A good piston twin...

[cvsfly]

The B58 Baron is an excellent airplane. I was flying a 1994 B58 with IO550 n/a and we figured operating cost of the airplane was $170 an hour.

The Duke however would be a different story. Don't know operating cost of the duke but i know it spends most the time in the mant. hangar.

Twin cessnas are more roomy for pax comfort then a baron, but on a performance level, id take a Baron any day of the week. Plus most twin cessnas have higher operating costs.

Flew an old PA31-325TC navajo back in the day. Quite expensive to operate, about $350 an hour at 180kts but spent alot of time down due to mag/alt/turbo problems. The baron never really had too many issues yet figured an average TAS of about 195KTS.

This sounds fairly accurate. Other comments about passing other planes or having a ground speed of 250 kts has no bearing on the true performance of a plane. There are a couple of days I could have had a C-182 doing 200 kts over the ground. Meaningless. P Baron = $$$ maintenance, so I've heard. Duke = $$$$$$$$ maintenance and big gas and runway guzzler. What is the premise of the paper? Are you looking for certain price ranges to start? Are you trying to define a client/customer for this study? Payload considerations?
I can believe a Chieftan doing 215 at 18,000, but how many operators do that? Were you flying freight with no pax and using a cannula or mask? Finding the "perfect" twin or any aircraft for that matter is going to be a compromise and fairly subjective in the end. Define the mission - speed, range, payload, performance, cabin class, purchase cost, maintenance cost, insurance cost, etc. Many airplanes to choose from. Hope they find a viable solution to the pending AVgas shortage in the future. Try some of the site that provide aircraft comparisons - AOPA, planequest, chiefpilot, Conklin & de Dekker, etc. (Some info is free - others not) Good luck.

 

[throttlejockey]

If you were doing this for real I would steer you away from any piston aircraft and push the King Air or Citation, but since this is a learning exercise and you have no choice but to select a piston aircraft here is my .02$:

In metropolitan area you are competing with other charter operators that have turbine equipment, so you need to have an hourly operating cost that is low in order to compete against the boys that are offering $1,000/hour or more for turbine equipment.

Additionally, you need to have the seats and the cabin space to be able to offer a somewhat comparable product.

Speed is not important as long as you do not go over 250 nm more than 25% of the time.

Reliability is very important as well.

The Baron 58 is too small to be competative although it really is a great airplane, the Cessna 421C is too expensive to operate (Similar costs to King Air 90). I would suggest that you look at the following aircraft:

A. Navajo Chieftan (Long Body) Still some low time aircraft around.

B. Cessna 402C with an executive interior (very rare). Most still around are flown by Cape Air.

Although both are turbocharged, they do not have the big geared engines that are very expensive (over 30K) to overhaul.

Also, Piper made a non-turbocharged version of the Navajo in 1968/1969. It was a real dog, but was super cheap to operate for that kind of cabin size. Most of those have some real serious airframe time on them now and spent a good deal of there life in Canada. I saw one with 5700 TT not to long ago. Many have over 13,000 TT now.

You could also consider a Shrike Commander, but they are not approved for K-Ice, and the cabin is a bit smaller than the Navajo or 402C. Great plane to fly though.

Have fun! BTW - You might get an A on your project by just telling your professor that you are not going to participate since bankruptcy is the most likely final result to this exercise!

 

[Nikes]

Here it is quick and clean....

"What is the premise of the paper?"

-Just to see if it can be done

"Are you looking for certain price ranges to start?"

-Yes we are trying to beat the turbo prop and jet guys ... on the short range flights.

"Are you trying to define a client/customer for this study?"

-Mid and small size business people who need to travel locally, often, and efficiently but who can not justify using expensive private charter jets/turboprops

"Payload considerations?"

-Two pilots four passengers

Thanks once again for the help
Nikes

 

[cargoflyr69]

I've flown all the twins you mentioned in your first post. My vote from the pilots perspective is the Navajo Cheiftain hands down! After freight-doggin over 1000 hours in them I'm probably biased though. Some good points are its high payload capability, turbo-charged, large boxy cabin, counter-rotating props, great icing performance, and single engine ops. However, watch out if you get aft on the C.G., it gets a bit squirly.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I can believe a Chieftan doing 215 at 18,000, but how many operators do that? Were you flying freight with no pax and using a cannula or mask?

I was flying checks and US Priority/Express Mail with no pax. I used a cannula up to and including FL180. Above I'd use a mask but that was more of a pain so I'd rarely go up higher. Cannulas are uncomfortable but you get used to them. A passenger would most likely use a mask instead which might not be that enjoyable for him. But none of that wouldn't be needed if the flights were conducted at lower altitudes. You'd lose a few knots of TAS but not too much.

 

[Bai B Nai]

I know it's a turbine, but when all is said and done, you guys would all opt for a Pilatus PC-12 over all of the aforementioned twins!! Right?

 

[WrightAvia]

I'd take a Caravan over most of those twins and PC 12 over the Caravan. In fact, a PC 12 would probably fit my particular freight run better, but I'll never see it. Maybe there will be an ATR 42 under the Christmas tree in 07...but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Nikes]

A single engine plane is nice but i dont know what passngers would think about it... If i was to "go" for a single it would be a PC-12 no contest. Do you think people would charter a PC-12?

Nikes

 

[Freightdog75]

I've flown a C-421, C-414, C402, C-340 and a PA-31.

For short metro hops(in my opinion) the C-421 is too finnicky with the geared engines. Darn expensive airplane for the size to operate.

Love the 414. Service ceiling somewhere around 27kish. Can't remember. 220kts.

C402. 185kts--ish. No suprisees with this airplane. It's gotta be good for the regional hops a$$-uming this of course(operated by Cape Air etc)

C340. Cabin to small for pax ops. Quik little thing though.

PA-31. I thought was a led sled on climb out, but fantastic in cruise. Awsome cabin room for pax. Another airplane thats a no-brainer to operate.

My .02

FD75

 

[Bai B Nai]

The PC-12 is approved for Part 135, is it not? I think it is.

I tend to think people (or businesses) would vote according to their budget. I don't know if the PC-12 cost any less to operate than the above mentioned twins. Surely it's cheaper to run than any King Air.

Good question though. Sort of like when the 767-777 started to fly over the Atlantic and Pacific. Would the paying public feel safe in a twin as opposed to the 747 was the question that was asked. Who was the old pilot that said when asked why he liked flying the B747 only, he replied, "Because they don't make one with five engines."