Hot Caravan Is it about time ?
(even though I do also like the King-air!)
The conquest 1 was a turboprop version of the 425 - not a real conquest as we know it, with only 8 seats. I've never seen one in the flesh, the only PT6 version of the conqy that I have seen is the F406 and its closer to the 404 than the 441 
Its not just the fuel flow though that makes the 331 a better performer than the PT6, its also TAS and as a result of fuel flow, range.
Its not just the fuel flow though that makes the 331 a better performer than the PT6, its also TAS and as a result of fuel flow, range.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the only downfall is they are noisy"
Now *that's* an understatement - Not so bad inside the aircraft, but ear-splitting when they taxi past !!!
Now *that's* an understatement - Not so bad inside the aircraft, but ear-splitting when they taxi past !!!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caravan salute?
Anyone who's flown a Metro will know about the "Metro Salute" when taxiing in... People standing around with fingers in both ears till you shutdown 
. Guess the van with garrets will do the same!.. or... people standing around with one finger in one ear?????
. Guess the van with garrets will do the same!.. or... people standing around with one finger in one ear?????
The Model 441 Conquest was the first to be developed, it was designed concurrently with the piston engined 404 Titan in the mid 1970s. Development was announced in November 1974, and the first flight occurred in August 1976. First customer deliveries were from September 1977. The 441 shares a common fuselage with the Titan, but has a longer span (bonded and wet) wing, a pressurised fuselage, and most significantly, Garrett TPE331 turboprop engines. A PT6A powered 441, designated the 435, flew during 1986, but it did not enter production.
The 425 Corsair meanwhile was introduced to the Cessna model lineup from 1980. Based on the Model 421 Golden Eagle, it differs from its donor aircraft in having turboprop engines (in this case PT6As). Design work on the Corsair began in 1977, first flight was on September 12 1978 and first production deliveries took place in November 1980.
From 1983 Cessna renamed the Corsair the Conquest I, while the Conquest became the Conquest II. Production of both ceased in 1986.
The French built Reims Cessna F406 Caravan II meanwhile is something of a hybrid, incorporating 373kW (500shp) PT6A112s, the unpressurised fuselage of the Titan and the Conquest II's wings. First delivered in late 1984, the Caravan II is the only Cessna turboprop twin currently in production.
Copyright Airliners.net, some information Copyright Aerospace Publications
The 425 Corsair meanwhile was introduced to the Cessna model lineup from 1980. Based on the Model 421 Golden Eagle, it differs from its donor aircraft in having turboprop engines (in this case PT6As). Design work on the Corsair began in 1977, first flight was on September 12 1978 and first production deliveries took place in November 1980.
From 1983 Cessna renamed the Corsair the Conquest I, while the Conquest became the Conquest II. Production of both ceased in 1986.
The French built Reims Cessna F406 Caravan II meanwhile is something of a hybrid, incorporating 373kW (500shp) PT6A112s, the unpressurised fuselage of the Titan and the Conquest II's wings. First delivered in late 1984, the Caravan II is the only Cessna turboprop twin currently in production.
Copyright Airliners.net, some information Copyright Aerospace Publications
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Garrett (TPE331) is a far more responsive and fuel-efficient engine, and normally has a longer TBO than the PT6 (commonly 5400 hours for the TPE331 vs 3600 for the PT6). Garretts are more sensitive to sloppy engineering, harder to fix in the field which is why bush applications commonly use the PT6.
Sensible design - air goes in the front and out the back - no inertial separators required! Not back-asswards like the PT6. One of the reasons that the Garrett is more efficient.
Garretts use centrifugal compressors too (two of them).
On the reliability front, Garretts are very reliable indeed, which is why the Americans selected it to engine the Predator B drone. That thing loiters forever.
Have flown thousands of hours on both PT6s and Garretts. Never had a Garrett fail, but I've had two PT6s shed their innards on me. The PT6 is a good GA engine, but the Garrett is better in airline ops.
Sensible design - air goes in the front and out the back - no inertial separators required! Not back-asswards like the PT6. One of the reasons that the Garrett is more efficient.
I thought Centrifugal Compressors were quite a bit stronger than axials.
On the reliability front, Garretts are very reliable indeed, which is why the Americans selected it to engine the Predator B drone. That thing loiters forever.
Have flown thousands of hours on both PT6s and Garretts. Never had a Garrett fail, but I've had two PT6s shed their innards on me. The PT6 is a good GA engine, but the Garrett is better in airline ops.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. I'm sure I said Cessna Conquest I?? 
It was good enough to serve the RFDS in West Australia for many years.
And few operators are on the base PT6 TBO around 3,600 hours. Most serious operators would be on either extended TBO or On Condition. I've known a PT6A-34 On Condition to run in excess of 10,000 hours before being overhauled. Equally, the Garrett can be approved for extended TBOs.
The Conquest II had a Garrett -8, which most operators replaced as soon as STC's for the -10 became available.
But it is "horses for courses" and I accept the Metro was a great accountant's machine - except perhaps the Metro I with -3's and the Merlin ... enough said!
But we digress and back to the thread topic. I can not think of any Garrett single engine commercial aircraft installation (except the short lived Pilatus Porter), which leads me to suspect that unless someone has lashings of $'s, a Garrett powered Cessna 208 Caravan will probably remain a day VHF aircraft.
It was good enough to serve the RFDS in West Australia for many years.
And few operators are on the base PT6 TBO around 3,600 hours. Most serious operators would be on either extended TBO or On Condition. I've known a PT6A-34 On Condition to run in excess of 10,000 hours before being overhauled. Equally, the Garrett can be approved for extended TBOs.
The Conquest II had a Garrett -8, which most operators replaced as soon as STC's for the -10 became available.
But it is "horses for courses" and I accept the Metro was a great accountant's machine - except perhaps the Metro I with -3's and the Merlin ... enough said!
But we digress and back to the thread topic. I can not think of any Garrett single engine commercial aircraft installation (except the short lived Pilatus Porter), which leads me to suspect that unless someone has lashings of $'s, a Garrett powered Cessna 208 Caravan will probably remain a day VHF aircraft.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metro performance? NOT
Hey Green Goblin you are one of the greatest wind up merchants I have seen on prune. "Metro performance surprising v's a Kingair ", very funny!!! If it weren't for the curvature of the earth a metro would never get airborne. I love your sense of humour.
Groggy.
Groggy.
Hey Green Goblin you are one of the greatest wind up merchants I have seen on prune. "Metro performance surprising v's a Kingair ", very funny!!! If it weren't for the curvature of the earth a metro would never get airborne. I love your sense of humour.
Groggy.
Groggy.
occasion but I did compare a Metro to a 1900 not a King Air. If you want to compare it to a King Air however lets just say 3 things, it uses less fuel than a King Air, is faster, has a greater range and can carry twice the payload Only thing a King Air trumps a metro is land and take off distance which I must admit even a 737 will out do a metro
