Hints on purchasing aircraft
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Torres,
I agree with about the enw family of PT6S the 114a and also the 112a in the REIMS is less temp limited
But when did the double Turbine wheels come in? I know -42s in the B200s have 2 Turbine wheels, do -34s havem as well?
Havent flown a Bandit, only Twotters and King Air 90S.
And heres another question, which model PT6 did they do away with the seperate fuel Topping Govenor?
Sorry to rack your brain, do you know any good webb site with this info?
Sorry Kav I know this isnt relevant.
I agree with about the enw family of PT6S the 114a and also the 112a in the REIMS is less temp limited
But when did the double Turbine wheels come in? I know -42s in the B200s have 2 Turbine wheels, do -34s havem as well?
Havent flown a Bandit, only Twotters and King Air 90S.
And heres another question, which model PT6 did they do away with the seperate fuel Topping Govenor?
Sorry to rack your brain, do you know any good webb site with this info?
Sorry Kav I know this isnt relevant.
Last edited by Sheep Guts; 21st Aug 2002 at 23:15.
Good post BIK, very interesting and all good stuff! And I stand corrected on the Cessna 425 engines. They probably are -112's, but isn't that also the Reims 406 engine?
For those interested in Pratt & Whitney turbine engines, try to worm your way into Pratt's Brisbane facility. They have some great training aids, including a cut away PT6A-34 and a cut away JT15. Pratts also used to produce a brochure on pilot turbine engine operating tecniques. For a power plant which rumour has it started out as an APU (in a B747?), it has certainly come a long way.
Sheep Guts, I thought the multi stage came in at the -50 engine (DHC-7) but I may be wrong. The -34 and below certainly have a single stage CT disk.
I remember seeing an old King Air A90 in the Philippines. It was powered by two PT6-nothing's - no reverse!
BIK's post highlights what I believe is a looming major crisis in Australian General Aviation. The majority of our GA fleet is older than the pilots that fly them, powered by 60 year old inefficient piston engine technology and in most cases well past their "Use By Dates".
Industry must modernise and move into lower operating cost, more reliable modern turbine aircraft, however in the present scenario the levels of annual utilisation and yields will not support the higher capital cost.
For those interested in Pratt & Whitney turbine engines, try to worm your way into Pratt's Brisbane facility. They have some great training aids, including a cut away PT6A-34 and a cut away JT15. Pratts also used to produce a brochure on pilot turbine engine operating tecniques. For a power plant which rumour has it started out as an APU (in a B747?), it has certainly come a long way.
Sheep Guts, I thought the multi stage came in at the -50 engine (DHC-7) but I may be wrong. The -34 and below certainly have a single stage CT disk.
I remember seeing an old King Air A90 in the Philippines. It was powered by two PT6-nothing's - no reverse!
BIK's post highlights what I believe is a looming major crisis in Australian General Aviation. The majority of our GA fleet is older than the pilots that fly them, powered by 60 year old inefficient piston engine technology and in most cases well past their "Use By Dates".
Industry must modernise and move into lower operating cost, more reliable modern turbine aircraft, however in the present scenario the levels of annual utilisation and yields will not support the higher capital cost.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Bindook quite a good site, and your post most informative.
TORRES,
I think the PT6 was originally designed as a powerplant for North American gas and oil fields. Then was adapted for aviation use, I believe its first use was in a A90 King Air or -100 Twotter. I stand corrected. A90 King Airs did start off with no reverse or autofeather, infact autofeather was an option right up until the mid seventies.I actually fly Mid 60S MODEL A90s , but with one critical difference they are exUS ARMY , so the have been in a time capsual and have had every upgrade along the way( full king stack RADAR,GPS etc.). We fly them at FL210-250 alot higher youll notice than some C90s, reason is our Machines are unpressurised, less weight. I must admit though at these altitudes the -20 is at its peak and optimum alt. The last 2000' part of the climb is at around 200FPM
TORRES,
I think the PT6 was originally designed as a powerplant for North American gas and oil fields. Then was adapted for aviation use, I believe its first use was in a A90 King Air or -100 Twotter. I stand corrected. A90 King Airs did start off with no reverse or autofeather, infact autofeather was an option right up until the mid seventies.I actually fly Mid 60S MODEL A90s , but with one critical difference they are exUS ARMY , so the have been in a time capsual and have had every upgrade along the way( full king stack RADAR,GPS etc.). We fly them at FL210-250 alot higher youll notice than some C90s, reason is our Machines are unpressurised, less weight. I must admit though at these altitudes the -20 is at its peak and optimum alt. The last 2000' part of the climb is at around 200FPM
Last edited by Sheep Guts; 22nd Aug 2002 at 02:42.
Kav,
One thing that has so far not been mentioned, and will assist your homework , have a look at the Cessna/FAA “aging aircraft” program for effectively re manufacturing various older Cessna models, such as the 402. This effectively zero times the airframe, and will give you some idea of what you might be up against with an lod airframe.
BIK mentions leaving an aircraft on the US register, good advice if it is convenient, but you have a much closer alternative, operate the aircraft on the NZ register. In many respects this is far easier, if you want to contact me via pprune, I can give you a run down on the pros and cons of both.
Tootle pip !!
One thing that has so far not been mentioned, and will assist your homework , have a look at the Cessna/FAA “aging aircraft” program for effectively re manufacturing various older Cessna models, such as the 402. This effectively zero times the airframe, and will give you some idea of what you might be up against with an lod airframe.
BIK mentions leaving an aircraft on the US register, good advice if it is convenient, but you have a much closer alternative, operate the aircraft on the NZ register. In many respects this is far easier, if you want to contact me via pprune, I can give you a run down on the pros and cons of both.
Tootle pip !!
The DHC6-100 came out around 1966 and was fitted with the PT6A-20. I seem to recall there were only 138 -100's, after which the nose was extended and the aircraft became a -200. (The short nose cone remained an option, being installed on -200 float planes.)
I suspect the first A90's were well before that - maybe the early 60's?
I thought the A90 was about the first with a PT6 engine. I also have a recollection the first turbine Pilatus PC6BH2 Porter may have had the -15. The Porter is interesting in that it was produced with a piston engine, PT6, Garrett and possibly an Astizou.
Sheep Guts. Curiosity is getting the better of me.......
What on earth are you doing at FL210-250 in an unpressurised A90?
Are you saying the A90's are re-engined with -20's? I'm surprised the -20 gets that high - the B90 runs out of puff much lower.
I suspect the first A90's were well before that - maybe the early 60's?
I thought the A90 was about the first with a PT6 engine. I also have a recollection the first turbine Pilatus PC6BH2 Porter may have had the -15. The Porter is interesting in that it was produced with a piston engine, PT6, Garrett and possibly an Astizou.
Sheep Guts. Curiosity is getting the better of me.......
What on earth are you doing at FL210-250 in an unpressurised A90?
Are you saying the A90's are re-engined with -20's? I'm surprised the -20 gets that high - the B90 runs out of puff much lower.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kax
BIK saved me the trouble and I must admit I had forgotten about the PA31-310.
We operated the first three brand new ones (alongside a new Cessna 411 then a 402) in the country all those years ago and it was a very very good aircraft, but did not happily survive the translation to the Chieftain as there was not enough stretch left in the design with the Navajo being already at the edge of a longitudinal stability problem.
I would buy one of those before I bought a C340A forget the 340 or any conversions from that, the merits?? of which BIK has described. The aircraft was only ever designed and aimed, like the C310 as an owner flown 4 seat aircraft, with the stats then showing the occupancy as being rarely more than 2 including the owner pilot. The extra seats were there as much to fill up the space as to provide the opportunity for extra pax over what we call "short" distances but in the US are the norm.
You must remember that these aircraft were designed and manufactured for the US market and demography. Sorta 300nm is a long way, 600nm you catch the local RPT unless you've got a turbine. Here 300nm is the first stop and there is no RPT to the 600nm destination.
So it is NOT a shortcoming of any aircraft design just trying the old square pegs in round holes routine.
I already signalled by email the danger zone of $350,000 as being neither here nor there. It's not nearly enough for a tidy big un or even enough a tidy little un without condemning oneself to a life of penury supporting your loacl workshop and spare parts organisation.
Yes the States is a source of better ones but that market hotly contests the goodies, but then there is the problem of which register.
The "siren" call of the US register should be researched very very carefully. Likewise but less so the NZ register.
Spars?? well that again is a problem brought about by the history of the industry.
In general manufacturers in their wildest dreams did not imagine that their aircraft would be used as mini airliners when they were designing them. Even today they still use 300 Hrs pa as the average for all these types including the turbines.
As a result, from a certification viewpoint, they reduced the engineering and test data to this point and 300hrs PA for a life of say 30 years and filed the rest away.
It is may or may not have been the case that the spars were good for more than say 9,000 but by the time this became an issue Cessna had gone out of piston production, the data was in the computers but nobody was prepared to pay for its retrieval and rework. In any event it it was likely to more expensive than renewing the spar.
It might be interesting to get 250,000 miles out of your 1975 EJ Holden but no one seriously buys one now.
And please, please don't anyone give me that bulls hit urban myth about aircraft being constantly renewed by maintenance etc and their being no parallel between an EJ Holden and a 1968 Cessna 402.
Creampuff is correct, we are in aviation terms a Third World country in terms of our GA fleet and attitude to their regulation and operation.
The US for example have mandated that by 2010 you will not be able to use other than FAR Part 25 aircraft for ANY RPT operation, i.e. what we call Low Cap. AND they have not for the last 4 years allowed any new entrants into this market without the use of FAR Part 25 aircraft. That is they are allowing those still using Titans, Chieftains 402s et al to run them out but they can't replace them with same.
But I digress.
Further why would a manufacturer support a process that extended their exposure to the liability and litigation industry whereby simply having manufactured and ceritifed an aircraft automatically exposed you to the risk of USD$20,000,000 findings against you for each one you ever built being flown out of maintenance, by a VFR pilot into a mountain in IMC.
PLovett
AC500 et al
It's not a criticism of this brilliant aircraft per se it is just that overall they failed the economics test, i.e. cost per seat km.
The AC500 was brilliant as a 6 seat, even at a push the 7 seat but it cost near enough the same to buy and run as an 8 seater.
That "real" seventh or eighth seat meant a lot.
E.G. The high wing design which works beautifully from an aerodynamic viewpoint and in smaller singles brings the "what do we do with the U/C" maintenance complication/weakness.
The AC680 tried to redress the balance and while aimed at a different market were best by corporate troubles.
I always had a lust for the AC680FL, until they put turbines on it.
The AC681 and on just never made as a big seller except to the AC devotees including the DCA.
Economics???
In real terms that is the only criterion that ultimately settles the argument about which type is better than the other and which manufacturer should survive or not.
It is the design philosophy and very close attention to the market that produces those succesful designs.
You only have to graph the types resale value against the original new price year on year "v" its competitor to see that correlation and which one actually works.
And relative sales for the various manufacturer in the various classes.
And the winner is??
C425
If I recall it correctly.
The -112 used was seriously flat rated with a torque limited TO power for TO that was limited by the airframe not the engine.
The limit being the Vmca possible with the tailplane.
Remember this aircraft came out of the C400 series, specifically based on the C421 fuselage and it would have outside the design brief to redesign the tailplane.
Once safely airbourne and accelerated if you did have one die on you then there was a very healthy margin available on the other.
They sail up tpo FL250 in about ten minutes dont go temp limited until you're nearly there and stonk along at 250KTAS when you get there pretty much regardless of the temp.
KG RFDS operating it in really hot conditions just loved it, there guys stepped straight out of Chieftains and C421C experience and pretty much went to work the next day and with their regular loads could carry shedloads of fuel.
Come to think of it Kav its what your boss needs.
The Myer family used theirs like the family car.
BIK saved me the trouble and I must admit I had forgotten about the PA31-310.
We operated the first three brand new ones (alongside a new Cessna 411 then a 402) in the country all those years ago and it was a very very good aircraft, but did not happily survive the translation to the Chieftain as there was not enough stretch left in the design with the Navajo being already at the edge of a longitudinal stability problem.
I would buy one of those before I bought a C340A forget the 340 or any conversions from that, the merits?? of which BIK has described. The aircraft was only ever designed and aimed, like the C310 as an owner flown 4 seat aircraft, with the stats then showing the occupancy as being rarely more than 2 including the owner pilot. The extra seats were there as much to fill up the space as to provide the opportunity for extra pax over what we call "short" distances but in the US are the norm.
You must remember that these aircraft were designed and manufactured for the US market and demography. Sorta 300nm is a long way, 600nm you catch the local RPT unless you've got a turbine. Here 300nm is the first stop and there is no RPT to the 600nm destination.
So it is NOT a shortcoming of any aircraft design just trying the old square pegs in round holes routine.
I already signalled by email the danger zone of $350,000 as being neither here nor there. It's not nearly enough for a tidy big un or even enough a tidy little un without condemning oneself to a life of penury supporting your loacl workshop and spare parts organisation.
Yes the States is a source of better ones but that market hotly contests the goodies, but then there is the problem of which register.
The "siren" call of the US register should be researched very very carefully. Likewise but less so the NZ register.
Spars?? well that again is a problem brought about by the history of the industry.
In general manufacturers in their wildest dreams did not imagine that their aircraft would be used as mini airliners when they were designing them. Even today they still use 300 Hrs pa as the average for all these types including the turbines.
As a result, from a certification viewpoint, they reduced the engineering and test data to this point and 300hrs PA for a life of say 30 years and filed the rest away.
It is may or may not have been the case that the spars were good for more than say 9,000 but by the time this became an issue Cessna had gone out of piston production, the data was in the computers but nobody was prepared to pay for its retrieval and rework. In any event it it was likely to more expensive than renewing the spar.
It might be interesting to get 250,000 miles out of your 1975 EJ Holden but no one seriously buys one now.
And please, please don't anyone give me that bulls hit urban myth about aircraft being constantly renewed by maintenance etc and their being no parallel between an EJ Holden and a 1968 Cessna 402.
Creampuff is correct, we are in aviation terms a Third World country in terms of our GA fleet and attitude to their regulation and operation.
The US for example have mandated that by 2010 you will not be able to use other than FAR Part 25 aircraft for ANY RPT operation, i.e. what we call Low Cap. AND they have not for the last 4 years allowed any new entrants into this market without the use of FAR Part 25 aircraft. That is they are allowing those still using Titans, Chieftains 402s et al to run them out but they can't replace them with same.
But I digress.
Further why would a manufacturer support a process that extended their exposure to the liability and litigation industry whereby simply having manufactured and ceritifed an aircraft automatically exposed you to the risk of USD$20,000,000 findings against you for each one you ever built being flown out of maintenance, by a VFR pilot into a mountain in IMC.
PLovett
AC500 et al
It's not a criticism of this brilliant aircraft per se it is just that overall they failed the economics test, i.e. cost per seat km.
The AC500 was brilliant as a 6 seat, even at a push the 7 seat but it cost near enough the same to buy and run as an 8 seater.
That "real" seventh or eighth seat meant a lot.
E.G. The high wing design which works beautifully from an aerodynamic viewpoint and in smaller singles brings the "what do we do with the U/C" maintenance complication/weakness.
The AC680 tried to redress the balance and while aimed at a different market were best by corporate troubles.
I always had a lust for the AC680FL, until they put turbines on it.
The AC681 and on just never made as a big seller except to the AC devotees including the DCA.
Economics???
In real terms that is the only criterion that ultimately settles the argument about which type is better than the other and which manufacturer should survive or not.
It is the design philosophy and very close attention to the market that produces those succesful designs.
You only have to graph the types resale value against the original new price year on year "v" its competitor to see that correlation and which one actually works.
And relative sales for the various manufacturer in the various classes.
And the winner is??
C425
If I recall it correctly.
The -112 used was seriously flat rated with a torque limited TO power for TO that was limited by the airframe not the engine.
The limit being the Vmca possible with the tailplane.
Remember this aircraft came out of the C400 series, specifically based on the C421 fuselage and it would have outside the design brief to redesign the tailplane.
Once safely airbourne and accelerated if you did have one die on you then there was a very healthy margin available on the other.
They sail up tpo FL250 in about ten minutes dont go temp limited until you're nearly there and stonk along at 250KTAS when you get there pretty much regardless of the temp.
KG RFDS operating it in really hot conditions just loved it, there guys stepped straight out of Chieftains and C421C experience and pretty much went to work the next day and with their regular loads could carry shedloads of fuel.
Come to think of it Kav its what your boss needs.
The Myer family used theirs like the family car.
Last edited by gaunty; 22nd Aug 2002 at 23:03.
Saw my first ever Conquest in the flesh yesterday...was extremely impressed - a very nice aeroplane to look at, although couldn't imagine it sitting up there at FL330 with the big birds!!!
And Gaunty your depth of knowledge never ceases to amaze...
Cheers,
TL
And Gaunty your depth of knowledge never ceases to amaze...
Cheers,
TL
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TL
It does and goes straight there even unto to FL 350 from a max wt TO and when it does sits happily on 290 KTAS for way over 1800nm if you need to. It's all in the wing you know.
It's unlikely to run over the B200 or any similar types up there, but would, coz they can't get there with the same load, but has been known to cause the odd problem for the big uns, our ATC took a little time to get used to them mixing it with em, but solved that in their usual professional manner.
It, by the nature of its use is not often found on the heavily travelled airways, but has caused, me at least, the odd crossing problem exercise with the big uns "out there", who like you, often expressed surprise and some interest at your presence "up there".
I have a great photo of a KLM B744 crossing almost directly underneath me "out the back" .
We also had a really interesting chat, these guys had not come up through the GA system and weren't aware of such types, they were simply given the traffic as a callsign and type but did not realise that it was so small.
It does and goes straight there even unto to FL 350 from a max wt TO and when it does sits happily on 290 KTAS for way over 1800nm if you need to. It's all in the wing you know.
It's unlikely to run over the B200 or any similar types up there, but would, coz they can't get there with the same load, but has been known to cause the odd problem for the big uns, our ATC took a little time to get used to them mixing it with em, but solved that in their usual professional manner.
It, by the nature of its use is not often found on the heavily travelled airways, but has caused, me at least, the odd crossing problem exercise with the big uns "out there", who like you, often expressed surprise and some interest at your presence "up there".
I have a great photo of a KLM B744 crossing almost directly underneath me "out the back" .
We also had a really interesting chat, these guys had not come up through the GA system and weren't aware of such types, they were simply given the traffic as a callsign and type but did not realise that it was so small.
Gaunty. Did your mate Frank ever tell you how he extended the range in a Citation II on ferry flight to Australia? I don't recall exact details but FL600 or there abouts was mentioned......... 
Kav
The best advice for your boss was "don't" by high altitude
Where did the Charter operators go wrong with your boss?
Lots of other constructive contributions
Still wondering what the typical flight sectors were or did I miss that
C425 - nice to fly but SE performance was not that impressive and ten minutes to F250 - I never saw that. Just the same a cost efficient aircraft for the right owner
Piston twins really are too long in the tooth these days but unfortunately its hard to get a turbine past a Company Board - so we get stuck with the pistons
And the thread has stayed on subject for so lond - wow
The best advice for your boss was "don't" by high altitude
Where did the Charter operators go wrong with your boss?
Lots of other constructive contributions
Still wondering what the typical flight sectors were or did I miss that
C425 - nice to fly but SE performance was not that impressive and ten minutes to F250 - I never saw that. Just the same a cost efficient aircraft for the right owner
Piston twins really are too long in the tooth these days but unfortunately its hard to get a turbine past a Company Board - so we get stuck with the pistons
And the thread has stayed on subject for so lond - wow
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
My lips are sealed.
You are going to get a cabin alt of around 14-15,000 ft which with supplementary O2 is no big deal and FL550 is easy. AND there is nobody out or up there to hit except the odd U2 or Aurora, but you get that. and with the tropopause at those latitudes up there too, there would be some real advantages.
Children don't try this at home.
They had a real problem in the States for a while with Lear jocks pulling the breakers and cruising aorund in the high 50s, until they got in the way of some of the military stuff up there.
My lips are sealed.
You are going to get a cabin alt of around 14-15,000 ft which with supplementary O2 is no big deal and FL550 is easy. AND there is nobody out or up there to hit except the odd U2 or Aurora, but you get that.
and with the tropopause at those latitudes up there too, there would be some real advantages.Children don't try this at home.
They had a real problem in the States for a while with Lear jocks pulling the breakers and cruising aorund in the high 50s, until they got in the way of some of the military stuff up there.
So why can't an enterprising type buy the type certificate for say the chieftain and put it back into production, assuming of course Piper would sell it to you. Put the drawings on computer..CAd or what ever, produce the parts on CNC machines. With the ecchange rate we should be able to flog a few back to the US and the rest of the world.
How much is a new C208, $4 million?? What would a new chieftain be, $2 million?? what would the relative operational costs be of the 2 aircraft asn new ones.
Aerostar aircraft Inc in the US purchased the type certificate of the Aerostar from piper and could build a new one almost immediately if it wanted. The can make almost any part for it in house in addition to offering a huge array of mods and performance upgrades.
While we're at it, would be great to get the Duchess back in production. Best ME/IFR trainer around, most of whats left has 6,000 hrs + on the airframes.
Surely we could use some Aussie knowhow to build these better than the ones of old.
How much is a new C208, $4 million?? What would a new chieftain be, $2 million?? what would the relative operational costs be of the 2 aircraft asn new ones.
Aerostar aircraft Inc in the US purchased the type certificate of the Aerostar from piper and could build a new one almost immediately if it wanted. The can make almost any part for it in house in addition to offering a huge array of mods and performance upgrades.
While we're at it, would be great to get the Duchess back in production. Best ME/IFR trainer around, most of whats left has 6,000 hrs + on the airframes.
Surely we could use some Aussie knowhow to build these better than the ones of old.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres sorry for the delay in the reply. Well to put in a nut shell, I transport sterile insect pupa( eggs), for fly eradication programmes, in the Carribean and Central American Regions. Good job, but I am trying to move on and get some MultiCrew, still working on the later. Sucking oxygen at those altitudes isnt real pleasant either. Our aeroplanes have the -20s which I think may have been modified as they were originally designed for the US ARMY I think their specs are slightly higher than the Civi 90.They also have slightly longer wings extra 2.5feet either side, than a 90. So why fly that high, well the range of the flights dictates that, at those levels we get a burn of around 350lbs an hour.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 150'amsl
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are buying a plane that is flown privately, just check out the age of the engines in year's, as when it comes time to sell the aircraft to upgrade or for other reason's you will be surprised to find out to use the aircraft in Charter they can not be over "X" year's old. Normally around 10 to 12 year's - and this is apply's to PISTON engines only I think.
Engines then require a bulk strip and a returned to service with the remaining hours.
You will not find a low time Navajo, you may find a low time C340 in OZ if you are lucky, I know of one over here in Perth that was operated under a similar arrangment for the owner. Check the av trader for brokers over here and ask if it is still up for grabs.
There must be plenty in the states around the 3500 hour mark.
We would all love a C441 but who can afford one ?
Engines then require a bulk strip and a returned to service with the remaining hours.
You will not find a low time Navajo, you may find a low time C340 in OZ if you are lucky, I know of one over here in Perth that was operated under a similar arrangment for the owner. Check the av trader for brokers over here and ask if it is still up for grabs.
There must be plenty in the states around the 3500 hour mark.
We would all love a C441 but who can afford one ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston engine... 12 years then its a pumpkin, no bulk strip and overhaul no matter whats left............
The C402C, PA31-350 both with VG kits are probably the best aircraft and only aircraft to own in the cabin class range. There systems are basic, they carry a sh*t load and well they are the Holden and Ford of the sky. A PA31-350 put on a diet or re instrument, re paint, etc can and will carry 900 - 1000 kg over 200 nm standard reserves. The 402C is basically 800kg due ZFW. These are pretty awesome weights. A max gross you can bank on a TAS of around the 170 - 185 kts depending on the machine.
If you want the 6 seat option again you CANNOT go past a B58 or C310R. The 310R with a VG kit will eat a B58 but pax hate em. Again the Holden and Ford of the sky.
Don't go a turbine unless you have the money in the BANK to go buy a new donk if it cooks!!!
But then again I went for a great ride in a Conquest yesterday, it was very new, beautiful white paint job and the aircon was to die for... Oh what a feeling. TOYOTA....... (and the meter was tickingover)...
The C402C, PA31-350 both with VG kits are probably the best aircraft and only aircraft to own in the cabin class range. There systems are basic, they carry a sh*t load and well they are the Holden and Ford of the sky. A PA31-350 put on a diet or re instrument, re paint, etc can and will carry 900 - 1000 kg over 200 nm standard reserves. The 402C is basically 800kg due ZFW. These are pretty awesome weights. A max gross you can bank on a TAS of around the 170 - 185 kts depending on the machine.
If you want the 6 seat option again you CANNOT go past a B58 or C310R. The 310R with a VG kit will eat a B58 but pax hate em. Again the Holden and Ford of the sky.
Don't go a turbine unless you have the money in the BANK to go buy a new donk if it cooks!!!
But then again I went for a great ride in a Conquest yesterday, it was very new, beautiful white paint job and the aircon was to die for... Oh what a feeling. TOYOTA....... (and the meter was tickingover)...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like gaunty I like the Cessna 400 series esp. the wet wing models. Huge cabins, huge luggage, quite quick too. Turbo exhaust system must be kept in top nick though on the piston models.
If I had the dough it would be a Conquest II for me!!
Bindook referred to the -400 spar life issues - its all on CASA's website under airworthniness directives. Often the spar life depends on the serial number so be careful!
For example a C414A Chancellor below serial no. 200 has a spar life less than 7000 hours but above serial no. 200 it has 13,700 hours! Similar thing with 421C's. CASA limits the fuselage life to an arbitary 2x the wing life, i.e. 14000 or 27,400 (for exactly the same fuselage) in the above example. Cessna has come out with an "aging aircraft " maint. program and I believe some operators of 402C's are well past the 2nd winglife now - CASA approval required etc. Anyway, you can always flog it in the states where there are none of these "CASA" style limits.
Someone else mentioned the C404/421 GTSIO engines had a TBO of 1100 (youch!) actually I think they started at 1200 in the 70's and are now up to 1600TBO.
We may have a largely clapped out GA fleet but the good news is that OZ is probably the cheapest place in the world to buy planes - my theory is that they were all imported when $1A equalled $1US and the "price mindset" never changed. Hence many good, low time types have been sucked out of the country in the last few years by US buyers operating on a "Buy for $A sell for $US" principle. (same number just change currency label).
Go to Aircraft Shopper online and look at those US prices!
One last point - paint and interior are the two cheapest things you can do to a twin - go through the mechanicals/AD's/times to run etc with a fine toothcomb!
If I had the dough it would be a Conquest II for me!!
Bindook referred to the -400 spar life issues - its all on CASA's website under airworthniness directives. Often the spar life depends on the serial number so be careful!
For example a C414A Chancellor below serial no. 200 has a spar life less than 7000 hours but above serial no. 200 it has 13,700 hours! Similar thing with 421C's. CASA limits the fuselage life to an arbitary 2x the wing life, i.e. 14000 or 27,400 (for exactly the same fuselage) in the above example. Cessna has come out with an "aging aircraft " maint. program and I believe some operators of 402C's are well past the 2nd winglife now - CASA approval required etc. Anyway, you can always flog it in the states where there are none of these "CASA" style limits.
Someone else mentioned the C404/421 GTSIO engines had a TBO of 1100 (youch!) actually I think they started at 1200 in the 70's and are now up to 1600TBO.
We may have a largely clapped out GA fleet but the good news is that OZ is probably the cheapest place in the world to buy planes - my theory is that they were all imported when $1A equalled $1US and the "price mindset" never changed. Hence many good, low time types have been sucked out of the country in the last few years by US buyers operating on a "Buy for $A sell for $US" principle. (same number just change currency label).
Go to Aircraft Shopper online and look at those US prices!
One last point - paint and interior are the two cheapest things you can do to a twin - go through the mechanicals/AD's/times to run etc with a fine toothcomb!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 61
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty:
saw a 441 last week (VEM I think) was flying the Canberra bigwigs around my patch...... had a look in the office & noted no quick-donning O2 masks. How does the a/c qualify for flight above FL250 without? Or is this an individual a/c thing, or are they just not in plain sight.....?
Noted also it had round windows, I thought 441 were oblong; wasn't as big as I thought it would be either.
saw a 441 last week (VEM I think) was flying the Canberra bigwigs around my patch...... had a look in the office & noted no quick-donning O2 masks. How does the a/c qualify for flight above FL250 without? Or is this an individual a/c thing, or are they just not in plain sight.....?
Noted also it had round windows, I thought 441 were oblong; wasn't as big as I thought it would be either.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jamair
VEM is a C441 according to the register.
It might have the Eros type inflatable Quick donning that stow out of sight and take up much less room, if you cant see them, I don't recall them being an option, but that doesn't mean they weren't.
You can go to FL330 but needed a High alt kit to go to FL350.
In any event it was a requirement in my fleet to wear and "arm them" for SP ops above the transition layer as part of the TL checklist actions which included a pressurisation check.
I spend little time in these types now but as a passenger I am always very keen to see the condition and operation of the pilots quick donning before I'll go anywhere in one. I've seen too many seriously dodgy masks carried around for "show" to satisfy the rule.
You have to approach them the same way you have to approach your scuba diving regulator, as if your life depended on it.
Windows are not so much oblong as round squares..
And nope it not a BIG aircraft like the B200, Cessna always reckoned why cart all that metal around, when there are rarely more than 3- 4 people on board inc. the pilot.
And who do you know who wants to walk around all day any way.
You need to be able to in some types because they take so long to get anywhere.
The factory std like the B200, was 6 seats including pilot with a 7th or potty seat next to the refreshment centre.
VEM is a C441 according to the register.
It might have the Eros type inflatable Quick donning that stow out of sight and take up much less room, if you cant see them, I don't recall them being an option, but that doesn't mean they weren't.
You can go to FL330 but needed a High alt kit to go to FL350.
In any event it was a requirement in my fleet to wear and "arm them" for SP ops above the transition layer as part of the TL checklist actions which included a pressurisation check.
I spend little time in these types now but as a passenger I am always very keen to see the condition and operation of the pilots quick donning before I'll go anywhere in one. I've seen too many seriously dodgy masks carried around for "show" to satisfy the rule.
You have to approach them the same way you have to approach your scuba diving regulator, as if your life depended on it.
Windows are not so much oblong as round squares..
And nope it not a BIG aircraft like the B200, Cessna always reckoned why cart all that metal around, when there are rarely more than 3- 4 people on board inc. the pilot.
And who do you know who wants to walk around all day any way.
You need to be able to in some types because they take so long to get anywhere.
The factory std like the B200, was 6 seats including pilot with a 7th or potty seat next to the refreshment centre.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to know how many, if any of the people on this post have owned and oeprated c-90 and or PA31 type aircraft. For he who is purchasing the said aircraft (whom I would advise not to if you can possibly help it) maybe you should look at the re-sale value of the piper's as apposed to the 402, 414 etc and see which hold their value in the market and also the price and availablility of parts for each aircraft.
Just a bit of friendly advise
Bring it on all yeoll cessna luva's
Just a bit of friendly advise
Bring it on all yeoll cessna luva's
