever been certified for single pilot ops. Whilst in a round about way you might get it with a Citation.
That was not the point of my post however. The original post set a requirement for "pilot" not pilots. The original post also questioned B58/PA31.
In my simple way I simply trying to point the punter to the pitfalls of his and the other suggestions without slinging sand at those who had departed from the original posting.
Whilst you might say, and I'd agree, that those who would charter a Lear 23 ad hoc would probably not miss the cost of the extra crew someone in the B58 market is another kettle of fish altogether until this industry gets with the program.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought about a high tech aircraft like the Farnborough F1? Well you will have to wait some time for it to start production (2008ish). .check it out <a href="http://www.farnborough-aircraft.com/" target="_blank">http://www.farnborough-aircraft.com/</a>
