Commuterliner--19 seat or less
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Badajoz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commuterliner--19 seat or less
Hello:
First of all: sorry for my english.
I'm looking for a small and "relatively cheap" aircraft in order to start a little regional airline. I have read a lot about Beechcraft 1900C/D, which seems to be a good option. Others options are Jetstream 31 (although I think this one is more expensive) or the EMB 110.
The idea of 19 seats is in order to reduce costs avoiding the need of flight attendants.
I need ideas and information.
Thanks a lot.
First of all: sorry for my english.
I'm looking for a small and "relatively cheap" aircraft in order to start a little regional airline. I have read a lot about Beechcraft 1900C/D, which seems to be a good option. Others options are Jetstream 31 (although I think this one is more expensive) or the EMB 110.
The idea of 19 seats is in order to reduce costs avoiding the need of flight attendants.
I need ideas and information.
Thanks a lot.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: some rock
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might also consider Fairchild Metros, Merlin IV ... . They are very cheap at the moment, although I can't comment on the maintenance issues.
A factor to consider is that B1900 runs on PT6A which even with extended life program (whatever PWC calls it) can't outrun the TBO figures of the TPE331 which is also known to be more reliable and in many cases more cost efficient than its PT6A counterparts.
And as for the obvious LET L-410 / L-420 might be an option. However I don't know how the takeover of Walter Engines by GE will affect the cost.
A factor to consider is that B1900 runs on PT6A which even with extended life program (whatever PWC calls it) can't outrun the TBO figures of the TPE331 which is also known to be more reliable and in many cases more cost efficient than its PT6A counterparts.
And as for the obvious LET L-410 / L-420 might be an option. However I don't know how the takeover of Walter Engines by GE will affect the cost.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Badajoz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your answer. I have been offered a LET 410 for leasing, but I have doubts about passengers comfort. And I don't like the looking very of the plane very much.
I will look for information about Merlin IV and Fairchild Metros.
I will look for information about Merlin IV and Fairchild Metros.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an expert but an informed participant.
From experience of operating both engines the PT6 is more reliable. Both engines are robust, but the protection built into a TPE (SRL, TTL) aren't so reliable, especially in moist conditions. Indeed dampness is the J31's worst enemy. A lot of old switches and avionics.
You don't mention you're operating conditions, field length, sector length etc. Also the country of registration will have a bearing. I don't think there is a 1900D on the G reg for example.
In short if you need field performance or anticipate long sectors I'd consider the 1900.
If these aren't an issue I'd look at J31. As long as it's dry or hangared. Bear in mind that 3 years ago you could pick up 3 J31s for the price of a 1900D. However if the Jetstream will sit outside in rain it will quickly negate any savings by bankrupting you through lack of reliability.
I don't have experience of the Metro but believe it to be challenging to maintain. Happy to be corrected. Also I suspect you may find crews/engineers more readily for the Jetstream.
A curve ball to consider may be the J41. Much more reliable. My old company operated it with 19 seats as it was a lot cheaper than the Beech.
From experience of operating both engines the PT6 is more reliable. Both engines are robust, but the protection built into a TPE (SRL, TTL) aren't so reliable, especially in moist conditions. Indeed dampness is the J31's worst enemy. A lot of old switches and avionics.
You don't mention you're operating conditions, field length, sector length etc. Also the country of registration will have a bearing. I don't think there is a 1900D on the G reg for example.
In short if you need field performance or anticipate long sectors I'd consider the 1900.
If these aren't an issue I'd look at J31. As long as it's dry or hangared. Bear in mind that 3 years ago you could pick up 3 J31s for the price of a 1900D. However if the Jetstream will sit outside in rain it will quickly negate any savings by bankrupting you through lack of reliability.
I don't have experience of the Metro but believe it to be challenging to maintain. Happy to be corrected. Also I suspect you may find crews/engineers more readily for the Jetstream.
A curve ball to consider may be the J41. Much more reliable. My old company operated it with 19 seats as it was a lot cheaper than the Beech.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: France
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
I don't know what routes you want to fly but if you're into short runways with a modern aircraft, the upcoming Skylander SK-105 is worth to have a look at it.
it's a 19 PAX aircraft equipped with 2 PT6A-65B that will be type certificated under CS-23 commuter.
It takes off in 670m at MTOW (with engine failure) and lands in 490m. (information taken from website) : GECI Aviation
Rgds
Chti
I don't know what routes you want to fly but if you're into short runways with a modern aircraft, the upcoming Skylander SK-105 is worth to have a look at it.
it's a 19 PAX aircraft equipped with 2 PT6A-65B that will be type certificated under CS-23 commuter.
It takes off in 670m at MTOW (with engine failure) and lands in 490m. (information taken from website) : GECI Aviation
Rgds
Chti
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly with Manx quite often on their LETs. I always look forward to flying them because they are fun, and different, and for those short flights, depending on your market and routes, it might not matter that they're not very comfortable.
On the downside, they are odd looking, noisy, and not very comfortable, but that is a function of the seating you might choose rather than the aircraft.
I would also suspect that like many East European products, they are fairly simple, well built, and robust - but that's a guess.
On the downside, they are odd looking, noisy, and not very comfortable, but that is a function of the seating you might choose rather than the aircraft.
I would also suspect that like many East European products, they are fairly simple, well built, and robust - but that's a guess.
