Cessna vs. Piper
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
Once flew Mackay - Brisbane (early hours of the morning) in a C441 carrying Dubbo + sixty as an alternate. Dubbo went bad and ATC advised just two available alternates - one required a passport and the other was Hobart.
The replan (Hobart) was a non-event with the C441 capabilities. Great aeroplane in its day. Now did I ever tell you what a great aeroplane the Citation Ultra is...
Once flew Mackay - Brisbane (early hours of the morning) in a C441 carrying Dubbo + sixty as an alternate. Dubbo went bad and ATC advised just two available alternates - one required a passport and the other was Hobart.
The replan (Hobart) was a non-event with the C441 capabilities. Great aeroplane in its day. Now did I ever tell you what a great aeroplane the Citation Ultra is...
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluehauler
No need thanks I already know.
I like your toy collection.
The Conquest is indeed legendary and yes have carried AKL on one occasion and another occasion when attempting to 'recover' someone from Minnie Creek ex Perth in the teeth of an oncoming Cyclone which had already crossed the coast North of Carnarvon needed to and could carry Alice out of Perth as the alternate for the return to Perth.
Needless to say we managed to 'get in' to Perth.
Just love having all that fuel.
They stopped the Conquest when they stopped piston production but mostly because it was too good and was bleeding the Citation sales. It had been intended for the private operator who wasn't up to the Citation and over 300- 400 miles it was neck and neck with the Conquest eating the Citation on fuel, it was also cutting across their FAR 25 philosophy for that form of transport.
It took us a long time to get the type accepted in Australia because the "experts" were applying B200 speeds and FF to the fuel capacity and deciding it wouldn't go anywhere with a load.
But we got there and in the west it was THE FIFO type and the WA RFDS were the first to break away and I think they wish they could buy some more new ones. There was a long queue overseas for theirs when they changed them out.
My only regret in life is that I couldn't save my pennies fast enough to buy one of them or can't save them fast enough to buy a really nice young un before it's too late and they all get too old and high time.
They are the perfect aircraft for a private operator who wants speed, range and economics. mrs gaunty and the kids non stop almost anywhere in Oz or tanker fuel to out of the way spots and quick enough to stop the "are we there yet" from the back.
I am sitting here looking at the HP turbine wheel from one of the engines I use as a paperweight and the red dust packed in it, with the blade tips eroded by the soot not the dust and think about all of the really great times we spent a metre or so from each other. Although I wasn't spinning at nearly 40,000 rpm, close to at times but not quite. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.
Now if I save really hard that Ultra is looking good but it is the Sovereign that has got me really turned on now.
Citation X cabin, straight wing, trailing link, M0.78, full seats 2300nm out of anywhere your B200 will go.
This is going to be the next "Conquest" and you should be campaigning for one in your toybox.
No need thanks I already know.
I like your toy collection.The Conquest is indeed legendary and yes have carried AKL on one occasion and another occasion when attempting to 'recover' someone from Minnie Creek ex Perth in the teeth of an oncoming Cyclone which had already crossed the coast North of Carnarvon needed to and could carry Alice out of Perth as the alternate for the return to Perth.
Needless to say we managed to 'get in' to Perth.
Just love having all that fuel.
They stopped the Conquest when they stopped piston production but mostly because it was too good and was bleeding the Citation sales. It had been intended for the private operator who wasn't up to the Citation and over 300- 400 miles it was neck and neck with the Conquest eating the Citation on fuel, it was also cutting across their FAR 25 philosophy for that form of transport.
It took us a long time to get the type accepted in Australia because the "experts" were applying B200 speeds and FF to the fuel capacity and deciding it wouldn't go anywhere with a load.
But we got there and in the west it was THE FIFO type and the WA RFDS were the first to break away and I think they wish they could buy some more new ones. There was a long queue overseas for theirs when they changed them out.
My only regret in life is that I couldn't save my pennies fast enough to buy one of them or can't save them fast enough to buy a really nice young un before it's too late and they all get too old and high time.
They are the perfect aircraft for a private operator who wants speed, range and economics. mrs gaunty and the kids non stop almost anywhere in Oz or tanker fuel to out of the way spots and quick enough to stop the "are we there yet" from the back.
I am sitting here looking at the HP turbine wheel from one of the engines I use as a paperweight and the red dust packed in it, with the blade tips eroded by the soot not the dust and think about all of the really great times we spent a metre or so from each other. Although I wasn't spinning at nearly 40,000 rpm, close to at times but not quite.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.Now if I save really hard that Ultra is looking good but it is the Sovereign that has got me really turned on now.
Citation X cabin, straight wing, trailing link, M0.78, full seats 2300nm out of anywhere your B200 will go.
This is going to be the next "Conquest" and you should be campaigning for one in your toybox.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK
PLeeeeese let me have some fun at least for a little while, you are of course correct, but it does it much more discreetly than the podunk PT6 don't you think.
PLeeeeese let me have some fun at least for a little while, you are of course correct, but it does it much more discreetly than the podunk PT6 don't you think.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK-116.8
Hmmmmm the aircraft for that project would have to be the Citation X. M0.92 and around 3400nm. 25% overweight maybe 4000nm
The Sovereign is still in flight test but has according to the Cessna Payload /Range profile around 2800nm tanks full (maybe 3500nm overload). Sovereign Payload/Range profile
Single pilot. NO as far as I am aware, although personally I can not see any reason from a workload point of view for any of them including the Citation X and I guess that really applies to ALL of the modern aircraft given that the all of the appropriate knobs, levers and screens can be reached by the pilot.
I think the problem would be whether the individual countries would allow a slightly mad pirate in their airspace, single pilot. There are too many political and bulls hit agenda
Viz our own beloved DCA in the past.
Question if you can fly the C500/550 SP then why not any of the 500 series, then if not any of the C500 series why not the 600 series.
Two blokes operate the B744 and one of them (the Capt.
) is really only there to keep the other awake., bit like the single pilot cockpit with the dog kennel where the dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
There are some old B52s around, now that would be fun load up the bomb bays with fuel and you might just get all the way around.
Hmmmmm the aircraft for that project would have to be the Citation X. M0.92 and around 3400nm. 25% overweight maybe 4000nm
The Sovereign is still in flight test but has according to the Cessna Payload /Range profile around 2800nm tanks full (maybe 3500nm overload). Sovereign Payload/Range profile
Single pilot. NO as far as I am aware, although personally I can not see any reason from a workload point of view for any of them including the Citation X and I guess that really applies to ALL of the modern aircraft given that the all of the appropriate knobs, levers and screens can be reached by the pilot.
I think the problem would be whether the individual countries would allow a slightly mad pirate in their airspace, single pilot. There are too many political and bulls hit agenda
Viz our own beloved DCA in the past.
Question if you can fly the C500/550 SP then why not any of the 500 series, then if not any of the C500 series why not the 600 series.
Two blokes operate the B744 and one of them (the Capt.
) is really only there to keep the other awake., bit like the single pilot cockpit with the dog kennel where the dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.There are some old B52s around, now that would be fun load up the bomb bays with fuel and you might just get all the way around.
nasa. "......with those parameters, or close to it."
Or close to it? Cessna did! It's called the Cessna 425 Conquest I. Bloody nice aircraft - and lovely derated PT6's - not those noisy things Gaunty likes.
Or close to it? Cessna did! It's called the Cessna 425 Conquest I. Bloody nice aircraft - and lovely derated PT6's - not those noisy things Gaunty likes.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine Tuning The Fine Tuned
Now, Now Girls…..Conquest II with 2 +14……pleeeaaaassssseeeee…..the bloody thing is only certified for 11, from memory……Yes it goes like a cut cat, but will not pull out of 1000 m with 16 up…..Plus, to buy a second hand one with –10U’s in it is around the USD$1.5m 
Now for those lovely Garrets, or is it Allied Signal, or Honeywell, can never keep up…..Anything below a –10U-514 (mod standard notwithstanding), and note I say a –10U and not –10UA, which I’m led to believe is a –3U with the Hot Section modified to –10U specs, has connection points for the rubbish bin located just aft of the exhaust…..that’s there to catch those pesky little engine parts that keep falling out …..Then of course, to do the Hot Section, usually in tune with the Gear Box Inspection, one has to pull the Gear Box to get to the Hot Section…..Give me a good old PT6A any day…..cupla hours and you have them split at the “C” Flange and you can play with all the lovely innards ….but having said that, the PT6 cannot pull the HP at the fuel flow that a TPE331 can, but they do it with so much extra noise
Put a cupla –10U’s or better in the Conquest, a 3’ plug, winglets, VG’s, decent avionics, and you come close, but the big hitter is the ability to get in & out of 1000 m at MTOW…that’s what everyone wants, to be able to get in & out of around 1000m with 14 pax and travel between 400 – 600 nm, with holding.
Jamair…..Far be it for me to doubt what you say, but in 1999, I’m sure the 320 was parked outside of Wobblies hangar looking as forlorn as it had for the previous decade…..You sure it was a 320 and not the Twin Bonanza
…..Do you recall the call sign.
Bik…..Nice, but is more expensive than the Garmin gear and as such would start to put the purchase price of the Mythical Aircraft out of reach
Now for those lovely Garrets, or is it Allied Signal, or Honeywell, can never keep up…..Anything below a –10U-514 (mod standard notwithstanding), and note I say a –10U and not –10UA, which I’m led to believe is a –3U with the Hot Section modified to –10U specs, has connection points for the rubbish bin located just aft of the exhaust…..that’s there to catch those pesky little engine parts that keep falling out
…..Then of course, to do the Hot Section, usually in tune with the Gear Box Inspection, one has to pull the Gear Box to get to the Hot Section…..Give me a good old PT6A any day…..cupla hours and you have them split at the “C” Flange and you can play with all the lovely innards ….but having said that, the PT6 cannot pull the HP at the fuel flow that a TPE331 can, but they do it with so much extra noise Put a cupla –10U’s or better in the Conquest, a 3’ plug, winglets, VG’s, decent avionics, and you come close, but the big hitter is the ability to get in & out of 1000 m at MTOW…that’s what everyone wants, to be able to get in & out of around 1000m with 14 pax and travel between 400 – 600 nm, with holding.
Jamair…..Far be it for me to doubt what you say, but in 1999, I’m sure the 320 was parked outside of Wobblies hangar looking as forlorn as it had for the previous decade…..You sure it was a 320 and not the Twin Bonanza
…..Do you recall the call sign.Bik…..Nice, but is more expensive than the Garmin gear and as such would start to put the purchase price of the Mythical Aircraft out of reach
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NASA - Price tag aside isn't the King Air 350 close to the mythical beast??? full fuel, max paxload, fast, strip length???
Have you ever seen the Caribou with the turbines what a beast!!!
Have you ever seen the Caribou with the turbines what a beast!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nasa some would no doubt attest that I am (getting) old and blind, but I parked up alongside the thing in November 1999 and while the Sparrow was getting a prop dressing I climbed (and climbed) up to have a sticky. The door was locked with an external Lockwood padlock through a hasp and staple (true story) but while I was there the operator came over and opened up shop for me. It really was the C320 - gutted out for the bloody great big camera inside, but a C320 nonetheless. I actually took digital pix but I dunno how to put em up here like the clever chaps & chapettes with all the previous drool material.Is that old short-nose baby-poo brown & white C310 still sitting on the grass up at CDR, quietly haemorrhaging POLs? How about -FWG?
Cheers!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK. Well, nasa did say: "......with those parameters, or close to it."
nasa is prone to dreaming spells and I thought the lovely little Connquest 1 came rather close - even if it won't legally accommodate nasa's caste of thousands.
Bums in the nose locker of a Cessna 400 series. What a great idea....... I remember a passenger in the pod of a Cessna 185....... but that's another story altogether.
What nasa wants is a Reims Cessna 406 (or whatever it's called), pressurised, with lovely -34's. I seem to recall that had a modified Titan fuselage.
Or a pressurised Bandit with bigger donks. Think that already exists, shorter fuselage - an Embraer Xingu?
Or Blue Haulers lovely King Air 350!
nasa. How about a Britten Norman BN2A MkIII Trislander Bongo Van? I heard some nut was thinking of adding two turbines (or was it V8's) to the Trislander fuselages rotting away in Australia somewhere. Be right up your alley!
nasa is prone to dreaming spells and I thought the lovely little Connquest 1 came rather close - even if it won't legally accommodate nasa's caste of thousands.
Bums in the nose locker of a Cessna 400 series. What a great idea....... I remember a passenger in the pod of a Cessna 185....... but that's another story altogether.
What nasa wants is a Reims Cessna 406 (or whatever it's called), pressurised, with lovely -34's. I seem to recall that had a modified Titan fuselage.
Or a pressurised Bandit with bigger donks. Think that already exists, shorter fuselage - an Embraer Xingu?
Or Blue Haulers lovely King Air 350!
nasa. How about a Britten Norman BN2A MkIII Trislander Bongo Van? I heard some nut was thinking of adding two turbines (or was it V8's) to the Trislander fuselages rotting away in Australia somewhere. Be right up your alley!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK
Geez I'd forgotten all about the YAK 40 now that was an aeroplane and it would do ALL of the things of which nasa dreams.
I've had the pleasure of one and all other things being equal was quite an impressive machine being designed as it was for pretty rugged use in downtown Siberia and Novosibirsk.
Not only that but the local garage mechanic in Quilpie can fix it with a crow bar and an axe.
Geez I'd forgotten all about the YAK 40 now that was an aeroplane and it would do ALL of the things of which nasa dreams.
I've had the pleasure of one and all other things being equal was quite an impressive machine being designed as it was for pretty rugged use in downtown Siberia and Novosibirsk.
Not only that but the local garage mechanic in Quilpie can fix it with a crow bar and an axe.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective of which aircraft you choose as the ideal machine, those types above 5,700 kg have distinct limitations brought about by CASA regulations and CAO 20.7.1b.
Firstly an aircraft above 5,700 kg may only plan to a destination at night which has an approved instrument approach procedure and for which the aircraft is appropriately equipped and the pilot is qualified. (Jepps AU-602 para 1.9.1.) However there is nothing to stop the aircraft departing such an aerodrome. If you move from a B200 to a B350 this requirement becomes an impediment. And yet both aircraft are very similar and operate in the same performance category and similar speeds!
Secondly for those aircraft engaged in charter or RPT operations the landing distance required shall be equal to or better than 1.67 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop. (CAO 20.7.1b para 11.1.)
Given take-off at MTOW and landing at MLW for type, sea-level at 35 degrees celsius, flaps approach for take-off and down for landing, the following figures apply:
B350 4154 ft and 2750 ft (4592 ft factored 1.67)
C560 3710 ft and 2970 ft (4960 ft factored 1.67)
Some may suggest that the factoring is to allow for failure of prop reverse/thrust reversers but the AFM's are based on use of brakes alone! Two perfectly good aircraft hamstrung by government regulations!
BIK,
Both aircraft will uplift a tonne or more of pax and bags plus around four hours fuel. Piedmont faxed specs on a ‘99 model B350 recently with 1560 hrs total time for $USD 3.5 million. If you were paying $5.5 mil for a new one Raytheon would need to toss in a lot of extras such as maintenance and spares for a couple of years!
Gaunty,
Thanks for the complement on the stable. I am working on a Sovereign with an Excel as a fall-back but we have other priorities and a lot of bean counters to convince!
Firstly an aircraft above 5,700 kg may only plan to a destination at night which has an approved instrument approach procedure and for which the aircraft is appropriately equipped and the pilot is qualified. (Jepps AU-602 para 1.9.1.) However there is nothing to stop the aircraft departing such an aerodrome. If you move from a B200 to a B350 this requirement becomes an impediment. And yet both aircraft are very similar and operate in the same performance category and similar speeds!
Secondly for those aircraft engaged in charter or RPT operations the landing distance required shall be equal to or better than 1.67 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop. (CAO 20.7.1b para 11.1.)
Given take-off at MTOW and landing at MLW for type, sea-level at 35 degrees celsius, flaps approach for take-off and down for landing, the following figures apply:
B350 4154 ft and 2750 ft (4592 ft factored 1.67)
C560 3710 ft and 2970 ft (4960 ft factored 1.67)
Some may suggest that the factoring is to allow for failure of prop reverse/thrust reversers but the AFM's are based on use of brakes alone! Two perfectly good aircraft hamstrung by government regulations!
BIK,
Both aircraft will uplift a tonne or more of pax and bags plus around four hours fuel. Piedmont faxed specs on a ‘99 model B350 recently with 1560 hrs total time for $USD 3.5 million. If you were paying $5.5 mil for a new one Raytheon would need to toss in a lot of extras such as maintenance and spares for a couple of years!
Gaunty,
Thanks for the complement on the stable. I am working on a Sovereign with an Excel as a fall-back but we have other priorities and a lot of bean counters to convince!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper s@%ts all over cessna
Having done training in piper cherokees and then flying cessna for my instructor rating, there is no doubt about the fact that Piper aircraft are far and away the better aircraft.
The cessna is shocking in the circuit, the runway is visible on some occasions and when out there flying around at common altitudes of 3000ft, when do you ever want to look down to see another aircraft.
Piper perform better, look better, and in my experience are much more reliable. Cessna are justa means of getting the hours up and dont exite me in the least. The one exception to this is the C210 which is a lovely aircraft.
Boo to Cessna which is the worst aircraft i have ever had to experience
go the Piper
Regards and sorry to all those loser cessna fans i have offended
May the sky be blue and the runway long!
Geebar
The cessna is shocking in the circuit, the runway is visible on some occasions and when out there flying around at common altitudes of 3000ft, when do you ever want to look down to see another aircraft.
Piper perform better, look better, and in my experience are much more reliable. Cessna are justa means of getting the hours up and dont exite me in the least. The one exception to this is the C210 which is a lovely aircraft.
Boo to Cessna which is the worst aircraft i have ever had to experience
go the Piper
Regards and sorry to all those loser cessna fans i have offended
May the sky be blue and the runway long!
Geebar