Caravan V's Chieftain
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Age: 46
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caravan V's Chieftain
There have been some pots around regarding Twin Piston V's Single Turbine in a commercial situation. Last month i made a quick comment regarding the CHieftain V Caravan and i was all for the chieftain.
Looking back on it, what are you opinions? WHich is better, (saying we can get ASETPA)
Im not van endorsed so what would the differences be between the 2 regarding fuel, climb speeds, safety etc.
Bizz
(retracting last months comment)
Looking back on it, what are you opinions? WHich is better, (saying we can get ASETPA)
Im not van endorsed so what would the differences be between the 2 regarding fuel, climb speeds, safety etc.
Bizz
(retracting last months comment)
Last edited by bizzybody; 12th Aug 2007 at 05:11.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From someone who is Chieftain endorsed and currently flies a single turbine I can say that the right single turbine is streets ahead of the old piston twins in so many ways. There is a reason why there are more new turbines appearing on the scene.
My machine burns barely 200lph on average, climbs like a homesick angel, carries more than a comparable twin, has nice toys for the pilot to play with (very important!) and EVERYTHING works
That is only the start of it. They are smoother, quieter, and once you have flown one you will wonder why people bother with 30 year old piston twins anymore. There has to be a strong case for new technology and its associated safety and maintenance benefits. I think a lot of people in industry are starting to feel that just because a machine has two donks it doesn't necessarily make it safer compared with some of the current alternatives...
There is plenty more that can be said I'm sure!
My machine burns barely 200lph on average, climbs like a homesick angel, carries more than a comparable twin, has nice toys for the pilot to play with (very important!) and EVERYTHING works
That is only the start of it. They are smoother, quieter, and once you have flown one you will wonder why people bother with 30 year old piston twins anymore. There has to be a strong case for new technology and its associated safety and maintenance benefits. I think a lot of people in industry are starting to feel that just because a machine has two donks it doesn't necessarily make it safer compared with some of the current alternatives...There is plenty more that can be said I'm sure!
I've got nearly 400hrs Chieftain time, and now some turbine time to boot, and I don't see why people still operate those old buckets of crap!!
If I had a $1 for every problem I had with a Chieftain, I'd be rich. If you gave me $5,000 for every problem I've had with a turbine (so far), then I'd still be waiting to see anything.
I fly a single engine turbine, and I'm not kidding when I say I feel 10 times safer in that, than I was in any piston twin. As Captain Nomad said, they perform, they're quieter, they're smoother, and when you understand the workings of them, you realise there's not much that can go wrong compared to a piston. Much much easier to operate from a pilots perspective too. No mixtures to fiddle with, all that nonsense.
When you look at the fuel efficiency side of things, yeah, sure they burn a bit more per hour than most piston twins, but with most turbines, look at the fuel burn per Nm instead, or with slower ones like Caravans, cost per seat.
Turbine any day over piston thank you!
morno
If I had a $1 for every problem I had with a Chieftain, I'd be rich. If you gave me $5,000 for every problem I've had with a turbine (so far), then I'd still be waiting to see anything.
I fly a single engine turbine, and I'm not kidding when I say I feel 10 times safer in that, than I was in any piston twin. As Captain Nomad said, they perform, they're quieter, they're smoother, and when you understand the workings of them, you realise there's not much that can go wrong compared to a piston. Much much easier to operate from a pilots perspective too. No mixtures to fiddle with, all that nonsense.
When you look at the fuel efficiency side of things, yeah, sure they burn a bit more per hour than most piston twins, but with most turbines, look at the fuel burn per Nm instead, or with slower ones like Caravans, cost per seat.
Turbine any day over piston thank you!
morno
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with both you blokes. After flying a van for a while, then climbing into my own personal. much loved, piston twin........ I didn't love it anymore. 
I don't think I will fly a piston twin commercially again. the turbine is so much better in so many ways. and least of all, its much newer and far less abused than the old crap I used to fly.
I don't think I will fly a piston twin commercially again. the turbine is so much better in so many ways. and least of all, its much newer and far less abused than the old crap I used to fly.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: terra australis
Age: 49
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn nomad, Morno here here, my thoughts exactly. I much rather flying the van than any piston twin I've flown. I feel much safer, whack a set of floats underneathh and you feel even safer!! I'm not cheiftan endorsed so I won't compare the specs, but the van (amphib) just under 200lph, BROC 98 and from 10k she'll glide about 18nm feathered...not bad
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Don't know what your operation is but if carrying lots of kg's and getting off short rough strips and handling density alt is on the cards give the PAC 750XL a good look also.
"but does anyone have a soft copy of a POH or similar for a Caravan?"
Would the owners manual for a combi campavan do!
Dr
Would the owners manual for a combi campavan do!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 12th Aug 2007 at 23:02.
I as well agree with the comments on the van. And any single turbine for that matter. So much easier to fly, so much more capable from takeoff and landing, to climb and even their glide capability is amazing. My only twin time is in a Twin Comanche and a little bit in a seminole, so i cant comment on the chieftain, but setting zero thrust quite high in the comanche and seeing how she glides, its like a brick. (all conducted under instructor supervision at substantial height for anyone who wants to have a go at me)
I have been lucky enough to have 3/4 of my total time on the van, and getting back in even a 206, its even a little bit more difficult to fly (mixture and no rev thrust to pin you on the ground landing on those gusty days), as well as nerve racking given the reliability of the turbine. Im not looking forward to 'downgrading' to a piston twin in the future, just for those elusive multi PIC hours.
The only big drawback for the operators is the initial outlay. I'm not sure what a chieftain costs these days but surely they wouldnt be more than 500k for a very tidy one. To get a very tidy van you are looking upwards of 800k min. New grands are 2mil. Its the cost of the interest from the bank that is the big problem there which is why i think in general we are still going to see the old klapped out twins around for a while yet.
And as said earlier, i have only ever had 2 times that i couldn't start the van, and that was due to old igniters combined with not ideally clean water used in a compressor wash. Waited 45 mins, started as normal.
Can anyone chieftain rated give a scenario for how much payload can be taken with full tanks and how far will that get you in nm?
I have been lucky enough to have 3/4 of my total time on the van, and getting back in even a 206, its even a little bit more difficult to fly (mixture and no rev thrust to pin you on the ground landing on those gusty days), as well as nerve racking given the reliability of the turbine. Im not looking forward to 'downgrading' to a piston twin in the future, just for those elusive multi PIC hours.
The only big drawback for the operators is the initial outlay. I'm not sure what a chieftain costs these days but surely they wouldnt be more than 500k for a very tidy one. To get a very tidy van you are looking upwards of 800k min. New grands are 2mil. Its the cost of the interest from the bank that is the big problem there which is why i think in general we are still going to see the old klapped out twins around for a while yet.
And as said earlier, i have only ever had 2 times that i couldn't start the van, and that was due to old igniters combined with not ideally clean water used in a compressor wash. Waited 45 mins, started as normal.
Can anyone chieftain rated give a scenario for how much payload can be taken with full tanks and how far will that get you in nm?
Last edited by Hailstop3; 12th Aug 2007 at 12:18. Reason: cant spell :p
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bizzybody: I got myself a C208 manual (NO you can't have it!!!) a few months ago from Aeromil in Sydney (YSBK). It cost about $90 delivered to my door, arrived within 2 days of the order. Brilliant service I thought.
Just in off a night-shift, so will hunt up the details for you later, PM them.
Phone Freecall: 1800 CESSNA
How hard is that!
Tail Wheel
Just in off a night-shift, so will hunt up the details for you later, PM them.
Phone Freecall: 1800 CESSNA
How hard is that!
Tail Wheel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Age: 46
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys. Its going to be for passengers at this stage at airfields under 3000ft.
The speeds etc seem to be very similar but im maybe thinking from a passenger point of view only seeing one engine on the thing.
The speeds etc seem to be very similar but im maybe thinking from a passenger point of view only seeing one engine on the thing.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my own experience with both, many things you all say are true, at least partly. Caravan will carry more, bit slower, 10 kts or so, bit nicer to fly etc. But the poster who mentioned initial price wins the bikkies. As far as freight is concerned, they don't yet compare cost wise. Contrary to popular opinion, you need to pay well over a million to get a reasonable caravan, with any kind of engine life left. Now remember, I'm talking about a freight operation...
We can buy 3 chieftains for the price of that one caravan. And when the market is driven by per kg cost, you can see what wins. The pa-31 operating costs, while higher in the maintenance area than your usual caravan, still burns less fuel, and is a tiny bit faster. Over our admittedly short sectors, the payloads are - pa-31- 950 kg, give or take, caravan 1450 kg give or take. Approx operating costs (including finance) pa-31 $550 give or take, caravan $900 give or take.
While I'd love to trade the chiefys for a couple of vans, ain't going to happen any time soon. We'd be out of business because the customers won't come at a 25% rate rise for the freight. Passengers might be another matter however.
You'll notice I haven't gone on about the supposed safety of piston twin v single turbine etc. Whether there are any real or percieved advantages one way or the other simply depends on your application.
We can buy 3 chieftains for the price of that one caravan. And when the market is driven by per kg cost, you can see what wins. The pa-31 operating costs, while higher in the maintenance area than your usual caravan, still burns less fuel, and is a tiny bit faster. Over our admittedly short sectors, the payloads are - pa-31- 950 kg, give or take, caravan 1450 kg give or take. Approx operating costs (including finance) pa-31 $550 give or take, caravan $900 give or take.
While I'd love to trade the chiefys for a couple of vans, ain't going to happen any time soon. We'd be out of business because the customers won't come at a 25% rate rise for the freight. Passengers might be another matter however.
You'll notice I haven't gone on about the supposed safety of piston twin v single turbine etc. Whether there are any real or percieved advantages one way or the other simply depends on your application.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to answer the payload/range question, you wouldn't fill the tanks on the chieftain if you wanted to carry much. Standard tanks will get you approx 750 nm with std power and mixture settings(65%). That isn't flying to best economy however...... The payload with full tanks is (Pax config and vortex gen kit) 720 kg. They do vary, sometimes by a lot. Caravan full tanks will get you approx 1080nm. But your payload with that kind of fuel load is only 625 kg. That's 6.5 hrs flying tho remember.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good thread, and some very interesting responses as well, i often wonder why Gippsland hasn't released any plans for a stretched and PT I'd Air Van.
Something along the lines of a GAT-12? or are there secret plans afoot?
it would seem to make great economic sense as there would be no import duty on the frame plus a home grown mini-van would negate the fluctuations of the AUS$ to USD.
Any one heard any whispers? this is a rumour network after all!
Something along the lines of a GAT-12? or are there secret plans afoot?
it would seem to make great economic sense as there would be no import duty on the frame plus a home grown mini-van would negate the fluctuations of the AUS$ to USD.
Any one heard any whispers? this is a rumour network after all!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere around 27degrees
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The van may be safer, more economical and easier to fly but she still goes in the SE column of the log book.
As was also mentioned, horses for courses. there are going to be days when a SE turbine will glide a 100nm. But then I can see times when that won't cut the mustard either.
Both can make for interesting times.
JUZ777, I'm sure no operator really cares what kind of time his pilot is logging, just so long as his aircraft is being flown, 
.
And I'm also sure that those pilots out there who have plenty of twin time probably don't give a rats arse which column the time is going in.
I'm sure my career isn't being set back a heap just because I'm flying a single engine pressurised turbine,
.
morno
.And I'm also sure that those pilots out there who have plenty of twin time probably don't give a rats arse which column the time is going in.
I'm sure my career isn't being set back a heap just because I'm flying a single engine pressurised turbine,
.morno
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turkmenistan
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta agree with you there morno. You really only need any twin time if you wanna go fly them big 'ol airliners...which to me doesnt seem like 'real' flying but thats just personal preference. As for Caravans vs Chieftains, i saw someone mention the PAC 750XL. Those things can carry some serious loads. with full fuel, 840 odd Litres, you can still throw 14 or 1500kg of payload in. Plus they are brand spanking new and in full FAR 23 IFR configuration with weather radar and all the toys they cost US$500,000 less than a new 'van!! Collossal sized pod too. you can throw a coffin in no probs.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO,
C208, expensive to buy, very very reliable, a little underpowered in high ambient temperatures, parts support in fantastic and a real pilots aeroplane ( comfortable with aircon that works a treat ) and most importantly passengers love them.
PA31, cheap to buy, very very expensive to maintain and very unreliable. part are reasonably easy to source, uncomfortable piper piece of crap to fly, aircon do not quite cut it, on one engine, poor performer, in my opinion a C402C is a better product.
Cresco ( have not flown the XL ) , heaps of power, cheap to buy, very reliable in the hands of good engineers, parts support is attrocious (PAC), perform much better than a C208 and there are some interesting options available, aircon is good, dual tyre MLG, king avionic including autpilot etc etc. If you could get a contract with the manufacturer, that commits them to provide a proper parts service, they will prove to be far better than the C208, and you can use full reverse in flight.
Just be aware if you are looking at this aircraft for mining contracts, talk to the auditing company regarding their needs, some insist on multi engine.
If money is not an issue, buy a B200, with the analog instrument panel.
C208, expensive to buy, very very reliable, a little underpowered in high ambient temperatures, parts support in fantastic and a real pilots aeroplane ( comfortable with aircon that works a treat ) and most importantly passengers love them.
PA31, cheap to buy, very very expensive to maintain and very unreliable. part are reasonably easy to source, uncomfortable piper piece of crap to fly, aircon do not quite cut it, on one engine, poor performer, in my opinion a C402C is a better product.
Cresco ( have not flown the XL ) , heaps of power, cheap to buy, very reliable in the hands of good engineers, parts support is attrocious (PAC), perform much better than a C208 and there are some interesting options available, aircon is good, dual tyre MLG, king avionic including autpilot etc etc. If you could get a contract with the manufacturer, that commits them to provide a proper parts service, they will prove to be far better than the C208, and you can use full reverse in flight
.Just be aware if you are looking at this aircraft for mining contracts, talk to the auditing company regarding their needs, some insist on multi engine.
If money is not an issue, buy a B200, with the analog instrument panel.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
LHRT,
Not the first time I've heard that comment about PAC and parts backup but I think things have changed over time. Management has changed recently also.
As for full reverse in flight
I don't think so...!
Not the first time I've heard that comment about PAC and parts backup but I think things have changed over time. Management has changed recently also.
As for full reverse in flight
I don't think so...!