Textron SkyCourier

ppragman said:
Crash survive-ability is pretty weaksauce. There are quite a few freight dawg accidents where the airplane landed under control in relatively suitable terrain and the pilot still died...
Click to expand...

I hadn't really considered this angle, being the only single pilot guy I know who somehow dodged the Van bullet, but they do seem to have rather a poor record. That heartbreaker where the Fedex guy (was it empire? mountain?) had an engine failure at night, landed it in a field, and somehow had the damned horrible bad luck to run in to the ONE TREE in a 50 yard radius springs to mind. Ugh.
 
Roger brings up the Pilatus. How much more does a Pilatus cost to operate than a Van? I mean obviously, more complex systems = more $$$, but is it really that much more? Same engine, give or take (mostly give), increased fuel burn due to increased power possibly made up for by increased speed? And man I could put that thing down on a postage stamp after, what, 10 or so .299s at Methods where the one thing you could be sure of was that you'd definitely get an engine failure on takeoff around 1000agl. And you can fly it in ice without updating your last will and testament. Back when dinosaurs roamed and I was doing on-demand freight in the Mitsi, there was some weirdo outfit up in Ohio that had a Pilatapus which would consistently just beat the pants off us on the bid boards. Like near half the cost. When you figure that back then they almost had to be paying a note on that thing and the Mitsis had all been bought and paid for around the time I was born, the operating costs have to be pretty attractive.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Roger brings up the Pilatus. How much more does a Pilatus cost to operate than a Van? I mean obviously, more complex systems = more $$$, but is it really that much more? Same engine, give or take (mostly give), increased fuel burn due to increased power possibly made up for by increased speed? And man I could put that thing down on a postage stamp after, what, 10 or so .299s at Methods where the one thing you could be sure of was that you'd definitely get an engine failure on takeoff around 1000agl. And you can fly it in ice without updating your last will and testament. Back when dinosaurs roamed and I was doing on-demand freight in the Mitsi, there was some weirdo outfit up in Ohio that had a Pilatapus which would consistently just beat the pants off us on the bid boards. Like near half the cost. When you figure that back then they almost had to be paying a note on that thing and the Mitsis had all been bought and paid for around the time I was born, the operating costs have to be pretty attractive.
Click to expand...

When I was running the numbers in a previously life the break even point on a round trip flight where you couldn't buy fuel in AK was around 130Nm.

If you had to go 130NM, drop off, then come back empty, you could take either airplane, beyond that, always take the PC12.

If you could get cheap fuel on both sides (or get fuel at all for that matter) the van does a little bit better, it was something like 150-160nm break even point, but literally, the van is too slow after that and the maintenance costs and fuel costs for the PC12 aren't that much higher (and the fuel flow is actually the same at FL280, for a PC12 and Caravan Ex).

I don't know the money numbers for the 675SHP Caravan, we had Ex's where I was seeing that kind of information, but if the flight is going to take much longer than an hour in the van, you're probably better off in the PC12.

A number around $700/hr comes to mind to operate a PC12 in Alaska if I'm remembering endless spreadsheets properly? It'd be cheaper down south I suspect.
 
ppragman said:
Crash survive-ability is pretty weaksauce. There are quite a few freight dawg accidents where the airplane landed under control in relatively suitable terrain and the pilot still died...
Click to expand...
Which ones are you thinking of? Most of the Van fatals that spring to mind are CFITs that would have been unsurvivable regardless of airframe.
ppragman said:
Take a gander at this site:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Cessna-208-Caravan-1/statistics

It's got similar numbers to the turbine otter, which is decades older, and came from a different time without modern crash-worthiness standards and modern avionics...this makes me a bit concerned.
Click to expand...
I think if anything that speaks to the similarities of the accident profiles rather than anything aircraft related. If there is any one thing about the Van that lends it to fatality accidents, it’s that being unpressurized and made of beer can skin (other than the primary structural elements such as spar, wing carry through box, etc the airplane is actually kind of flimsy) it doesn’t survive as well as, say, a pressurized hull.
Boris Badenov said:
I hadn't really considered this angle, being the only single pilot guy I know who somehow dodged the Van bullet, but they do seem to have rather a poor record. That heartbreaker where the Fedex guy (was it empire? mountain?) had an engine failure at night, landed it in a field, and somehow had the damned horrible bad luck to run in to the ONE TREE in a 50 yard radius springs to mind. Ugh.
Click to expand...
that one sucked. RIP Freight dawggie.
Boris Badenov said:
Roger brings up the Pilatus. How much more does a Pilatus cost to operate than a Van? I mean obviously, more complex systems = more $$$, but is it really that much more? Same engine, give or take (mostly give), increased fuel burn due to increased power possibly made up for by increased speed? And man I could put that thing down on a postage stamp after, what, 10 or so .299s at Methods where the one thing you could be sure of was that you'd definitely get an engine failure on takeoff around 1000agl. And you can fly it in ice without updating your last will and testament. Back when dinosaurs roamed and I was doing on-demand freight in the Mitsi, there was some weirdo outfit up in Ohio that had a Pilatapus which would consistently just beat the pants off us on the bid boards. Like near half the cost. When you figure that back then they almost had to be paying a note on that thing and the Mitsis had all been bought and paid for around the time I was born, the operating costs have to be pretty attractive.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen a lot of marketing numbers about the PC12 cost of operations and I’m having a really hard time marrying that up with the reality of Pilatus parts prices, the number of nitnoid little recurring inspection/servicing tasks, complexity of systems, etc. I guess we’ll see. At first look the construction of the airplane is waaaayy more solid than the Caravan.
 
Roger Roger said:
Which ones are you thinking of? Most of the Van fatals that spring to mind are CFITs that would have been unsurvivable regardless of airframe.

I think if anything that speaks to the similarities of the accident profiles rather than anything aircraft related. If there is any one thing about the Van that lends it to fatality accidents, it’s that being unpressurized and made of beer can skin (other than the primary structural elements such as spar, wing carry through box, etc the airplane is actually kind of flimsy) it doesn’t survive as well as, say, a pressurized hull.
that one sucked. RIP Freight dawggie.

I’ve seen a lot of marketing numbers about the PC12 cost of operations and I’m having a really hard time marrying that up with the reality of Pilatus parts prices, the number of nitnoid little recurring inspection/servicing tasks, complexity of systems, etc. I guess we’ll see. At first look the construction of the airplane is waaaayy more solid than the Caravan.
Click to expand...

Operationally it is much stouter.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Roger brings up the Pilatus. How much more does a Pilatus cost to operate than a Van? I mean obviously, more complex systems = more $$$, but is it really that much more? Same engine, give or take (mostly give), increased fuel burn due to increased power possibly made up for by increased speed? And man I could put that thing down on a postage stamp after, what, 10 or so .299s at Methods where the one thing you could be sure of was that you'd definitely get an engine failure on takeoff around 1000agl. And you can fly it in ice without updating your last will and testament. Back when dinosaurs roamed and I was doing on-demand freight in the Mitsi, there was some weirdo outfit up in Ohio that had a Pilatapus which would consistently just beat the pants off us on the bid boards. Like near half the cost. When you figure that back then they almost had to be paying a note on that thing and the Mitsis had all been bought and paid for around the time I was born, the operating costs have to be pretty attractive.
Click to expand...
Totally depends on length of your flight. PC-12 makes up for speed if you have the leg length for it. Depending on that PC-12NG is around ~700 to operate. Caravan EX most conditions is less than 500. The older model Caravans are likely less than 450. Maintenance will be higher on the Pilatus due to retract, pressurization etc. In my opinion the two planes operate two very separate and distinct missions.
 
deadpixel said:
Totally depends on length of your flight. PC-12 makes up for speed if you have the leg length for it. Depending on that PC-12NG is around ~700 to operate. Caravan EX most conditions is less than 500. The older model Caravans are likely less than 450. Maintenance will be higher on the Pilatus due to retract, pressurization etc. In my opinion the two planes operate two very separate and distinct missions.
Click to expand...

$500 an hour? Not even close. Try $1200 depending on the operation. You might be able to squeak out $1000 an hour but it's going to be a bare bones op.
 
dustoff17 said:
Take a tour of the Textron web site; fully loaded this thing has about 200 miles of range.......

...that means it would be fueling every 4 hours! :confused2:
Click to expand...

Honestly, that is almost perfect for what Fedex does with feeders. Sure, a little freight might have to be sacrificed for fuel on some runs, but a huge number of these routes are 100-200 NM
 
av8tr1 said:
$500 an hour? Not even close. Try $1200 depending on the operation. You might be able to squeak out $1000 an hour but it's going to be a bare bones op.
Click to expand...

His numbers are pretty close to what I saw as variable operating costs on the thing. That's pretty accurate.

The financing brings up the price quite a bit, but yeah about $600 is close to what we saw in variable costs for a van.

If you include all of the rest of the fixed costs of the business it's probably around $1000-$1200 depending on how hard you had to finance it and how much overhead you have, but charter rate on a Caravan was only around $1300-$1500/hr.
 
deadpixel said:
Totally depends on length of your flight. PC-12 makes up for speed if you have the leg length for it. Depending on that PC-12NG is around ~700 to operate. Caravan EX most conditions is less than 500. The older model Caravans are likely less than 450. Maintenance will be higher on the Pilatus due to retract, pressurization etc. In my opinion the two planes operate two very separate and distinct missions.
Click to expand...

They really don't up in Alaska - lower 48 is obviously way different, but yeah.

The only place where a PC12 is a bad choice up here is where runway condition is so soft that the dinky nosewheel tire will dig in too much - that prop is already easy to ding up on the rocks because of limited ground clearance - and where sheer volume on the inside of the airplane is a factor. When the legs are less than around 130NM it also makes sense.

9/10 times I'd much rather have a PC12 up here.
 
ppragman said:
His numbers are pretty close to what I saw as variable operating costs on the thing. That's pretty accurate.

The financing brings up the price quite a bit, but yeah about $600 is close to what we saw in variable costs for a van.

If you include all of the rest of the fixed costs of the business it's probably around $1000-$1200 depending on how hard you had to finance it and how much overhead you have, but charter rate on a Caravan was only around $1300-$1500/hr.
Click to expand...

I'd buy those numbers if you were not including the cost of the pilot, fuel and other associated costs to actually fly the thing. Otherwise I would love to see someone successful do that at $600. I spent 3 years trying to start an pax airline with something smaller than a Van and we were never able to make the numbers work for less than $1200 an hour. Yet every community we spoke with demanded the Van.
 
ppragman said:
They really don't up in Alaska - lower 48 is obviously way different, but yeah.

The only place where a PC12 is a bad choice up here is where runway condition is so soft that the dinky nosewheel tire will dig in too much - that prop is already easy to ding up on the rocks because of limited ground clearance - and where sheer volume on the inside of the airplane is a factor. When the legs are less than around 130NM it also makes sense.

9/10 times I'd much rather have a PC12 up here.
Click to expand...
And if it’s that soft do you really want to go in with a van?
 
Boris Badenov said:
Roger brings up the Pilatus. How much more does a Pilatus cost to operate than a Van? I mean obviously, more complex systems = more $$$, but is it really that much more? Same engine, give or take (mostly give), increased fuel burn due to increased power possibly made up for by increased speed? And man I could put that thing down on a postage stamp after, what, 10 or so .299s at Methods where the one thing you could be sure of was that you'd definitely get an engine failure on takeoff around 1000agl. And you can fly it in ice without updating your last will and testament. Back when dinosaurs roamed and I was doing on-demand freight in the Mitsi, there was some weirdo outfit up in Ohio that had a Pilatapus which would consistently just beat the pants off us on the bid boards. Like near half the cost. When you figure that back then they almost had to be paying a note on that thing and the Mitsis had all been bought and paid for around the time I was born, the operating costs have to be pretty attractive.
Click to expand...
Having flown both, it seems the Pilatus kicks butt in almost every way EXCEPT: It needs about 4 times the maintenance. Lot of subsystems with expensive boxes. The van is a collection of aluminum around a PT6. While low, slow, and full of ice, it is a bit more reliable. The van with TKS is pretty damn good. Still low and slow though.
 
We had very little trouble with the PC-12, but A) It was a low time airplane, B) We had a full time mechanic who worked only on that airplane, and C) We didn't fly very much, so I can see how my perspective might be, eh, a bit skewed...
 
Itchy said:
Having flown both, it seems the Pilatus kicks butt in almost every way EXCEPT: It needs about 4 times the maintenance. Lot of subsystems with expensive boxes. The van is a collection of aluminum around a PT6. While low, slow, and full of ice, it is a bit more reliable. The van with TKS is pretty damn good. Still low and slow though.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen literature that claims a lower maintenance man hours and parts expenditure on the -12 than the van. As mentioned above given the complexity (especially electrically) of the -12 I find that claim very spurious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top