Is the "Heavy" Piston Twin dead
Two things are killing light aircraft in general at the moment. One is cost of acquisition and two is cost of operation.
I have heard from those interested in a new PA31 that when they inquired at Piper they received a response along the lines that they would gladly reactivate the line if they could drum up say 20 orders or so for the aircraft. That is 20 orders at the current price which would be estimated at $2-$3 mil a unit.
Once you purchase your Chieftain you then need to make money off it or at least justify the cost of investment for private use. The aircraft will cost not much less than the 30 y/o ones to operate.
If you were to opt for new more efficient engines and weight saving composites the initial price will soon double offsetting any gain in operating cost. This will be due to the cost of the new technology and the recertification process needed, spread over the small orders that will benefit from these options.
Overall it is not just the light aircraft market that is struggling for new equipment. Beech is in chapter 11, they are struggling to keep their head above water even though they are pretty much the only small twin turboprop producer with the king-air. No commuter/regional turbo-props smaller than the ATR-42 are being produced for the western market. The ATR-42 is even struggling for sales, most operators going for the larger ATR-72. The first level at which you see some sales success in recent years is the 70 seat turboprop market. There is a huge void in the new aircraft market between the light to medium single trainers/private market and the 70 seat regional. So far the impact has been large on small communities which have lost air services as these aircraft are retired from useful service. The operators themselves can not afford the costs associated with newer aircraft purchase and the communities can not afford the increased fares without huge subsidies.
I think it will still be a while before the public and regulators will accept single engine passenger operations on a large scale, especially for RPT and corporate charters. People would rather drive or get on a bus/train.
I have heard from those interested in a new PA31 that when they inquired at Piper they received a response along the lines that they would gladly reactivate the line if they could drum up say 20 orders or so for the aircraft. That is 20 orders at the current price which would be estimated at $2-$3 mil a unit.
Once you purchase your Chieftain you then need to make money off it or at least justify the cost of investment for private use. The aircraft will cost not much less than the 30 y/o ones to operate.
If you were to opt for new more efficient engines and weight saving composites the initial price will soon double offsetting any gain in operating cost. This will be due to the cost of the new technology and the recertification process needed, spread over the small orders that will benefit from these options.
Overall it is not just the light aircraft market that is struggling for new equipment. Beech is in chapter 11, they are struggling to keep their head above water even though they are pretty much the only small twin turboprop producer with the king-air. No commuter/regional turbo-props smaller than the ATR-42 are being produced for the western market. The ATR-42 is even struggling for sales, most operators going for the larger ATR-72. The first level at which you see some sales success in recent years is the 70 seat turboprop market. There is a huge void in the new aircraft market between the light to medium single trainers/private market and the 70 seat regional. So far the impact has been large on small communities which have lost air services as these aircraft are retired from useful service. The operators themselves can not afford the costs associated with newer aircraft purchase and the communities can not afford the increased fares without huge subsidies.
I think it will still be a while before the public and regulators will accept single engine passenger operations on a large scale, especially for RPT and corporate charters. People would rather drive or get on a bus/train.
lilflyboy, pretty much the operation I had in mind there, thats how I always figured they'd be best run. Too bad I won't be heading over afterall, managed to find a job elsewhere, little less flying but guaranteed before I came over and in a slightly nicer location!
Tinstaafl, in Aus and NZ at least the Caravan is now accepted as a S/E IFR Aircraft, you have to run it according to certain rules that are a little more stringent than your usual Twin Engine IFR but thats more about getting procedures/systems and SOPs in place at the beginning. Also would it not be practical and wise in the case of crew to start including an FO on the caravans who are then able to do the loading and unloading of the pax at destinations away from where ground facilities are available? You gain the added benefit of extra safety which covers a range of insurance and contract requirements and having a crew member in training who is ready to take over as captain when the fleet expands or other members move on could be considered a prudent investment.
Can anyone tell me if the 58 blades on the Cheyenne mentioned by nomorecatering is one engine or both of the engines? and out of curiosity does anyone know the typical life span of them?
Tinstaafl, in Aus and NZ at least the Caravan is now accepted as a S/E IFR Aircraft, you have to run it according to certain rules that are a little more stringent than your usual Twin Engine IFR but thats more about getting procedures/systems and SOPs in place at the beginning. Also would it not be practical and wise in the case of crew to start including an FO on the caravans who are then able to do the loading and unloading of the pax at destinations away from where ground facilities are available? You gain the added benefit of extra safety which covers a range of insurance and contract requirements and having a crew member in training who is ready to take over as captain when the fleet expands or other members move on could be considered a prudent investment.
Can anyone tell me if the 58 blades on the Cheyenne mentioned by nomorecatering is one engine or both of the engines? and out of curiosity does anyone know the typical life span of them?
Ixixly, I'm aware of the SET that Oz allows - I worked there before & after it was introduced. Those limits for SET still don't apply to twins. It's been a while since I was in Oz, but what are the overwater requirements now? And minimum Wx. conditions compared to a multi operation?
Carrying a non-required crewmember is still one fewer pax or equivalent in bags or fuel. On international flight eg to & from the Bahamas I have to shutdown anyway to go through the customs & immigrations carry-on.
Carrying a non-required crewmember is still one fewer pax or equivalent in bags or fuel. On international flight eg to & from the Bahamas I have to shutdown anyway to go through the customs & immigrations carry-on.
Not 100% certain about the overwater requirements in Oz now for SET IFR, not there myself either and when I wasn't didn't give it a lot of thought as it wasn't something I was involved in. But i'm not sure it would be a major issue as there isn't a great deal of overwater to be done in Oz, but from what I remember you have to remain within gliding distance under CAR258 but the AIP allows you to conduct overwater outside gliding distance but no more than 25nm from a suitable landing area as long as all passengers wear a lifejacket (not sure if this means actually around their neck or having one in its pocket around a persons waist is permitted) and pretty sure life raft required as well.
And that is a good point about being able to carry less pax and/or cargo. I'm only really thinking about Domestic operations, but once again a good point to consider.
And that is a good point about being able to carry less pax and/or cargo. I'm only really thinking about Domestic operations, but once again a good point to consider.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston twins are dead.........?
Not according to Tecnam
Check out the Tecnam P2012 Traveller. Its specifically designed to replace ageing PA31'a etc. I believe ball park price $1.8-2.0M. Very practical machine and mogas/ avgas approved.
Launch customer is Cape Air of Nantucket............. 67 x C402's.
Still no guarantees at this stage it will make the production line, but the interest and market demand has been identified.
Not according to Tecnam
Check out the Tecnam P2012 Traveller. Its specifically designed to replace ageing PA31'a etc. I believe ball park price $1.8-2.0M. Very practical machine and mogas/ avgas approved.
Launch customer is Cape Air of Nantucket............. 67 x C402's.
Still no guarantees at this stage it will make the production line, but the interest and market demand has been identified.
At 2 million bucks a pop, they won't be selling too many into Australia. An operator wishing to move with the times and stay competitive in the corporate sector could source two decent used King Airs for not much more money than that.
The piston era is all but over. Not just the problems of ageing airframes, but none of the old cabin class piston twins meet today's engine- inoperative performance requirements. Most corporate customers want this and there are now enough turbo prop operators in the market for them to get it.
The piston era is all but over. Not just the problems of ageing airframes, but none of the old cabin class piston twins meet today's engine- inoperative performance requirements. Most corporate customers want this and there are now enough turbo prop operators in the market for them to get it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 51
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tecnam will sell loads of them, I predict. There are tons of small Carribbean, Asian, African operators making do with old BN2's that would welcome a replacement.
At 2 million bucks a pop, they won't be selling too many into Australia. An operator wishing to move with the times and stay competitive in the corporate sector could source two decent used King Airs for not much more money than that.
At least with a new aircraft you have some surety on what you're getting, unless it has unproven technology.
Aussie operators have generally been averse to buying new, so seem to accept that with a used turbo-prop they will have a few initial maintenance issues. Half a million or more bucks of savings on a used King Air or similar buys a lot of maintenance. Also, a canny buyer can often get power by the hour to insure against premature engine overhauls. Is this available with piston engines?
Unless they have re-invented the laws of physics I don't see how the proposed
twin will have acceptable engine-out performance. 10 punters, fixed gear and 350HP? Maybe OK in Europe but here in the summer?
Unless they have re-invented the laws of physics I don't see how the proposed
twin will have acceptable engine-out performance. 10 punters, fixed gear and 350HP? Maybe OK in Europe but here in the summer?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion - tecnam thing will be dead before it starts. 700hp running avgas. 2m initial price. 160kts. I'm not sure of too many reputable operators who would be willing to spend money on or operate something such as this. Cost per nm and per seat nm is a big factor.
As Mach said the performance on one with 1300kg on board with 350hp left will be marginal based only on what we have seen in the past. Pure speculation...
As Mach said the performance on one with 1300kg on board with 350hp left will be marginal based only on what we have seen in the past. Pure speculation...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely flight thank you and it was very much alive. Nice sunny day, just a little bit of cloud to make it interesting without biting buttonholes in the seat having to do an approach or anything nasty like that. In all honesty, the C404 runs rings around any of its competitors in the piston engined class. 
Last edited by PLovett; 11th Dec 2012 at 08:40. Reason: Mong spelling
Provided you don't have to pay for the engine overhaul or geared probs
If you have professional and competent engineers and pilots the Titan is an awesome aircraft and the GTSIO is an awesome engine. As said above, it shits all over the competition
