Wipaire announces C208B Grand Caravan on floats

[Lost Lake]

Am I missing something? Caravan: 9 pax, Twin otter 18 pax. Twin otter 3,500 lb payload plus, Caravan payload, ?. Roominess, 2 engines, etc.

[kevinsky18]

Am I missing something? Caravan: 9 pax, Twin otter 18 pax. Twin otter 3,500 lb payload plus, Caravan payload, ?. Roominess, 2 engines, etc.

I think you made a good argument for the new 208B Amphib / Seaplane.

If you have smaller passenger loads, say ummm 9 or less then most of the variables favour the Caravan.

2 engines means twice the maintenance.

2 engines mean twice the fuel burn

Twin otter weighs more so you are again burning more fuel to keep that extra weight in the air.

A new Twin Otter is twice the price of a new Caravan. In other words you could buy two Vans and move the same 18 passengers. Even better is if you have 9 passengers going to point A and the other 9 going to point C now you can accommodate both requests.

The new 8750 floats were designed to address some of the big water issues of the old design. The bigger engine will help also.

The 208B & 8750 floats have not been proven in the field yet so we shall have to wait and see. But we certainly can’t count out the 208B / 8750 based on 208 / 8000 performance. They are different machines: airframe, floats and engine.

[longjon]

It's still a CESSNA, bottom of the food chain.

[esp803]

Well I do agree that the caravan is no twin otter... bottom of the food chain I think not.

Try comparing useful loads on a 150-200 mile leg, legally a caravan will spank a twin otter.

E

[longjon]

I know it will get the job done, My favorite Cessna is the 404.
But its still a Cessna. Would you rather a Mahindra or Ford truck? Dodge or Kia?

[Meatservo]

Well I do agree that the caravan is no twin otter... bottom of the food chain I think not.

Try comparing useful loads on a 150-200 mile leg, legally a caravan will spank a twin otter.

E

OK, I just did, for the 200nm leg. It's been a while since I flew either of them, so I made some assumptions which might not be accurate.

I assumed both aircraft on small wheels, the 300 series twin otter, and the "A" model caravan.

Twin otter: MGTOW 12500 lb, cruise 150 knots (10,000 feet), fuel burn 575lb/hour, and empty weight 7900 pounds.

Caravan: MGTOW 8360 lb, cruise 170 knots (10,000 feet), burn 320lb/hour, and empty weight 4500 pounds

I came up with 3540 pounds for the Otter, and 3338 pounds for the caravan, assuming 1/2 hour for reserve and a few pounds for taxi. Maybe someone with recent experience could correct these figures if I'm out to lunch on any of them.


It's pretty impressive, but it doesn't "spank" the otter. Having said that, if I was just hauling cargo on wheels, I'd go with the Caravan. It would be a lot cheaper to haul the same amount of freight. However, most twin Otters are not just "hauling freight". They're taking off again from places that a caravan would only land once, and not take off again.

[Rowdy]

The twin otter structure was designed with Floats, Skis and Tundra tires in mind.. The 'Van was designed to fly boxes from runway to runway for FEDEX on wheels, then adapted to fit other roles. This needs to be carefully considered when choosing what to operate for the chosen environment.

The comparison should look at useful life of the aircraft AND the required maintenance and 'repairs' as necessary operating in the chosen environment. i.e.; you're changing firewalls in the 'van every XX hrs due to metallurgical and fatigue failures, or how frequently does one of your twin pigs on floats snap a bowtie or wrinkle float attach points etc. Hour for hour.. it can be determined. A lot of these repairs are not cheap! You cant solely look at fuel burn and payload numbers.

I like both machines, but in most float environments, outside of the lakes in canada, the twin is going to be able to withstand a lot more, have more versatility while on floats, and provide a higher level of safety with that additional big whirly thing on the wing., even though it's burning more fuel!

[angry inch]

The vast majority of customers I have flown say they care about extra safety... but aside from Gov't & some other corporate stuff, the $$$$$ is the deciding factor. Unless you need the extra ruggedness & STOL performance of the Twin Otter, the Caravan does a good job & makes money. I flew for a company(who also operated Twin Otters) a couple summers ago on the 'Van & it was by far the busiest airplane in the fleet. I was really impressed with what you could do with that machine... There were very few places I would not get dispatched to due to performance/ruggedness. Looking forward to seeing some Grand's on floats

[Bobby868]

Well I do agree that the caravan is no twin otter... bottom of the food chain I think not.

Try comparing useful loads on a 150-200 mile leg, legally a caravan will spank a twin otter.

E

OK, I just did, for the 200nm leg. It's been a while since I flew either of them, so I made some assumptions which might not be accurate.

I assumed both aircraft on small wheels, the 300 series twin otter, and the "A" model caravan.

Twin otter: MGTOW 12500 lb, cruise 150 knots (10,000 feet), fuel burn 575lb/hour, and empty weight 7900 pounds.

Caravan: MGTOW 8360 lb, cruise 170 knots (10,000 feet), burn 320lb/hour, and empty weight 4500 pounds

I came up with 3540 pounds for the Otter, and 3338 pounds for the caravan, assuming 1/2 hour for reserve and a few pounds for taxi. Maybe someone with recent experience could correct these figures if I'm out to lunch on any of them.


It's pretty impressive, but it doesn't "spank" the otter. Having said that, if I was just hauling cargo on wheels, I'd go with the Caravan. It would be a lot cheaper to haul the same amount of freight. However, most twin Otters are not just "hauling freight". They're taking off again from places that a caravan would only land once, and not take off again.

Really? Seriously? Common son . . . You just ignored the title of the Post “Wipaire announces C208B Grand Caravan on floats” and then were oblivious to two pages of people talking about The 208B Grand Van on floats not to mention numerous pictures of the Grand Van.

So why oh why did you compare the twin otter to the 208A and on “small wheels” when we are talking about seaplane performance of the 208B, unless you are just trying to desperately prop up the twin otter.

This thread is about the Grand Van on floats. Please post your comparison of the Grand Van to Twin Otter on amphibs.

Forget the 208A No one is going to buy a factory new 208A to use as a floatplane when the 208B is now available.

[Meatservo]

Oops, you're right, Bob. I forgot what we were originally talking about. There's another thread around here about whether or not the Caravan sucks. I got mixed up about which one I was reading. Thanks for ridiculing me. Anyway the guy said "A Caravan will spank a twin otter".

I'm not desperately trying to prop up the twin otter. I have a problem with the twin otter, actually. There are all these single-engine "light" aeroplanes that can be fitted with big engines and upgross kits, that really show what a plane can do in terms of payload and range. If a small plane was originally designed to weigh 8000 pounds, assuming the structure can take it you've got 3500 pounds in theory to play with in terms of modifying it for payload. The Twin Otter on the other hand seems to be stuck at 12500 pounds. Imagine what you could do to it if, like the single otter or the caravan, you could beef it up and put bigger engines on it. We wouldn't be comparing it to little singles anymore. The only fair comparison the way things are right now would be to compare the twin otter to the original otter, with a 7000 or therabouts gross weight. The new twin otter is very old-fashioned in terms of payload. I have no idea why anyone would buy one, other than for off-strip work. So for that reason I am enthusiastic about the new weight kits they are putting on the larger single engines. It's nice to see a given pair of wings being used to its full potential rather than flying around half-loaded all the time.

I just got mixed up about what thread I was replying to. It can happen when the same comments and arguments are perpetually circulating. Also please don't call me "son" anymore. It's rude.

[ragbagflyer]

The twin otter structure was designed with Floats, Skis and Tundra tires in mind.. The 'Van was designed to fly boxes from runway to runway for FEDEX on wheels, then adapted to fit other roles. This needs to be carefully considered when choosing what to operate for the chosen environment.

Not true although it is an oft-repeated line. The caravan was already built and on the cover of 'Flying' magazine before the CEO of FedEx saw the machine. Fedex did give input in the design of the cargomaster and the grand.

Twin otter: MGTOW 12500 lb, cruise 150 knots (10,000 feet), fuel burn 575lb/hour, and empty weight 7900 pounds.

Caravan: MGTOW 8360 lb, cruise 170 knots (10,000 feet), burn 320lb/hour, and empty weight 4500 pounds

It's pretty impressive, but it doesn't "spank" the otter. Having said that, if I was just hauling cargo on wheels, I'd go with the Caravan. It would be a lot cheaper to haul the same amount of freight. However, most twin Otters are not just "hauling freight". They're taking off again from places that a caravan would only land once, and not take off again.

If you use 9060 as the gross for the grand and an empty weight of close to 5000 and assume you have to return from that 150 nm leg the van will have a higher payload. If you have a grand without the pod you gain something like two or three hundred pounds too. Make that leg 200 nm (400 return) and consider that the mileage rate 10 to 11 dollars per statute mile for the van and 15 or 16 for the twin otter.... I'd say it's spanked.

[Slats]

I'd say it's spanked.

you are just trying to desperately prop up the twin otter.

Try comparing useful loads on a 150-200 mile leg, legally a caravan will spank a twin otter.

Since when did pilots start caring so much about how much their airplane can haul on paper? Clearly you guys must be van pilots. I've never flown a van, is that the norm? That seems like an odd thing to get macho about. "Ah yeah, I can legally put a couple hundred more pounds in my airplane than you can in yours. Plus it is single pilot so I get to do it without the help of a co joe. Yeah!"

Awesome.

Personally, I feel the measure of a bush plane is not found in how much TC says you can put in the back. It is found in how well it performs operating in and out of the most challenging locations. The Cessnas I have flown perform quite well I found. Better than some people think or give them credit for. But I didn't find them to do it as well as the de Havillands I've flown. That's not a knock against Cessna, just my experience and my preference, and it doesn't seem to be unique among guys that have experience with a sampling from both.

[ragbagflyer]

never flown a van, is that the norm? That seems like an odd thing to get macho about. "Ah yeah, I can legally put a couple hundred more pounds in my airplane than you can in yours. Plus it is single pilot so I get to do it without the help of a co joe. Yeah!"

Macho has nothing to do with it. Not in my case anyway.... but from an operational perspective I appreciate efficiency and so does the customer.

[Slats]

I appreciate two engines and so does the customer.
I appreciate two pilots and so does the customer.
I appreciate getting in and out of places that other aircraft can't and so does the customer.

[Meatservo]

Oh lord, please, please don't start fighting. You can re-build, strengthen, and re-power single- engine aeroplanes until the cows come home without putting them into a different weight category. Nobody has ever done that to a twin otter, well except the 100 series, because it would put it into a different regulatory category. I was rather hoping that Viking would do this. A 14000 pound Twin otter would be pretty immune to being "spanked" by a single. Of course you could say goodbye to STOL operations too.

[Road Trip]

Since when did pilots start caring so much about how much their airplane can haul on paper?

Legal weight is becoming more and more of an issue. Just ask the Beaver operators on the west coast. Sure in the back woods, far from the eye of TC you can overload as much as you feel safe to do. But in more civilized parts of the country and with bigger more reputable companies legal limits are being strictly enforced and therefore the paper does matter.

I could be wrong but wouldn't seair be the biggest operator of Caravan Seaplanes? They sit a stones throw away from a TC office and I bet they would love an extra 400 lbs of legal load and an extra 200hp on the nose.

[Slats]

Oh lord, please, please don't start fighting. You can re-build, strengthen, and re-power single- engine aeroplanes until the cows come home without putting them into a different weight category. Nobody has ever done that to a twin otter, well except the 100 series, because it would put it into a different regulatory category. I was rather hoping that Viking would do this. A 14000 pound Twin otter would be pretty immune to being "spanked" by a single. Of course you could say goodbye to STOL operations too.

Sorry, my intent was not to start bickering. In my attempt to point out silliness on this site sometimes I fall into just that trap. You make an excellent point about upgross kits for existing airframes.

Ragbag and road trip: please don't take my comments as a knock against the caravan. I think I already mentioned that. I just think it's silly, albeit ops normal for AvCanada, that this thread has devolved to the point where posters (who likely don't have first hand experience) are taking shots at a very popular, proven, successful aircraft that any single engine bush pilot would be thrilled to fly. I know I would.

Furthermore, my comment about why a pilot would care about his aircraft's useful load was simply that: why the PILOT would care. Seems like something that is an operator's concern. And in that context, if that efficiency is the main criteria, then the caravan is an excellent choice. Other operators may have different priorities that may make another aircraft better suited to their needs. Or maybe like some operators, they will include both types in the fleet for maximum efficiency and versatility.

In short, while I cannot say from experience, the caravan seems like a very capable machine and the twin otter's reputation is legendary, speaks for itself and certainly won't be tarnished by a few anonymous dissenting comments on this website. Also, I'm sure the addition of the grand on floats will be a positive thing for the operators who choose to use them.

[ragbagflyer]

No worries. I'd love to fly a twin otter; they are great machines and obviously they land places a caravan wouldn't even want to slow down to look at. I'm just saying when the caravan is in it's niche it can't be touched from a pounds moved per dollar standpoint. I'm well aware of the van's limitations. Bigger engine or not, It certainly won't EVER pull a near 2000 lb load out of 2000 ft long lake at 4000 feet ASL like the garrett otter will. Lakes like the one below

As far as why the pilot would care about the numbers; in smaller companies they may have more of an interest in the success, operation and future of the company.

[Rowdy]

Not true although it is an oft-repeated line. The caravan was already built and on the cover of 'Flying' magazine before the CEO of FedEx saw the machine. Fedex did give input in the design of the cargomaster and the grand.

True. The original baby van (C208A) was built by cessna to fill a void in the market. The 208B (which is what we were discussing as it'll soon be pounding around on whip floats) was a passenger adaptation of the Supercargomaster which was developed for the main customer. FedEx. Again and either way,this was an airframe that was not initially designed with floats or the seaplane environments in mind. But now thats just arguing semantics I hope Wipaire and Cessna have made the neccesarry modifications to make it a worthwhile adversary to the twin, and Single O. It'd be nice to see something other than the now ancient Beavers, Single Otters and 180/185s available.

Each machine, Twin, Turbo-Otter and Van all have their niche markets. Its ridiculous to try and compare them in anything but as an apples vs. cauliflower debate !

[Road Trip]

Furthermore, my comment about why a pilot would care about his aircraft's useful load was simply that: why the PILOT would care. Seems like something that is an operator's concern.

Uggg ummm hmmm aww heck I don't know where to even start. I'll leave this for someone else to spell out. But I can think of 20,000 reasons why a pilot would care.

[Slats]

20 000 eh? Well, I got time...fire away.

The airplanes I fly can take X lbs minus the weight of fuel required for a given trip. That is how much I put in it. Very simple as I see it, but I am merely the pilot. I'm not the owner. I don't sign the cheques. I don't make the business decisions. If there is another aircraft that can do the same job with another 200 pounds, well that's not my problem. If the boss thinks it's a problem, it's up to him to do something about it. He can purchase that aircraft if he wants and I'll fly it and put X minus the weight of fuel in it too. No sense thinking above my pay scale when it comes to strategic planning of the fleet.

That being said, if I were starting a small bush op and was in the market for a turbine aircraft, I'd be looking to the van. Unless the work or the customer dictated the need for the special capabilites of the single turbine or twin otter.

[Meatservo]

thanks.

[Road Trip]

sorry. corrected.

[esp803]

Is that 180 Lake? Looks more intimidating then it did on the map...

I vaguely remember someone high up at our company mentioning a 14000 ish upgross for the twin (on wheels), the down side is it halved the cycles allowed on the wing so it wasn't economical. It's a shame.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to start a pissing match between vans and DHC products, they each have their place. I'd love to try this new van out, I've been putting some time in the Blackhawk conversion and the difference it makes is night and day... honestly it's like a new airplane. Have yet to try a van on floats but I hear they like the water. If the bigger engine has the same effect on floats as it does on wheels it still won't put it in otter territory but it will make it a more competent floatplane.

E

[Meatservo]

I'll be honest. Here is why twin otter pilots dread this thing. I just don't like flying single-pilot anymore. That's why don't care about any of these super-hauling singles. I intend to avoid ever having to fly one ever again. I'm going to use my seniority to avoid it. I don't want to singlehandedly load and unload that much cargo. I don't want to leap out of a 9,000 pound or more aeroplane and try to lasso it to the dock before it tries to f*ck off in a strong offshore wind in a current. I don't want to beach it and wade to shore over and over with that much cargo. I want my copilot to have to do that, not me. I don't want to participate in any of the mickey-mouse crap that single engine/single-pilot guys have to put up with. I'm lazy and I'm getting old. The whole thing seems like too much work. I'm sure it's a super-duper plane. I don't want anything to do with it.