Ameriflight 208

[ppragman]

The 208 is only cheaper than the Chieftain if you are using Cessna's marketing numbers.

Actually. Not quite. The initial buy in is more expensive, but there's a reason that bush operators are switching to the "van." The van can carry twice what a Chieftain can - provided it doesn't blow out first. In terms of economies of scale, the van wins every time up against a chieftain. Now, if you can't put enough freight on it to pay for it, a Van is kind of pointless, but if you're blowing out a Navajo on a regular basis then that's the way to go. The engine cost is similar because there's more overhauls for the lycs, the gear is fixed, there's only one prop. Really, the caravan is cheaper, just not initially - that and you have to fly the hell out of it to recoup the costs of acquisition. If you're flying it a bunch though...well, then it's the way to go.

 

[Douglas]

...

Man, I respect what you add to this forum, but I feel like you are off the mark.

There will need to be two planes and two pilots for runs that used to take one. A few runs would handle one.

 

[tiredcfi]

The 208 is only cheaper than the Chieftain if you are using Cessna's marketing numbers.

Only until you have to send a Caravan out on a regular basis to cover the Chieftain when it breaks!

 

[Inverted25]

I don't fly either so this may be a stupid question. What is the fuel burn on both planes?

 

[scooter2525]

36 gph a side on the PA-31

 

[Douglas]

36 gph a side on the PA-31

Dang dood! My 'Jo spilling gas over the wing wasn't even burn 72 gallons an hour!

 

[Inverted25]

So could increasing fuel prices be the reason vans are being considered.

 

[USMCmech]

Man, I respect what you add to this forum, but I feel like you are off the mark.
There will need to be two planes and two pilots for runs that used to take one. A few runs would handle one.

Are we talking about the unpresurized king air 90, or are we talking about the stretched king air 350 (AKA the 99 or 1900)? If you want to carry 2 caravans worth of cargo, you need a 1900. Which is of course much faster as well.

I don't have the data for every operation, but based on what I saw on the UPS ramp comparing Martinaire's208 vs Ameriflight's 99 they have similar performance on runs less than 200 NM. About the same weight and volume per plane. The 99 is faster especially up high, but on short legs that speed is not as big an issue.

Ameriflight charged about the same for a chieftain as Martinaire did for the Caravan according to dispatchers I spoke to at both companies.


The Caravan's ideal run is where you carry about 2500# of cargo about 150 NM. If you are using a 99 to fly a similar profile then you are wasting money.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Are we talking about the unpresurized king air 90

More like an unpressurized 100 with queen air wings, 90 systems, and a schnoz. A 99 without a pod is substantially faster than a Caravan. For example, when I flying the 99 it was impossible for our Van to cover the run if I broke down, as he would exceed 8 hours of flight time. I was averaging just over 6 hours a day...that's a substantial difference.

 

[Maurus]

Are we talking about the unpresurized king air 90, or are we talking about the stretched king air 350 (AKA the 99 or 1900)? If you want to carry 2 caravans worth of cargo, you need a 1900. Which is of course much faster as well.

I don't have the data for every operation, but based on what I saw on the UPS ramp comparing Martinaire's208 vs Ameriflight's 99 they have similar performance on runs less than 200 NM. About the same weight and volume per plane. The 99 is faster especially up high, but on short legs that speed is not as big an issue.

Ameriflight charged about the same for a chieftain as Martinaire did for the Caravan according to dispatchers I spoke to at both companies.


The Caravan's ideal run is where you carry about 2500# of cargo about 150 NM. If you are using a 99 to fly a similar profile then you are wasting money.

What is the useful load for the 208? I have been able to carry 3500# of cargo in the 99 on a 70 minute flight with reserves.

 

[Douglas]

Are we talking about the unpresurized king air 90, or are we talking about the stretched king air 350 (AKA the 99 or 1900)? If you want to carry 2 caravans worth of cargo, you need a 1900. .

I'm saying that UPS will charter another Caravan to fly 100 lbs when a 99 could have contained it all. It's speculation, but I'm going to stick my head in a caravan.
3000 lbs is what we carry.

 

[USMCmech]

A 99 without a pod is substantially faster than a Caravan. For example, when I flying the 99 it was impossible for our Van to cover the run if I broke down, as he would exceed 8 hours of flight time. I was averaging just over 6 hours a day...that's a substantial difference.

We had a run like that, flew 7.5 hours per night. We had to have 2 pilots because they would time out before the month was over. A 99 would have been a much better aircraft for that run.

However, Ameriflight flew a 99 from DFW to Wichata Falls which is a 40 minute run. A 208 would have done that run for much less money.

 

[USMCmech]

I'm saying that UPS will charter another Caravan to fly 100 lbs when a 99 could have contained it all. It's speculation, but I'm going to stick my head in a caravan.
3000 lbs is what we carry.

Don't make a logical argument based on what UPS does. They are worse than the military. I have seen UPS waste so much money due to poor management of their feeder fleet it's crazy.

We were contracted for 3000# as well. That leaves about 1000# for a fuel range of about 250 NM plus reserves. The usable volume is within a few percentage points and is much easier to load.

 

[scooter2525]

Dang dood! My 'Jo spilling gas over the wing wasn't even burn 72 gallons an hour!

Lol it's been a few years. Is AMFs plan 36 total?

 

[z987k]

Lol it's been a few years. Is AMFs plan 36 total?

Yeah, they plan on 18 per side, in reality at the 55% power we generally use, it's closer to 14 per side.

I'd agree with USMCmech, on those sub hour flights in the flatlands a van makes a ton more sense economically. On the 3-4 hour flights where mea's at 12k plus out here and there's ice almost every day, I'd take a pa31 or 99 first any day. The pa31 runs about 165-170 true at 55%, and the 99 is supposed to run about 210.

 

[scooter2525]

Yeah, they plan on 18 per side, in reality at the 55% power we generally use, it's closer to 14 per side.

I was 1/2 right. I'm sure the higher number factors the take off and climb

 

[Douglas]

Don't make a logical argument based on what UPS does.

haha, very true.

 

[skydisaster]

I don't fly either so this may be a stupid question. What is the fuel burn on both planes?

I always flight planned for 20 a side on the Chieftain, but then again I also always flew it like I stole in the mapping world. I have not flown the C208, but I am pretty sure that PT-6 is burning more than 40 gph. I would assume more like 50-55 an hour. Which is even worse when you factor in the cost per NM. I have not looked at the cost per pound of payload, which I suspect is where the C208 is going to make up a lot of ground.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but the only reason anybody is comparing a PA-31 or a BE99 to a C208 is that they are building C208's and the entire PA-31/BE-99 fleet is worn slap out.

 

[Inverted]

Are we talking about the unpresurized king air 90, or are we talking about the stretched king air 350 (AKA the 99 or 1900)? If you want to carry 2 caravans worth of cargo, you need a 1900. Which is of course much faster as well.

I don't have the data for every operation, but based on what I saw on the UPS ramp comparing Martinaire's208 vs Ameriflight's 99 they have similar performance on runs less than 200 NM. About the same weight and volume per plane. The 99 is faster especially up high, but on short legs that speed is not as big an issue.

Ameriflight charged about the same for a chieftain as Martinaire did for the Caravan according to dispatchers I spoke to at both companies.


The Caravan's ideal run is where you carry about 2500# of cargo about 150 NM. If you are using a 99 to fly a similar profile then you are wasting money.

I would blow away Martinair's Vans going from STS to OAK during peak by at least 10 min if not usually 15. Thats a 55nm trip. The Van I remember doing around 140, we are easily doing 175+ and thats the slowest 99 I have flown. Today I was indicating 185. Thats a substantial speed difference.

Its not about wasting money for a lot of companies, its about the time savings.The 99 can carry more weight and volume than a Van I am convinced of that. Pods may be a different story though.

 

[z987k]

I would blow away Martinair's Vans going from STS to OAK during peak by at least 10 min if not usually 15. Thats a 55nm trip. The Van I remember doing around 140, we are easily doing 175+ and thats the slowest 99 I have flown. Today I was indicating 185. Thats a substantial speed difference.

Its not about wasting money for a lot of companies, its about the time savings.The 99 can carry more weight and volume than a Van I am convinced of that. Pods may be a different story though.

And in reality, those 10-15mins must matter a lot, otherwise why is anyone FLYING freight when you can drive it in just 30ish mins more.