Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    this is to replace Cessnas, remember. The nine cadets commissioned the other day will go onto Cessnas to do a bit of growing up and in time, will graduate to bigger aircraft. By the time a Cessna replacement reaches the Don, some of the nine will have gone to the airlines and the techs that graduated in the same year will be doing the same, so their human replacements will need another Cessna to do their growing up on...Buying a helicopter to do the Cessna jobs, including all the dull, boring, unglamourous ones would cost a fortune and would give you less airframes at much higher operational cost. Even a turbine Caravan is cheaper to operate than any helicopter, bar an R44.
    GttC have you any idea on the operational costs of the pressurized high performance TBM-400/PC-12 types, versus the more utilitarian Caravan/Kodiak etc?

    Comment


    • If it's pressurised, then you are into a higher standard of windows and doors, pressurisation and cabin air system, onboard oxygen (if fitted), possibly a wing mounted weather radar and even things like cabin and cockpit fittings (seats, trim, carpets, tables, internal lighting and furnishings-all of which are to a higher spec), all of which are expensive and of course, retracting undercarriage and all the associated costs of hydraulic systems for same. So, from the outset, real world costs are higher for the TBM/PC-12 types. For subsystems like hydraulics and pressurisation, it's the cost of valves, reservoirs, actuators and other rotables (overhaulable items) as well as increased levels of inspections compared to a simple aircraft like a Caravan. It's like the difference between a Hilux and a Bentley. Your turn around times are much quicker for the Caravan, for all levels of inspection. You take retractable undercarriage and pressurisation out of the equation, have a basic interior fitout and you slash maintenance costs and you get more available flight hours. Apart from that, manufacturers estimated hourly operating costs are a work of fiction and have no bearing in the real world. As an example, last night, we changed three main wheels and two nosewheels on our overnighting A320s, so that's probably ten grand in rubber alone, not to mind the shipping cost in the budget and the manhours involved and the level of tooling required. We also changed a dozen or so cabin and external bulbs, a pressurisation valve, took two aircraft off the morning schedule for urgent fixes, dealt with two diverted elsewhere as well as fitted in dailies and 8-days on the rest, and all the other routine stuff I personally don't know about, so there's probably the thicker end of a hundred grand consumed and that's just one average night....not answering your question effectively, but it gives you an idea.

      Comment


      • The white paper says that the Cessnas are going to be replaced with 3 bigger, ISTAR capable planes. King Air 350ER anybody?
        Last edited by Graylion; 3 August 2016, 17:09. Reason: typos

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
          The white paper says that the Cessnas are going to be replac3d with 3 bigger, ISTAR cpable planes. King Air 350ER.anybody?
          No reason why not - they are doing sterling work in the ISTAR role for the US, UK and a dozen others, and the airframe - in different fits - can do the MarPat and multi-engined trainer role.

          No one would, I hope, suggest that the airframes are interchangeable, but there would have to be big savings in maintenance, spares, flight training, currency and support contracts....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
            No reason why not - they are doing sterling work in the ISTAR role for the US, UK and a dozen others, and the airframe - in different fits - can do the MarPat and multi-engined trainer role.

            No one would, I hope, suggest that the airframes are interchangeable, but there would have to be big savings in maintenance, spares, flight training, currency and support contracts....
            i don't think they are big enough for MPA, although they could fulfill a backup role with Thales iMaster.
            Last edited by Graylion; 3 August 2016, 17:31.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              i don't think they are big enough for MPA, although they could fulfill a backup role with Thales iMaster.
              As ever with these things, it depends what you mean by 'MPA'...

              The Bermudians use it as an MPA, as do the Malaysians and the Japanese.

              If by 'MPA' you mean fisheries protection, counter-smuggling, and the other constabulary tasks then it can do MPA, if however MPA means ASW and libbing life rafts out the back 1500 miles out into the Atlantic then it's not MPA.

              Personally I'm of the view that a C-130 buy/lease is the answer - X bumper of the dedicated MPA variants and Y number of cargo variants on one provide-support contract - but if neither the will or the money is there for such a capability leap then it makes sense to think about other options and ways of doing what you currently do, rather than slavishly going down the ' what looks like a C-130 but is much cheaper...?' road.

              Comment


              • if you go into the realm of King Air 350 ERs, then the ass-and-trash element of the Cessnas will have to be catered for by the helicopters, which will drive costs up and also affects the "maturing of pilots" function carried out by the Cessnas as it is. It could involve a purchase of a bare bones King Air to do the basic utility function of the older King Airs, as well as a permanently rigged-for-ISTAR airframe or two. You'll notice that the Don doesn't routinely chop and change the Casas out for different tasks, rather it squeezes in humans and kit into spare space aboard. You could see that happening with a 350 purchase, ie, expected to do all that a Cessna could do, as well as ISTAR, with young pilots doing multi engine conversion as well as "growth".

                Comment


                • For an organisation that claims to be chronically short of pilots, the IAC seems to spend an enormous proportion of its flying time training pilots who, apparently, don't exist...

                  Do any of these people ever actually make it to operational flying?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                    The white paper says that the Cessnas are going to be replaced with 3 bigger, ISTAR capable planes. King Air 350ER anybody?
                    Maybe but would it then only be an ISTAR aircraft?

                    Would it be capable of doing a bit of light transport, air ambulance etc as well?

                    Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    As ever with these things, it depends what you mean by 'MPA'...

                    The Bermudians use it as an MPA, as do the Malaysians and the Japanese.

                    If by 'MPA' you mean fisheries protection, counter-smuggling, and the other constabulary tasks then it can do MPA, if however MPA means ASW and libbing life rafts out the back 1500 miles out into the Atlantic then it's not MPA.
                    Well our current MPA is in the first category but can throw liferafts as well.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      if you go into the realm of King Air 350 ERs, then the ass-and-trash element of the Cessnas will have to be catered for by the helicopters, which will drive costs up and also affects the "maturing of pilots" function carried out by the Cessnas as it is. It could involve a purchase of a bare bones King Air to do the basic utility function of the older King Airs, as well as a permanently rigged-for-ISTAR airframe or two. You'll notice that the Don doesn't routinely chop and change the Casas out for different tasks, rather it squeezes in humans and kit into spare space aboard. You could see that happening with a 350 purchase, ie, expected to do all that a Cessna could do, as well as ISTAR, with young pilots doing multi engine conversion as well as "growth".
                      Is it viable for the growing up to be done as a P2/co-pilot?

                      Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                      For an organisation that claims to be chronically short of pilots, the IAC seems to spend an enormous proportion of its flying time training pilots who, apparently, don't exist...
                      Plenty of cadets exist, prior to the commissioning the other week there were 3 classes at various stages of training.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                        if you go into the realm of King Air 350 ERs, then the ass-and-trash element of the Cessnas will have to be catered for by the helicopters, which will drive costs up and also affects the "maturing of pilots" function carried out by the Cessnas as it is. It could involve a purchase of a bare bones King Air to do the basic utility function of the older King Airs, as well as a permanently rigged-for-ISTAR airframe or two. You'll notice that the Don doesn't routinely chop and change the Casas out for different tasks, rather it squeezes in humans and kit into spare space aboard. You could see that happening with a 350 purchase, ie, expected to do all that a Cessna could do, as well as ISTAR, with young pilots doing multi engine conversion as well as "growth".
                        Lovely idea. Especially with the ridiculous range of the 350ER

                        Comment


                        • @dev, airline pilots do their growing up at the deep end, straight in at FO on a 737 or ATR or A320, so lobbing a Donner into a King Air after his PC-9 course wouldn't be a hardship. It wasn't unknown for newbies to get slid up the food chain faster if the situation demanded it, the multi conversion onto the King Air being a case in point . A lot of the flying is no different than commercial flying anyway and in the case of the Learjet, is exactly like commercial flying, so the leap isn't that big.

                          Comment


                          • I know it's the summer and all but just wondering if there's been ANY movement on the Tender for the Cessna Replacement!
                            Or should we concentrate more on the 40th anniversary party? And then decide.....!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pure Hover View Post
                              I know it's the summer and all but just wondering if there's been ANY movement on the Tender for the Cessna Replacement!
                              Or should we concentrate more on the 40th anniversary party? And then decide.....!
                              Was supposed to be done about 6 months ago

                              Comment


                              • What would the costs per flight hour, and maintenance costs, differences be between the (two) piston engined (e.g. 300HP Lycoming vs. 260HP option) BN Islander/Defender be versus the (single and two) turbine engined Cessna Caravan II and King Air ER, respectively?
                                (Seeing that nobody has mentioned the BN products recently... but previously raised by various posters both for and against)

                                This is taking it that in an ISTAR (and maritime patrol 'MarPat') roles, that they would be expected to fly around in circuits, for as long (and as far) as possible, and as many times as possible, but not necessarily to do it very fast.

                                The Islander/Defender does appears to be more narrow-bodied than the otherwise very similarly sized Caravan and King Air, but also appears to be cheaper than both, slower at least than the King Air ER, and a bit better than the King Air ER (and Caravan) at short take-off and landings, but a good bit less range than the King AIR ER...

                                So many different regional airliners, and smaller air and naval forces cannot have been so wrong, over so many years, in choosing the Islanders and Defenders?
                                The BN (Britten-Norman) website brochure claims, that its basic airframe cost is lower than the Caravan II (and Casa 232) in a handy little comparison chart...

                                It also appears that the BN product has a wide range of equipment that can be carried... including radar...(at the same time as FLIR?) and has been used for MarPat by various users also.

                                Would three of these cheaper/more basic piston (or turboprop) BN products be the best pragmatic option, that would actually offer the most time flying, and for the least cost..?
                                The money saved in the capital investment for example, could be ploughed into more equipment for them or, put into a fourth plane i.e. a Cessna 'Skylane' 182 with the same family (single) piston engine, as a runabout and basic trainer?

                                Would the more simple piston engines, and short take off/landing abilities etc., give more scope (possibly) for future overseas service in the developing world locations... and the product range otherwise give a wider range of capabilities for follow-on aircraft, including at sea? (as a supplement to whatever CASA MPAs).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X