Let 410 / 420 In Oz?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let 410 / 420 In Oz?
Anyone know if either of these aircraft have a Representitive here in Australia?
I know of the one at Caloundra , just curious if anyone knows of any other details.
Ta in Advance.
I know of the one at Caloundra , just curious if anyone knows of any other details.
Ta in Advance.
There was a US Registered LET 420 demonstrator in Australia (N420LT???) which was US FAA Certified. One would think that could come onto the Australian registry?
Nice aircraft, undercarriage heavy enough to support a CAT D9 and a clock that totally dominated the front office!
Nice aircraft, undercarriage heavy enough to support a CAT D9 and a clock that totally dominated the front office!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: CB, Aust.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rep in Australia
The bloke who claims to be the Australian rep for LZ Industries (the former LET and ZLIN) from the Czech Republic is Mark Wilson of Tiger Flight Aviation in Sydney (I think out Mona Vale way).
Having said that the Factory salesman told me that whilst he has the dealership he hasn't actually sold any of their aircraft. Information accuratee in May 02.
I also noted an ad in the aviation trader for a company selling LOM engines. They may be able to steer you as well.
regards,
Having said that the Factory salesman told me that whilst he has the dealership he hasn't actually sold any of their aircraft. Information accuratee in May 02.
I also noted an ad in the aviation trader for a company selling LOM engines. They may be able to steer you as well.
regards,
JW. I had a ride on the demonstrator into a short strip in the Torres Strait. I was impressed! The Walter engines are good and very cheap to overhaul - I think they have an engine exchange program, around US$60,000 at 3,000 hours. (Walter is tied in with, or owned by Pratt & Whitney.)
Very spacious aircraft, relatively quiet and comfortable and compared to other STOL aircraft, relatively quick.
Payload could be a little better - it is a heavy aircraft. The fabric control surfaces (rudder and elevators) are "quaint" but obviously work. Very strong undercarriage with massive unusual outboard brakes.
No optional extras - the LET 420 comes with everything!
Very spacious aircraft, relatively quiet and comfortable and compared to other STOL aircraft, relatively quick.
Payload could be a little better - it is a heavy aircraft. The fabric control surfaces (rudder and elevators) are "quaint" but obviously work. Very strong undercarriage with massive unusual outboard brakes.
No optional extras - the LET 420 comes with everything!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Norfolk Is
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also was impressed with the airplane, much like a little brother to 748 - a solid & honest performer.
Makes money, works hard with little complaint.
Torres, have heard that the Walters are trouble free and perform well.
An exchange engine for less than half the price a Garrett o/haul sounds like a winner as well.
Your old mate should have got these instead of his J31's.
The Do214 has a teflon covered tailplane (also a tough, squat undercarriage) so the L410 is not alone in these concepts.
It would be nice to see a couple of Lets let lose here.
Makes money, works hard with little complaint.
Torres, have heard that the Walters are trouble free and perform well.
An exchange engine for less than half the price a Garrett o/haul sounds like a winner as well.
Your old mate should have got these instead of his J31's.
The Do214 has a teflon covered tailplane (also a tough, squat undercarriage) so the L410 is not alone in these concepts.
It would be nice to see a couple of Lets let lose here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your input boys, appreciate it.
Torres what were the figures for range/payload that you know of?
Had a look at the website and it seems ok , 1500kg Syd- Mel
1500kg Syd - Bne looks ok.
Anyhow thanks again for the help.
Torres what were the figures for range/payload that you know of?
Had a look at the website and it seems ok , 1500kg Syd- Mel
1500kg Syd - Bne looks ok.
Anyhow thanks again for the help.
Yes, the Walter engines are cheap to buy and operate but very good. Due to their price, light weight and reliability, they are being installed in a number of western agricultural aircraft to replace radials, PT6's and Garretts.
No mid life HSI's, no fuel nozzel changes etc. An honest $20 per hour repair and overhaul provision - and turbine engine operating costs don't come much cheaper than that!
The LET I saw had Collins avionics. I think there was also a LET 420 produced in limited numbers with a PT6 engine, not sure what model, possibly the -27/-28 which would be a bit gutless for that size aircraft.
I did hear the LET factory was having financial problems and their larger LET demonstrator (was it a 620 - comparable to an Embraer EMB120?) had been impounded for debts.
Ball Bay, I would think most aircraft would be better than J-31's ......... a fact my "old friends" now accept. History repeated itself - TAA had similar problems with the J-31's in Western Queensland pre June 1987!
JW, can't comment on payload but I would be very surprised if the LET would pull 1,500 kg's between Sydney and Melbourne or Brisbane. The LET I had a ride in was US FAA certified, so should come onto the Australian register without too many problems. But beware of the industry and regulator mid set against Eastern European aircraft, I don't believe it is totally warranted and may originate from some western fixed and rotary wing aircraft manufacturers!
No mid life HSI's, no fuel nozzel changes etc. An honest $20 per hour repair and overhaul provision - and turbine engine operating costs don't come much cheaper than that!
The LET I saw had Collins avionics. I think there was also a LET 420 produced in limited numbers with a PT6 engine, not sure what model, possibly the -27/-28 which would be a bit gutless for that size aircraft.
I did hear the LET factory was having financial problems and their larger LET demonstrator (was it a 620 - comparable to an Embraer EMB120?) had been impounded for debts.
Ball Bay, I would think most aircraft would be better than J-31's ......... a fact my "old friends" now accept. History repeated itself - TAA had similar problems with the J-31's in Western Queensland pre June 1987!
JW, can't comment on payload but I would be very surprised if the LET would pull 1,500 kg's between Sydney and Melbourne or Brisbane. The LET I had a ride in was US FAA certified, so should come onto the Australian register without too many problems. But beware of the industry and regulator mid set against Eastern European aircraft, I don't believe it is totally warranted and may originate from some western fixed and rotary wing aircraft manufacturers!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: CB, Aust.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
found the business card
I found the business card of the very enthusiastic Mark Wilson; 7 Bangalla St Warrawee NSW 2074, ph/fax 02-94897401.
I took a fair look at the LET410 aircraft at Asian Aerospace 2002 in Singapore earlier this year, including speaking to Phillipine airline operator SEAAIR. They were very happy with the aircraft and its economy. They said their total maintenance allowance was around $USD120/hr.
From my notes, so always check yourself and feel free to correct me if wrong: The LET 410 is certified to European JAR standards and the derivative LET 420 to the US FAR standards.
I think that if one was looking for a Twin Otter one would have to have a look at a new LET for around the same price. The STOL isn't as good, but the LET flies faster (around 180knots cruise) and reportedly has lower operating costs carrying the same 19 seats in the unpressurised cabin. Most people don't use the full STOL capability of their aircraft anyway.
The brochure says the aircraft has a MTOW 6600kg, MZFW 5900kg and operating empty weight of 4225kg giving a maximum payload of 1710 kg. I Cannot remember how that compares to Twin Otters.
So what is different: JAR25, not 23, so therefore should have better design features, and over 5700 kg, so ATPL to fly it commercially - have I got that right? Engines do not require hot section inspections in service and are exchanged at factory for $USD60-80K depending on condition after 3000 hours. certainly makes it easy to budget! Think it has water or water/meth injection for max performance takeffs.
The price quoted was about $USD1.8m for the 410 and $USD2.3m for the 420.
Over 1400 built. LZ builds components for Sikorsky, Boeing, Airbus etc. Why aren't they here? predjudice perhaps. By the time we realise the cold war is over, that the czech republic is a parliamentary democracy, that they have a rich aviation tradition of building strong and cheap aircraft, that they are becoming a member of the EU, are members of NATO and the OECD, they will have fully emerged in their new identity as a European nation and the prices will be as high as the rest of the world. In the meantime they represent damned good value for money and a rapidly lowering commercial risk. (BTW anyone looking at a new Warrior etc should also check out the 4 seat ZLIN)
PPrune I promise you I am in no way associated with the company or its representatives, but this topic has hit on my hobby horse - that we have stuck with British and American products for long enough and we should be open to alternatives to keep the big players competing.
Regards.
I took a fair look at the LET410 aircraft at Asian Aerospace 2002 in Singapore earlier this year, including speaking to Phillipine airline operator SEAAIR. They were very happy with the aircraft and its economy. They said their total maintenance allowance was around $USD120/hr.
From my notes, so always check yourself and feel free to correct me if wrong: The LET 410 is certified to European JAR standards and the derivative LET 420 to the US FAR standards.
I think that if one was looking for a Twin Otter one would have to have a look at a new LET for around the same price. The STOL isn't as good, but the LET flies faster (around 180knots cruise) and reportedly has lower operating costs carrying the same 19 seats in the unpressurised cabin. Most people don't use the full STOL capability of their aircraft anyway.
The brochure says the aircraft has a MTOW 6600kg, MZFW 5900kg and operating empty weight of 4225kg giving a maximum payload of 1710 kg. I Cannot remember how that compares to Twin Otters.
So what is different: JAR25, not 23, so therefore should have better design features, and over 5700 kg, so ATPL to fly it commercially - have I got that right? Engines do not require hot section inspections in service and are exchanged at factory for $USD60-80K depending on condition after 3000 hours. certainly makes it easy to budget! Think it has water or water/meth injection for max performance takeffs.
The price quoted was about $USD1.8m for the 410 and $USD2.3m for the 420.
Over 1400 built. LZ builds components for Sikorsky, Boeing, Airbus etc. Why aren't they here? predjudice perhaps. By the time we realise the cold war is over, that the czech republic is a parliamentary democracy, that they have a rich aviation tradition of building strong and cheap aircraft, that they are becoming a member of the EU, are members of NATO and the OECD, they will have fully emerged in their new identity as a European nation and the prices will be as high as the rest of the world. In the meantime they represent damned good value for money and a rapidly lowering commercial risk. (BTW anyone looking at a new Warrior etc should also check out the 4 seat ZLIN)
PPrune I promise you I am in no way associated with the company or its representatives, but this topic has hit on my hobby horse - that we have stuck with British and American products for long enough and we should be open to alternatives to keep the big players competing.
Regards.
Coffee. The DHC-6-100/200 max gross is 11,579 lb/5,250 kg and normal empty weight is around 7,275 lb/3,300 kg. The DHC-6-300 max gross is 12,500 lb/5,700 kg and normal empty weight around 8,050 lb/3,650 kg. But empty weights vary considerably! Both have a max landing weight limitation (which I can't remember).
The Twotter is not in the same speed class at the LET and as the LET exceeds 5,700 kg is not directly comparable. The LET will require ATPL and two crew and an approved System of Maintenance, after which maintenance costs will be higher than the figure quoted by the Phils operator.
The Twotter is not in the same speed class at the LET and as the LET exceeds 5,700 kg is not directly comparable. The LET will require ATPL and two crew and an approved System of Maintenance, after which maintenance costs will be higher than the figure quoted by the Phils operator.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again gents.
Coffee ,have to agree with you on this one.
Would like to see a bit more of the machinery here.
Every engineer I have known from that part of the world were always exceptional at their work.
No doubt it carries over to their aircraft.
Thanks Again.
Coffee ,have to agree with you on this one.
Would like to see a bit more of the machinery here.
Every engineer I have known from that part of the world were always exceptional at their work.
No doubt it carries over to their aircraft.
Thanks Again.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the Let 410/420 operations manuals dumped on my desk a couple of years ago for evaluation as a possible new type for the company I was then working for. Different, but at a closer look a really capable aircraft on paper. Company didn't go ahead with anything in that class. My contact then was through Bede Rocks, who provided plenty of useful info on Excel spreadsheets.
Here's an interesting link to the Walter engine.
http://www.walterengines.com/m601.htm
At first glance it looks remarkable like a PT6!
And: http://www.walterengines.com/index.html
Is that a King Air 90 series with five blade props and Walter turbines?
http://www.walterengines.com/m601.htm
At first glance it looks remarkable like a PT6!
And: http://www.walterengines.com/index.html
Is that a King Air 90 series with five blade props and Walter turbines?
Last edited by Torres; 27th Jul 2002 at 03:34.