Without doubt the Beech is a far better choice....BUT the price diff from a PA31 to a B200 for Eg is huge! The cost of one busted TSIO540 compared to a busted PT6 is also Huge. The two types aren't really in the same league & therefore can't be compared unless funds where unlimited then if that be the case the PA31 wouldn't come into the fray here so I assume 'TriMed' is still playing/talking down at grass roots level (piston stuff) so a twin turbine I think is out of the question here by the sounds of things.
The C404 is a real load carrier far better than the old Chieftan I reckon but would be surprised to find a good C404 laying idle these days.


Wmk2

A well maintained PC 12, or Cessna Conquest in from US while the dollar is up. Turbines the way to go. Piper Meridian,Tbm 850, or even the Extra 500 if you want somthing smaller.

The Pc 12 is just a beautiful, fully sorted aircraft with a great track record. I reckon there must be an enthusiast owner in some desert state in the USA who is ready to sell.....

A PA 31 with low time... maybe but still 25-30 years old. I dont know what projections you have or how many hours you anticipate but this is now one very antiquated plane. Even a Meridian would make more sense in 85% of situations

+1 for the PC12 - but not the NG (avionics STILL having teething problems!)

Even Wally must admit one PT6 is safer than two 540s!
I'd guess that total costs in the long run would be less than a PA31 too.

Izzzatso!!!
Where are the/your figures???

In a paper presented to a regional airservices conference in Sydney, sponsored by the NSW Government, a detailed paper from a well known operator refuted both of the above commonly held misconceptions.

Firstly, engine reliability of small turbines v. piston is a bit of a myth, secondly, the cost$$ / HP / hour for a -540 is streets ahead of a PT-6 or a Garret --- even when you have two versus one.

Tootle pip!!

How many fatal accidents are there each year in piston twins versus turbo props? Forget about short term dollars and think about long term longevity of the crew and pax....;)

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../7/0900729.jpg


AS for the PC12 - double the money of a Piper Meridian. You can buy a lovely Meridian for $800k . A good step from a 206, which is the operators current aircraft

$799,000 PIPER MERIDIAN aircraft for sale, Reg # N32KE, Piper Meridian for sale

If money was no object there would be only one aircraft for me, a Royal Turbine Duke!:ok:

Sorry leadsled but that was tongue in cheek but I would be interested if you can show stats that a piston twin is safer than a pc12! (but in a separate thread - enough thread drift already!) Aeromed in Australia certainly has given the pc12 a serious workout, and the stats there speak a lot.

I honestly believe it would be the safest and most cost effective option for the payload, but if that much payload is not required then a meridian would be an interesting alternative. Don't know much about them though.

Thanks again for the feedback.. Can anyone actually answer the question that i posed?

A Kingair or Pilatus would be great but if anyone has bothered to read the whole thread, a Chieftain fits the budget but a Kingair that costs 8 times as much to purchase and 4 times as much to operate DOES NOT...

There is NO good C402/404 out there, they all have mega hours and generally are kitted out for freight or high density aboriginal carrying.. If someone can point me toward a nice one then feel free to.

Duke / Meridian = really good 4 seat aircraft once you put a load into them. Why does everyone think that ASETPA (soon to be ASEA i believe, as in no longer limited to turbines) is so easy to gain approval for? We are a small scale start up operator with no in-house engineering, and the nearest LAME that can look after a TBM / Meridian type aircraft to ASETPA standard a fair way away...

This is an interim aircraft not a long term proposition, why do all the charter operators around here operate Chieftains? They are cost effective and have passenger appeal. Im talking 100-300 NM legs with 6-7 POB and often un-prepared strips. The aircraft that we are looking at are all sub 5000 hours, 1980+ models with excellent maintenance history.

CAN SOMEONE ANSWER MY QUESTION RE: THE VARIOUS VG KITS, Q TIP PROPS AND WINGLETS??

Tri med,

Stop arseing about and move to the 21st century. 30 year old piston twins? Come on.

A Caravan will do everything you want and more. I guarantee if you bought carefully and through the right broker, a mill. If you haven't got the budget to provide your pax with the safest mode of transport, buy a minibus and deck it out for comfortable travel.

'TriMed' I have recognized that a turbine is out or yr reach & have said as much mainly cause the cost is huge over the two types. Just that most in here are thinking without their hands on their wallet:ok:
As for the performance details yr after? Am sure someone will come up with those specs as I have been out off lying the PA31 for some years now but I know one things for sure with 10 bums on board at MTOW in 40 deg's the '31' won't climb much at all with the gear stuck down. This I found out many years ago at Olympic Dam in SA after T/Off, bloody gear wouldn't come up...........pretty much full power in the circuit to get back on the ground....ahhhh

Hope you find what yr looking for, it's always a trade off with aviation anyway.


Wmk2

Wal, it's like most 'operators' in GA, whinging and complaining about cost. If you haven't got the money to operate safely in aviation, f@#k off out of it.

Aviation is no place to be operating on a 'budget' If that in itself is a problem, bring back regulation I say.

Take the bus, buy a nice car and drive, go RPT or get the budget to do it properly in aviation. Either way, stop moaning about cost.

I would NEVER let any of my family board a Cheiftain for RPT or Charter. EVER.

Tri-med, have you made the people that you transport aware of the risks involved with these aircraft? Do they think it's as safe as getting on a B737 with the appropriately trained crew? Have you given them options i.e. PA31 v TBM850 v PC12 v C208 v BE20 v DHC8 (and hire car) etc?

When you're out chasing down the Sea Shepherd giving tips to the Japanese Whalers, operating hundreds of miles off the coast of NZ, you can't beat a Chieftain eh? ;);)

I hear ya Jack but we don't live in a perfect world where the word 'budget' only gets heard of when the Govt are trying to rape us!
Every working class person & probably every business works on a 'budget' so even though the the turbine jobs are safer in a lot of ways the old clunkers as the PA31 still have their places in a budget conscious industry. As long as they are maintained properly(that's where the word budget lies not the plane itself) I see no reason not to fly in them. I think it was AirLink in Dubbo used to have some of the most immaculate Chieftans one would see & they operated RPT on a budget am sure.

Anyway we ALL whinge & complain about something cost related not just in aviation. Every time I fill the cars tank I complain but you won't see me taking the bus because of it:)
Choice, it's all about choice:ok:

Wmk2

If you must go with a chieftain then don't touch anything without the increased mtow, the landing weight upgrade, and a crew door!

Sorry I can't help you in regards to the q-tips or winglets.

Now, while the economy of scale is obviously different, and im no accountant, but looking at the central ops 2010 annual report it costs the RFDS about $500 an hour for fuel, maintenance, and engine overhauls on the Pilatus. That may or may not include labour from the engineers as they are in-house, but that surely wouldnt bring it up to more than say $700 (which is roughly what Pilatus say at the current price of fuel). Not to mention you cover almost 50% more ground in the same given time compared to a Pa31. How much are you planning to spend running the Chieftain? Bear in mind the above gets you Egpws, TCAS, and full de-icing - not found in most chieftains.

Why don't the bottom end operators use them? Because it's GA in Australia, what do you expect? :ouch:

I manage a PA31-325 Panther & have flown the versions below. This is based in the USA so weights are in lbs. Numbers are from the respective aircraft's flight manual/POH.

The Panther mod on a Navajo-325 gives 190-195kts at 70-75% power. Bear in mind that this a Navajo's smaller fuselage with a Chieftain's bigger engines. That's ~44 USG/hr. On the other hand, we had a JPI EDM installed and usually operate it LOP (50LOP is approved in the POH). Then I get 170kts and 27 USG/hr. Temps are usually better too.

ROP and at 65% power I typically saw 165-170kts in the others. I flew a particular -350 before & after VGs. It lost about 5 kts in the cruise.

PA31-310 stock / with VG kit:

Maximum Certificated Weights (-310 / -310+VG)
Max Ramp Weight = 6536 lbs / 6880 lbs
Max takeoff weight = 6500 lbs / 6840 lbs
Max landing weight = 6500 lbs
Zero fuel weight = 6200 lbs

PA31-325 stock & with Panther mod (VG kit, winglets, 4 blade prop etc):

Maximum Certificated Weights -325 / +Panther
Max Ramp Weight = 6540 lbs / 6740
Max takeoff weight = 6500 lbs / 6700 lbs
Max landing weight = 6500 lbs
Max zero fuel weight = 6200 lbs

PA31-350 stock & with VG kit:

Maximum Certificated Weights -350 / +VG kit
Max Ramp Weight is 7045 lbs / 7448 lbs
Max takeoff weight is 7000 lbs / 7368 lbs
Max landing weight is 7000 lbs
Max zero fuel weight is 7000 lbs

I'd suggest avoiding the -310. It doesn't have wing lockers. The room in those wing lockers are damned useful, both volume & the 150 lb /locker. The only benefit of a -310 is a VG kit equipped one getting a greater gain in useful load compared to a -325 with wing lockers.

The -325 I manage is a Mike Jones 'Lock & Key' aircraft. Like he advertises, the day you buy it you can use it. You'll pay through the nose for it though. It will also tend to have a high BEW thanks to the equipment it'll have. The 1980 -325 I mentioned is over 200 lb heavier than a mid to late 1970's -310 I used to fly.

To give an idea of the equipment it came with:

7 seat interior including Club seating & potty seat. No 8th seat next to the door. The interior is nice. Typical MJ stuff but quite presentable. Only thing I don't like is the mono-colour blue carpet. It really shows the grime & sun fading. I think a speckled/patterned charcoal, mid grey & blue would have been better.
Garmin 530 & 430
Avidyne 500 MFD
2 x Garmin TXDR. One a 330, other a 327. The 330 is Mode S & provides an uplinked traffic alert function (displayed on both Garmins, the MFD & the EHSI)
Colour Wx radar (displayed on the MFD)
Stormscope (displayed on the MFD & EHSI)
Digital fuel flow
King EHSI
King 3 axis KAP200 AP with FD & YD

Audio panel with music inputs from a jack in the cockpit (me likee!) + a jack in the cabin. Can isolate pilot or cockpit from the cabin.

Factory O2 with masks (mic. masks for the crew seats)
Factory aircon** (which uses about 2' of the R. wing locker space)
Co-pilot panel with HSI. Old DI retained but useless for single pilot ops due positioning at far lower right of CP panel.

Nosewheel scissor link disconnect. Allows the link to be disconnected without tools by substituting a push-release pin. Bloody brilliant for towing. The number of PA31s I've seen with bashed-to-hell castings thanks to towing beyond the pitiful turn limit...

Amenities/icebox partition with electric razor power outlet.

Four blade props. Very quiet *and* increased ground clearance.

Lightweight high speed starter motors. I like these. An engines being turned over looks like it's a turbine being motored. Starts are rather easy & the motors weigh less than the factory equipment...

Improved electronic prop syncrophaser (not syncroniser) to replace the old factory one.

VG kit, winglets with integral recognition, nav. & strobe lights

Shortly after I took over management of it I had the owner install a JPI EDM. MJ has them on all his aircraft now but didn't when this one was done. We've also had to upgrade the Garmins to WAAS after one unit needed repair. F**cking Garmin won't repair older, non-WAAS units without an upgrade. Don't need WAAS so it was a cost that all but useless but necessary to regain original functionality after a Garmin let its magical smoke escape.



**The mid to late '70's -310 I used to fly didn't have factory aircon. Instead it had an aftermarket electrically power system that fitted into the pilot side cockpit/pax area bulkhead. Not as good as having a conditioned air outlet for each seat but could be powered on the ground with a GPU. Very convenient!


------------
Later: Forgot to add that it also has known ice approval with de-ice gear (boots, heated pilot side windscreen. Not one of those hot plate things but most of the windscreen). It also has XM weather. XM weather is bloody wonderful! Biggest advance in Wx. safety since on-board radar. Don't think the service is available in Oz?

Wally, thanks for being on the same page.

Jack, thanks for your opinion.. Please keep your assumptions re: budget and maintenance/safety to yourself.

Really great that after 5 pages of explaining that perhaps at this point in time a single engine turbine is not what we are after and doesnt suit our needs, up pops suggestion after suggestion of a single engine turbine.

Glekichi we are looking at fully de-iced, TAWS, TIS, radar, storm scope, flight director, dual WAAS GNSS, Air-Con etc etc. Obviously cost is why the "bottom end" operators dont use turbine aircraft. Perhaps if Jetscab didnt offer $49 Melbourne-Gold Coast fares the masses wouldnt laugh so much when you quoted $3000 Mildura-Bendigo in a B200.

On another note I am interested in just how much better say a C90 or C441 is on a hot day when full over the cabin class pistons? I ask this as while i was in Canberra a few weeks back there was a Conquest obviously doing an endorsement or flight test as they advised being assy on take off. Anyway once airborne at about 800' or so it slowed up quite a bit and climb seemed to cease basically heading straight for the hills.

TriMedGroup.. It's good to see that you're not rushing into this, and it seems that you've narrowed down your search.

One question that comes to mind however. Will the result of a bigger aircraft (twin) necessitate charter ops to subsidise the cost of the aircraft, or is it merely a nicety to have the option there?

Aussie...
 

Why not the new Gippsland GA18...
GAF Nomad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or some Italiano...
http://www.vulcanair.com/page-view.p...rcraftA-Viator

or a few more seats...
Viking

Many options...
One I have always wanted...
Beech 18 Headquarters

Or for a bit of speed - http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2922.html

:ok::E:D

TriMedGroup,

Forgive my butting in here as a non-Aussie(can't help reading all threads regarding MEP with interest), but I couldn't help noticing your comment regarding 404's. Have sent you a PM. Good luck.