Best Aircraft for the Job ???

[ksu_aviator]

Atr 42

I couldn't find differrent operating costs, so you'll have to see what you can find, I'm assuming it is significantly less than the 72, but I don't know.


ATR-42-300 - Max cruising speed 490km/h (265kt) economical cruising speed 450km/h (243kt). Range with max fuel and reserves at max cruising speed 4480km (2420nm), or 5040km (2720nm) at economical cruising speed.
ATR-42-320 - Same as ATR-42-300 except max cruising speed 498km/h (269kt).
ATR-42-500 - Cruising speed 563km/h (304kt). Max range 1850km (1000nm).

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]Weights[/FONT]

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]ATR-42-300 - Operating empty 10,285kg (22,674lb), max takeoff 16,700kg (36,817lb).
ATR-42-320 - Operating empty 10,290kg (22,685lb), max takeoff as per 42-300.
ATR-42-500 - Operating empty 11,250kg (24,802lb), max takeoff 18,600kg (41,005lb).
[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]Dimensions[/FONT]

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]Wing span 24.57m (80ft 8in), length 22.67m (74ft 5in), height 7.59m (24ft 11in). Wing area 54.5m2 (586.6sq ft). [FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]Capacity[/FONT]

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]Flightcrew of two. Maximum passenger accommodation for 50, 48 or 46 at 76cm (30in) pitch and four abreast. Typical seating arrangement for 42 at 81cm (32in) pitch.
ATR-42 Cargo - Nine containers with a 4000kg payload.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Caboclo]

Sounds like you're looking at a large T-prop. Either multiple trips in a 19-30 seater, or one trip in something bigger. The good news is there aren't that many choices in either case, so it will be a fairly easy decision. The bad news is the t-prop market is pretty tight right now, at least for the more modern models. Of the more modern models, the choices are ATR, Saab, 1900 and -8. Of those, Beech, ATR and Saab offer factory cargo mods. All of those are currently popular in the pax market, you'll have to pay through the nose for them. Someone refresh my memory, who's the 135 outfit in FL running Saabs? You could ask them for a charter quote and get an idea of operating costs. In the slightly older category, you have the Jetstreams and Brasilias, both of which are currently leaving the pax market, so availabilty might be better. Ameriflight runs some cargo Brasilias and 1900s, if you want to ask them for a quote. I found this info for the Jetstream: www.jetstreamcargo.com. Basically identical in size to the Metro, but probably easier to find. Metro's are very popular freighters, and therefore scarcer then hen's teeth. Going farther back, there are probably a lot of F27's around, since Fedex just replaced all theirs with ATRs. Cheap, and very high time. Ask around, there are surely some FX feeder pilots online who can give you some good info on those. Another interesting option is the Convair 5800. That's a 580 which has been completely overhauled, stretched, and given an Efis make-over by a Canadian company of some renown. Here's their link: www.flightcraft.ca The Shorts have already been discussed, this outfit runs a bunch of them: www.aircar.com And here's another interesting link I just stumbled across; the t-props are listed under "utility". www.freightersonline.com Of course, there's always the L-382; that's a civilian C-130. There's also a cargo conversion for the old Bae-146/Avro RJ.

 

[tinman]

I don't think a Be-99 or a Metro would be very cost effective. I don't know specific #'s for the Be-1900, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be either.

631 nm in a Be-99 means you'd have to take a lot of gas, maybe even top off if the weather was bad enough and then you'd be pushing it to make it with IFR reserves. Topping it off would only give you ~2600 lbs of payload, which means 3 trips even for 8k lbs of cargo. 3 trips x 631nm per leg = 3786 miles or roughly 18 hours of flying per day in a Be-99 (obviously would take more than one pilot). Um, no thanks. uke:

A 'heavy' Metro (16k lbs) may or may not even be able do it in 2 trips, depending on weather and you'd still be looking at over 9 hours of flying per day for 2 round trips. A 4500 lb. load (assuming the volume would fit) would leave you with about 2400-2500 lbs of fuel capacity given one 200 lb. pilot, and a full tank of AWI which you may or may not need depending on the elevation and climate you're flying to/from. No wind, you're looking at about a 2+25 leg and you'd land with about 500 lbs of fuel remaining- just barely IFR reserves if you don't need an alternate. That's being conservative, but you can see that if you need an alternate and the associated extra fuel, it's going to take 3 trips for a 9k load. That's all based on flight planning for 260 kts, and conservatively for a fuel burn of 800 lbs the first hour and 600 lbs per hour thereafter. It's a pretty efficient airplane, although perhaps a little pricey to maintain.

Relative to a Metro, a Be-1900 is much more expensive to acquire and not nearly as fuel efficient. About the same speed, and can take more weight and fuel (but needs more fuel). Maybe someone else can give you the numbers for that... tinman?

[ I don't think any "little" airplanes would fit the bill unless they want to buy a couple. Of course, if they decide on Metros and need pilots, I might know of one who is typed and current and always on the prowl to improve his income... imp: ]

How about a Shorts? Or a DC-9?

Also, I'm assuming this is going to be 91? There is a limit you can carry in one a/c under 135, and I can't remember what it is, but I know it's less than 8k lbs.

1900=Big money compared to the metro. If volume is a important, that's about the only diff. between the 1900D and the earlier models. All the other #'s are about the same, but you've got that beautiful hump on the top!

 

[TheBaron]

The truth nobody wants to tell you...

Pay overtime for 1 day (one time only) of extra production to get ahead of your customers needs. Ship out each days production on a truck for delivery the next day. Air freight is for hiccups in the supply chain and there is no way to justify the expense for such a relatively short haul. Now if you're sending high dollar value goods across an ocean...that's a different story.

 

[OzBushWhacker]

Yeah call Air Cargo and charter us!

 

[RefugePilot]

Pay overtime for 1 day (one time only) of extra production to get ahead of your customers needs. Ship out each days production on a truck for delivery the next day. Air freight is for hiccups in the supply chain and there is no way to justify the expense for such a relatively short haul. Now if you're sending high dollar value goods across an ocean...that's a different story.

If this is an option I'd agree, but that would not create any jobs for pilots, which is what we are after. I think this operation could be a true nightmare to keep up, especially if you try doing it in a metro. The only freight operation I am familiar with is Ameriflight and since at least half or your responses are from AMF pilots they can chime in.

Our Metros run on average 4+ days a week and we need a spare for every couple of planes. We also have a number of different bases that specialize in fixing the complicated things when they break, which in a Metro is often.
Each base has a maintenance department that is there all night getting the planes ready to fly each day. Our average days are under 400 miles. Even with all this going in our favor we are unable to field a full fleet sometimes in winter.

Granted the Metro is complicated plane to maintain, but trying to get any one plane to fly 10 trips a week on a regular basis could be tough and what would happen if your backup is not available on short notice.

 

[citabriapilot]

We also have a number of different bases that specialize in fixing the complicated things when they break, which in a Metro is often.

Ha! Metros might be in the hangar every night or so for little "gremlins", but you won't see one down for weeks at a time like those 1900's... They don't call the hangar the "Beech Showroom" for nothing. Metros break a lot with small things, 1900's go down hard.

I think the Tinman would even admit it... :smash:

 

[tinman]

Ha! Metros might be in the hangar every night or so for little "gremlins", but you won't see one down for weeks at a time like those 1900's... They don't call the hangar the "Beech Showroom" for nothing. Metros break a lot with small things, 1900's go down hard.

I think the Tinman would even admit it... :smash:

Ooohhh, you better step off sucka!

That's how they get people to come AMF. Bring prospects into the "Beech showroom" to see what they could be flying, then once they sign on the dotted line, wham, "here's a metro, have fun".

 

[EatSleepFly]

I think this operation could be a true nightmare to keep up, especially if you try doing it in a metro.

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

The Metro is a very reliable airplane when flown and maintained properly.

Only once have I ever had a Metro go down on me away from base, and that was for an igniter box that could and does happen to any turbine airplane. We carry spares with us, except this time happened to be during a snowstorm the weekend before x-mas in the middle of nowhere and everyone at the FBO was at their Christmas party so nobody was around to make the switch. Otherwise it would've been a quick fix.

They are also "quirky", causing new or mentally challenged pilots to write things up that needn't be, which downs the airplane for days or more while the mechanics chase ghosts. I rarely have anything serious to write up, and more than once I've gone over 3 weeks in the same plane without a single write up. That's pretty impressive for old freighters that fly daily with ~30k hours and who knows how many cycles on them.

I'll give you that occasionally there is an airplane that is a hangar queen (152AF), but in my experience that is by far the exception not the rule for Metros at this company.

 

[OzBushWhacker]

We have quirks too (Shorts) but yet get them up in the air 5 nights/wk. May have to swap out occasionally but pretty reliable.