Leads on aircraft types

[Panama Jack]

Looking for thoughts on an aircraft type for Commercial Operations that:

1) has good short-field performance
2) versatile (pax/cargo)
3) safe
4) economical

A discussion brought up the DHC-6 Twin Otter, but the C-208 Caravan also seems to present more attractive economics. Does anybody have some data to compare costs between Twin Otters and Caravans? Are there any other types that might be attractive? Stage lengths to be flown would typically be about 150 to 200 nautical miles. I have no expected load or demand data, however, similar markets are presently being served by Caravan type aircraft and Part 25 turboprops. Would be also able to consider former Soviet Union types such as Antonovs.

[Hawkeye4077]

Emb-110

[TG]

Casa 212.

[Carrier]

You might also want to compare the one engine out performance of the various aircraft being considered!

[Brantford Beech Boy]

DHC-5

[Panama Jack]

Thanks for the leads so far. Any sources you can point me towards for facts & figures on operating costs for the Casa 212 and EMB-110?

[Just another canuck]

I think the Caravan is still going to be the most cost effective airplane and can carry up to 3000 pounds depending on the model. It can easily be converted from pax to cargo... pods are great too and it can get in and out of most places. I flew one for a company in overseas and they have about 15 now... the legs were quite often about the same as what you are looking at doing. This company looked at a lot of aircraft before moving forward and buying the Vans... in the end they have Caravans and Porters... that's it.

Downside obviously is the single engine... but where are you going to be operating these aircraft? Some of those strips I flew into... even the Twin Otters would be screwed if they lost an engine on take off. So sometimes it doesn't matter if you have two engines or one.

In my humble opinion, the Caravan is the all around best choice.

[black hole]

DHC-3T


BH

[JigglyBus]

http://www.planequest.com/operationcosts/default.asp

[Pratt X 3]

How about one of these?

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/p-7 ... escription

[Cobra64]

How about one of these?

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/p-7 ... escription

wow that is ugly.

What about the Kodiak?http://questaircraft.com/

[200hr Wonder]

Beech 99?

[Panama Jack]

I've taken a look at these Pacific Aerospace aircraft once at an airshow, but they seem rather expensive for what they are (no doubt because they are produced in a relatively high-cost of labor country like NZ). Given their intended mission, I am surprised they stuck the wings below the fuselage.

Thanks for your thoughts, Just another canuck. I tend to agree with you and this is my initial reaction, however, I am trying to put a little bit more of an exhaustive study into it to, if nothing else, give greater justification to the Caravan.

black hole, any idea of the cost of a DHC-3T and do you know if the landplane versions are available in tricycle config or only in conventional gear configuration?

[Just another canuck]

Given their intended mission, I am surprised they stuck the wings below the fuselage.

I was going to same the exact same thing...

The Otter is a way cooler machine and significantly cheaper than a new Van, about the same as a used one... but you can get a brand new Caravan with a G1000 in it... and do you really need the STOL characteristics of the Otter anyway? In most situations, the Van will do the job.

I like that Kodiak too, but it's not proven like the Van in my humble opinion.

Good luck with the research PJ... Cheers.

[almost african]

Hi guys, I'm a long time lurker here, but this is my first post in about 10 years.

If you are ok with going single engine, I would vote for the Caravan. It does depend how short the airstrips are. The Caravan is a good short field performer, but it's not great. If you have really short airstrips, the best version of the 'Van would be a standard 'Van with the 675 SHP engine. You can also get a stol kit for them that allows you to use 30 flap for take off. A standard Caravan with the APE III up gross kit is not a bad short field aircraft and the payload is pretty good.

One other thing to consider is how easy it will be to get parts. It sounds like you want to use it overseas. Cessna has good dealer network set up.

[iflyforpie]

+1 on the Kodiak. These were specifically designed for STOL bush flying, not a Navajo/402 replacement like the Van. I saw these in action this fall and was very impressed. The operator is extremely satisfied with the STOL capabilities and ruggedness of this aircraft.

Given their intended mission, I am surprised they stuck the wings below the fuselage.

It's a trade-off. Less ground clearance and smaller flaps, but wider gear stance, less susceptible to gusts, and better ground effect.

Ford/Chevy.

[Panama Jack]

Thanks for breaking silence, almost african, and contributing your thoughts and observations to this discussion. Your point about the availability of parts and support is especially valid and I agree that Cessna has great coverage on that, particularly in the region which I am considering. STOL performance is one of the criteria I am looking at, but I am not looking at super-short strips measured in hundreds of feet either. Nevertheless, versatility is good, but it super-STOL performance is not one of the main drivers.

Yes, the aircraft would be used overseas (hence the mention of any manufacturer considered including Antonovs). While some of the twin-Antonovs' initial aquisition costs look attractive, their operating economics seem uncompetitive.

Thanks for the link JigglyBus. I am wondering if anybody has any sources for the economics of operating some of the other aircraft like the Casa 212, EMB-110, BE-99, DHC-6, even aircraft like the DHC-8, Shorts 360 and ATR?

[Ogee]

The Bandit is/was a very good airplane, but I wouldn't really call it a STOL performer and I think all the bandits now are pushing 20,000 hours and up.

The Dornier 228 was a pretty good STOL performer, and a hell of a lot faster in cruise than the TO, but I think there may be some issues with parts now that Dornier is TU. Unless Fairchild is looking after that.

[impress]

Navajo Chieftain can be a fairly competitive aircraft, all the recommendations are suggesting Turbines, but given the "entry level" price and low operating cost ($400-500p/hr) all in, it seems attractive. The short legs also fit nice with a piston aircraft where high cycles don't destroy your bottom line (cycle limit components).

[Just another canuck]

The Dornier 228 was a pretty good STOL performer, and a hell of a lot faster in cruise than the TO, but I think there may be some issues with parts now that Dornier is TU. Unless Fairchild is looking after that.

Not only faster, but has a much greater payload... I think used ones are in between 1 and 2 million, but the parts are really expensive I believe. You can buy brand new ones for 7 million dollars... they're pretty sweet looking. Glass cockpit and five-bladed propellers.

[Cougar]

Given their intended mission, I am surprised they stuck the wings below the fuselage.

It's a trade-off. Less ground clearance and smaller flaps, but wider gear stance, less susceptible to gusts, and better ground effect.
Ford/Chevy.

We got to check out one of the NZ 750s when they came through on a bit of a sales tour, trying to sell them to the government for fire-type work. It looks stout as hell and I asked about the wing design -- apparently it is a descendant of a long-established ag model that's quite known in NZ and Australia for its toughness, working out of rough grass fields with some good slopes to them.

It sure looked like a fun machine handling-wise, though those wings did look awful close to the ground. It looked like it could work pretty hard, all in all, but the cabin isn't that big around inside.

[rigpiggy]

every aircraft is a compromise, what is the route distance, Density altitude, load factor, runway length, which country to be registered ie the 212 is not TC certified for canada. ad nauseum etc.....

[Cobra64]

How about a Sherpa!! I saw this thing at Oshkosh and it was really cool. Way bigger than it looks in the videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mrJ5_Ln ... r_embedded

5000lb takeoff roll of 102'

[TG]

Panama Jack is obviously not looking for something to do in Canada hence me mentioning the Casa 212.

For some basic performance about it (and all other kind of specs if you click the 'aircraft for sale tab')
http://www.skyquestinternational.com/Pe ... 2-200.html

Some good arguments about the Casa in this PPrune's topic.
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-304794.html

For real $$ comparative and serious numbers I would invest into an avmarkinc publication.
Here is an sample of what they can pull from an aircraft type, ATR42-300 in this case if you scroll down to page 6.
(pdf format)
http://www.avmarkinc.com/publications/STA%20Sample.pdf

[oldncold]

ONE thing to keep in mind to panama is: fuel type avgas is so expensive in many parts of the world and non exsistant in others. Not a fun situation when the locals get tribal and your in between the warring factions and have to leave pronto . Also the garrett have great over haul times/low fuel burns. but tend to be more finicky when f.o.d. and fuel contaminents. possible in the dark continent. a pt6 will burn just about every thing except water. and due to there reverse flow design less fod suseptable.

if you want a excellent combo of performance blackhawk engine overhaul is developing an 850 shp for the caravan and there is now a 1000shp garrett certified. read the march issue of flying mag for specs. a hot and high performer for sure.