Cessna Caravan EX Review

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I'd like to point out a fact I learned in my CFI refresher course this year...there has not been a fuel exhaustion accident in a glass cockpit equipped aircraft.

ORly?

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20111024X42713&key=1

 

[jrh]

I waited until springtime to try it out,

Ok, I've flown non-certified for icing airplanes in to ice when I knew I had thousands of feet of warmer than freezing air under me. I guess if a person wanted to try what you're talking about out, this might be one way to do it.

but the guys that had been through a couple winters swore by using it as a de-ice to extend the range.

I've heard experienced pilots swear all sorts of absolutely stupid junk.

The problem with these types of things, in general, is that just because a person gets away with something once, or twice, or fifty times, doesn't mean they will get away with it forever. Is it good knowledge that might keep you alive when stuff really hits the fan? Sure. Is it good standard operating practice? No way.

Back to this point specifically...if a pilot is finding themselves in positions on a regular basis where they need to use this trick of TKS as a de-ice in order to complete the flight, something in the system is getting seriously screwed up. Either the pilot isn't planning the flight correctly, the company is pushing the pilot into situations they shouldn't be in, or maybe both.

Again, I want to emphasize...I can't think of any reason, outside of an emergency, to contradict something explicitly stated by the aircraft manufacturer.

 

[Tommay85]

Ok, I've flown non-certified for icing airplanes in to ice when I knew I had thousands of feet of warmer than freezing air under me. I guess if a person wanted to try what you're talking about out, this might be one way to do it.



I've heard experienced pilots swear all sorts of absolutely stupid junk.

The problem with these types of things, in general, is that just because a person gets away with something once, or twice, or fifty times, doesn't mean they will get away with it forever. Is it good knowledge that might keep you alive when stuff really hits the fan? Sure. Is it good standard operating practice? No way.

Back to this point specifically...if a pilot is finding themselves in positions on a regular basis where they need to use this trick of TKS as a de-ice in order to complete the flight, something in the system is getting seriously screwed up. Either the pilot isn't planning the flight correctly, the company is pushing the pilot into situations they shouldn't be in, or maybe both.

Again, I want to emphasize...I can't think of any reason, outside of an emergency, to contradict something explicitly stated by the aircraft manufacturer.

Nah, I agree. The only point I was getting at was that there are other ways of using it if you had to. Let me back up and preface with YMMV, proceed with caution, don't be a dumb bum, ect...

 

[jrh]

ORly?

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20111024X42713&key=1

Yes, if you read the whole thread you'll see Seggy corrected me on this point earlier. Indeed, pilots have figured out a way to run airplanes out of gas even with a glass cockpit.

However, I believe the safety statistics still show significant improvement in this area.

I did some searching and found an outdated report from the Air Safety Foundation. Maybe this is what my CFI refresher course was referring to. As of 2007, there had been no fatal accidents related to fuel management in glass cockpit aircraft. See page 9:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/TAA2007.pdf

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Yes, if you read the whole thread you'll see Seggy corrected me on this point earlier. Indeed, pilots have figured out a way to run airplanes out of gas even with a glass cockpit.

Two separate accidents. The one I posted is an SR22T with one fatality. The one he posted was an SR20 with no fatalities.

However, I believe the safety statistics still show significant improvement in this area.

And like Seggy, I agree.

I did some searching and found an outdated report from the Air Safety Foundation. Maybe this is what my CFI refresher course was referring to. As of 2007, there had been no fatal accidents related to fuel management in glass cockpit aircraft.

It's 2013. Isn't it time for your refresher course to update their material?

 

[jrh]

It's 2013. Isn't it time for your refresher course to update their material?

Ha. You'd think!

I used the American Flyers online course this year. It was actually a decent course, but obviously low budget. Can't expect too much when $125 covers a lifetime of renewals.

 

[Fly_Unity]

I seen some pilots leave it on the entire time in IMC even though not getting ice, then not have a healthy reserve for the approach where one will get caked with ice. I too have found that keep the leading edge wet, then turn it off. If you see just a trace of ice turn it on for 30 seconds, then back off. The options are GREATLY extended by not just wasting fluid. I really dont care about what the POH says about leaving it on the entire time. Its my life on the line and running out of fluid one time (because I wasted it when I didnt really need it, then had to divert twice due to unforecasted weather) was enough to change my mind. Im not using it to extend my range. Im conserving for when things go bad in a hurry. Anyone who says they will never run out of fluid if they "plan properly" just has never experienced a bad day.

Again, YMMV. If one has less than 1000 hours with TKS, I would advise anyone to just keep it on all the time (IMC below freezing) until they learn what it can and can not do.

 

[SteveC]

It melts it from underneath. Takes about 10 minutes to melt enough for it to break off though.

Then its effectiveness is probably kind of dependent on rate of accretion too. You can build an awful lot of ice in ten minutes in the wrong conditions.

 

[Tommay85]

Then its effectiveness is probably kind of dependent on rate of accretion too. You can build an awful lot of ice in ten minutes in the wrong conditions.

Indeed. I do remember one night where I was cruising along in the clouds with it off(forgot to turn it on), not picking up anything and then I started to hear a hiss in the radios, the prop started to glow on the tips with St. Elmos fire(pretty notorious with the 210 in precip for some reason). Noticed the system wasn't on and I knew what I was going to see when I flipped on the ice light. Went through a small area of freezing rain and was picking up 1/4 inch every minute or so. Luckily I was clear before it became too thick. It stopped at about an inch and a half from 5ish minutes of exposure. Took 10 minutes to break off, but it would have been at 3inches if that precip had sustained the entire time.

It is "stupid pilot tricks", I don't disagree with that.

EDIT: Steve, where did you go?

 

[SteveC]

..
EDIT: Steve, where did you go?

It's back. I responded to your post, then realized there was another page that pretty well covered the topic so I just deleted mine. You were too quick, so I brought it back.

 

[Tommay85]

It's back. I responded to your post, then realized there was another page that pretty well covered the topic so I just deleted mine. You were too quick, so I brought it back.

Ah, that's good though. The more grown ups that give perspective to us wipper-snappers the better!

 

[Cheyenne]

Hey, not to change the subject but it will be interesting to see how the G1000 does in brutal cold. I know Take Flight had some issues with their G1000 when they had that stupid DA-42

 

[ppragman]

Hey, not to change the subject but it will be interesting to see how the G1000 does in brutal cold. I know Take Flight had some issues with their G1000 when they had that stupid DA-42

We've run into similar problem in the PC-12, the solution is pre-heating the airplane with a gas-fired heater.

 

[Cheyenne]

We've run into similar problem in the PC-12, the solution is pre-heating the airplane with a gas-fired heater.

Ahh yes, god bless the Herman Nelson!

 

[Capt. Chaos]

We've run into similar problem in the PC-12, the solution is pre-heating the airplane with a gas-fired heater.

The G1000 not have the built in pre heaters like the Chelton?

 

[jmreii]

Capt. Chaos Roger Roger cmill

I just recently flew a brand new - fresh from the factory Cessna Caravan EX from the factory to Merrill Field in Anchorage. My company purchased one, and after 5 days of simulator training in Wichita, my boss and I jumped in the new airplane and headed home.

We did a quick local flight where we did some slowflight, stalls, and a few touch-and-goes before leaving Wichita. The flight characteristics are supremely "normal." Stalls in the clean, and takeoff configuration had barely any tendency to "break." In the landing configuration, the maximum altitude I saw lost was about 150'.

Presently, the new Caravan hasn't completed it's known ice certification (Cessna is still finalizing the paperwork) so we were a little limited in where go right out of the factory. In order to get out of the way of some weather, we departed towards Gallup, NM initially. On our way their, the winds picked up, and we had the fuel, so we decided to continue on to Scottsdale for our overnight. However just after passing ABQ, the winds in the Phoenix area picked up to in excess of 50kts, and we decided to bag it and go back to ABQ. The landing in ABQ was normal, it was a bit gusty, and that efficient wing didn't want to quit flying initially, but monitoring the approach from the right seat, it was a normal Caravan landing.

The G1000 made in-flight fuel planning easy. The configurable range ring let us set that we wanted an hours worth of fuel left over when we landed, and the dynamically changing ring let us see what was available to us in the winds. The situational awareness that's possible with the G1000 is incredible. The only system I have enough experience to compare it with is the Chelton EFIS system (commonly used in SE Alaska), and with some exceptions, it is light years ahead of the Chelton. The synthetic vision is smoother, more robust, and more informative. The screens are larger, and integrate more information into your scan (sometimes more than you'd want), and are mostly configurable. The G1000 is great, however Chelton came up with some nice features that I wish Garmin would have integrated. A glide range ring is available on the Chelton, it is not on the Garmin. You can more easily set altitudes for VNAV on the Chelton, and climbing using the "Highway in the Sky" system is more intuitive on the Chelton. Despite these minor differences, I find using the G1000 a more positive experience than the Chelton. During sim training, it was possible to land back on the runway with the G1000 with an engine out after takeoff in the clouds, the big screen made it a lot easier than it would have been in the Chelton.

After a day's rest in ABQ, it was my leg in the left seat to go to Gooding, Idaho (KGNG). We planned to go VFR and stay out of any icing, and enjoy a scenic run across the 4-Corners area. The flight was a non-event in terms of the weather, however, as we were flying along, it was pretty apparent how incredible the new PT6 Pratt developed for the airplane was. The larger PT6A-140 produces 867HP, and is supposedly more thermodynamically efficient than the 675HP van. I can attest to this as we were easily able to maintain 170KTAS with a fuel burn of around 350pph at 10,000'. Additionally, the takeoff performance available was substantially more than what was necessary - this airplane will suit us well in the more "off the beaten path" airports we routinely go to.

Landing the airplane in Gooding was easy. After crossing over the field to judge the winds and rolling onto the downwind leg, the approach was "normal." An approach speed of 95KIAS (which included about 5kts for gusty winds) worked well, and hitting your point was easy with the flight-path indicator on the G1000. There was a little bit of crosswind (maybe a 10kt component at most), and I used the "crab-and-kick" method in the last 50' and didn't have any problems. I didn't even bother with reverse just a little beta, and rolled about 1000' from my touchdown point to the next taxiway and turned off. I'm out of practice in the Caravan, I suspect that with a little more practice it'll be possible to get the landing roll down to about 800' or so without reverse. We landed after a roughly 4 hour flight with a little less than two hours of fuel remaining.

Engine management with the EIS system included in the G1000 is stupid-easy. Temperatures never seemed to be an issue in the airplane. The dynamic redline for torque auto-magically adjusts to prevent the pilot from overdoing it (though you're required by Cessna to always refer to the AFM for real torque values, wink-wink, nudge-nudge), and it pretty much seemed impossible to exceed the temp limits on this airplane. On the next leg to Bellingham, we elected to go up high and sip some oxygen. Up at 16,000' we were burning 300pph roughly, with 170KTAS. The airplane doesn't want to go much faster than 170 knots true. I suspect that the sheer amount of things hanging off of the airplane make speeds much faster than that practically unattainable without excess power and fuel burn. Getting down from up high was simple with that airplane as the prop begins to flatten out at about 250ft-lbs to 350ft-lbs of torque and then becomes a Caravan shaped brick if you'd like to come down fast.

The rest of the way back to town from Bellingham was exactly similar. The flying was easy, the Garmin Autopilot did most of the work, and we were able to fly back. I flew an approach to PAKT, and found the system to work great. The old Caravan "10-11-12" rule for power settings is pretty close in this airplane too, however there isn't a "10 degree" flap setting, the flaps available are "Up, T/O Appr., and Land." With flaps in the "T/O Appr" position, and 1200ft-lbs of torque, you get real close to 120 knots indicated. All in all, it's a Caravan, but one with a substantially larger motor and TKS. It's a simple to fly, easy to land, light workload airplane with few "gotchas" and lot's going for it. It flies exactly the same as a 206 with more comfortable seats and factory cup-holders. I'm looking forward to flying the thing more, and thoroughly enjoyed the ferry trip up to Anchorage.

Here is a simple bit of data on the machine:
10,000'
171 KTAS
350 pph
Heater on Separator Closed.

This airplane truly is a "navajo replacement." It carries about 800lbs more than our Navajos will, with similar fuel burns and less maintenance costs, but with a new airplane price-tag, I doubt you'll start seeing Chieftain freighters getting replaced any-time soon. Still though, I suspect for our operation, it'll be highly effective.

I have over 5000 hours in the Caravan through a FredEx feeder operation and really would be interested in hearing or seeing what type of performance in icing the latest Caravan model possesses. The biggest problem with the aircraft in the past has been it's performance in icing conditions. Excellent report! thanks.