4/5/6 place charter ship - Any suggestions ?
 

G'day People,

I am currently looking at economic reality of operating a 4-6ish place charter aircraft and would appriecate any suggestions regarding the most suitable type.

I have checked a few reference books but would like some practical 'in service' figures/opinions (most range figures I have are for flight at LRC @ Flight levels !)

The ideal machine would be able to carry Pilot + 4 or 5 pax, 60 odd Kg bags, 500-600 odd nautical miles. And of course its got to do it relatively comfortably and not cost the earth to operate !

Does this machine exist ?. Have currently been thinking B58/PA31 - What are these acft like with 5/6 bums on board ??

Do i need my head read ??

Any suggestions would be most appriecated!

Thanks.

On the low end, how about a PN68 Pertenavia. Fixed gear and normally aspirated engines allow for lowish running costs, while it has a pretty good load carrying ability. Bit slow though.

MTOW : 1960 kg (some 1990 kg). .Basic: 1310 kg (Typical)

Gives 650 kg useful load = pilot + 4 pax + 60 kg bags + 280 litres fuel.

280 litres will get you about 400 nm.

From my experience on the Baron, a 600nm trip with 4-5 bums and baggage, forget it. Unless they're extremely light, which you can't count on. Go for a larger aircraft so you've got some buffers (extra fuel requirements, above average size pax etc)

Maybe a Navajo or Aero Commander, but I have no experience with these types.

A Navajo with vortex generators (increased MTOW). But be ready for some "healthy" maintenance costs if you get a tired aircraft (as most are).

500 – 600 nautical miles in a light piston engine twin – get real. This is the domain of fan-jets. If you propose to travel back and forth over such distances on a regular basis you need to think about cruising at speed, above the weather, in a low noise environment with toilet and galley.

A bottom end fan-jet will convert a nine-hour round trip Partenavia ordeal into a three and a half hour cake-walk, provide an aisle for leg stretching and an environment about twenty degrees cooler.

Look at the Cessna Citation CJ-1 for starters. Forget the tired old hand-me-downs, look at new aircraft with factory warranties for low operating costs. On DOC’s the CJ-1 will kill a Partenavia on cost-per mile.

Most passengers who were stupid enough to reach destination in an old thumper over those distances would be looking at returning on the airlines and demand a refund!

No wonder the industry is ‘stuffed’ in this country!. . :)

TASing at 165Kts, a mid weight Shrike with a 90kg pilot will give the following passenger payloads over a 600 nm segment:

VFR 696 kgs. .IFR 582 kgs.

<img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Good luck trying to find one though! :)

I concur with the Aerocommander AC500S. .Stable, no vices- even has switches on the roof like a real aeroplane. Just DON'T have an engine failure in one.

C303 1700 lbs useful load, 180 kts or Aerostar, 1700 lb useful load, 230 kts.

I'd go with the third option in your post.....particularly in the current climate.

Are you thinking of purchase or just promising an owner the earth?

I think if I were purchasing I would be very careful about AD requirements on all and everything and take a close look at what will be allowed as single pilot ops into the foreseeable future.

Try ringing CASA about Citation and Lear requirements NOW and PROPOSED.

slow down! . .how did we go so fast from a light twin to a Lear 23?

Tas661 - what are your actual operating requirements? I see you are from NSW, do you need to fly over the ranges IFR? what is your pax demografic? etc. Could a high performance single suit you any thing from a C210 up sounds like it could fit the bill. You can also get approval for IFR ops in Caravans etc

Just an idea to help reduce the bottom line .... $

VneII

PS sweet pics of the Lear 23

Tas661. .You must be more specific! Do your pax wont comfort and speed or just low cost? :)

TAS661, how much money do you have to spend? If you are independently wealthy, then follow dragchute's good advice and get a new turbofan aircraft with factory training, warranty and support. It will save you a lot of headaches!

If you are on a budget there are two tried and proven types which satisfy your payload/range criteria.

For under a half million dollars you can't go past the PA31 Navajo Chieftain. It is slightly faster and an all around better load carrier than a Cessna 402A,B, or C.

For three quarters to a million dollars, you should look seriously at the Cessna Conquest II. This aircraft will carry the same load as a Beech Super Kingair. It is cheaper to buy, has lower DOC's and has a better range and turn of speed than the KingAir.

If you want to know about Conquest II's, talk to Bob Douglas of Douglas aircraft sales. He sold them for many years through Rossair in Adelaide. Last I heard he had relocated to the Gold Coast. Look in Trade-A-Plane for his advertising and contact details.

The Oracle!!

Nothing can beat the Shrike ( Aero Commander 500S or AC50 )in the piston engine fleet with 6 pax, full fuel and their baggage, typical empty weight around 2200 Kgs, gross IFR 3243, VFR 3357 Kgs, 590 litres fuel (420 kgs), 165 knots TAS, roomy, quiet (relatively) and comfortable,cabin class, good short field but most are already out working hard. GAM, Essendon own 20+ of them and there are a few others out there, good luck if you can get someone to part with one. :)

If your keen to go dragchute and Lear 23's way then don't stuff around. Go the B744 freighter. 8 business class seats, 2 bed rooms and a kitchen. Plenty of room for all that crap charter pax like to spring on you at the last minute on the lower deck, 480kt cruise and enough range to cater for the odd charter out of Sydney to say Las Vagas. If cost is a problem then have a look at a nice lite R modal Cessna 310. Flys slightly faster and carries a touch more wieght than the Barron for the same money, 600nm with 5 pax might be just a little beyond it though.

Depending on what sorta money you want to throw around a PC-12 would be a winner if you could talk them into a single. (relatively fast, up to FL300, comfortable, operating costs are pretty good) . . Failing that then probably B200 would be a winner over that sort of distance. But again it all depends on how much $$$$ there is around. If it's going to be a contracted job with xx amount of hours per month then must go turbine of some description. Cheyenne 2 would be another option but not real sure on operating costs etc

TAS 661. .For the range you are looking for 500-600 NM, I'd guess you would need an 8-9 seat aircraft. A B58 is a luverly ship to fly, but you won't get the range you want, without being a 2 pax aircraft. I have never operated a shrike, but I know those that have, and they rave about them. If you could find one, it could probably do what you want. Failing that, you are in PA31/C402 territory.

Not a C402B though: - 2858MTOW, 1970ish BEW, fuel at 140lt/100kg/hr = ~ 650kgs over 154 miles....VFR reserves! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Great in Africa with pygmies no doubt.

402C is a wee bit better.

No one has mentioned the Metro series.. If you can't make money outta one of these then yo shouldn't be in the game. With 5-8 pax and bags a MII would be nice with every second seat removed. Find a good one cheap (good luck. Otherwise might be few M3 and M23's up for grabs cheap soon. If you are the pilot, then a Kingair is good, but if you are the nimber cruncher, then a metro is way better. Piston wise can't go past the C404. Just don't put an idiot in the drivers seat and it'll do 8 hrs flying at 170kts and still uplift over 500kg.

Someone mentioned Conquest II around here. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

It's the perfect 4/5/6 place charter ship, it will go anywhere the C310/Baron will for the same price, AND THEN, you can send it off with 10 pax over the same distance if you need to, OR 4/5/6 towards 1000nm and arrive in the circuit very shortly before or after the local regional turboprop or jet, OR, a couple of pax towards 1800nm in a bit over 6 hours. . .Who needs a Citation, which is the main reason they stopped production, they were just too damn good.

All at FL330 and 290KTAS. . .At about the same capital costs and the same operating cost per mile as a really good piston.

The pax just love em.

And all the old wives tales you here about the Garrett are just that, they are in fact, the secret of the types success.

Give me old mate Bobby Douglas a call, (he's a straight shooter and he knows nearly as much as I do about them) <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> :) and he'll get you going. . .I believe that there was quite a queue for the ones that the RFDS have disposed of.

'20 series Lears, I dont think so.

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>

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>

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.. .http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/biggrin3.gif

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>

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

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.

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.

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? :)

Gaunty. .If the 441 is so good why do they no longer make them? I agree they were a good machine but the build quality,well, its a Cessna not a Beech! :) :) :)

Torres,

Right now, at 20:45 hrs EST, I got to say it is the VB.

Cheers!

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?

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.

:)

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>