Mountain Flying Airplane

[Flying Pig]

What is the best airplane for mountain search flying in your opinion?  And is your experience first hand or not.  Either way, I don't care, I want to hear all input but please identify if you have flown it before.

Specifications:
Jet A preferably but doesn't matter
Able to operate from sea level to 12,000
Able to carry minimum of 2


The turbo prop Helio Courier flown by Pima County Sheriff in AZ is a nice one.

[scooter]

Out here in the mountain west, 12000' is not high enough. Need to be able to make 14 or higher. Turbo 182s work pretty well. You just have to watch the weight.

[SarDragon]

OV-10 Bronco.

[SARDOC]

OV-10 Bronco.

If Civil Air Patrol started flying these..I'd have to go get my pilots license

[Thrashed]

Pilatus Porter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter

Helio Super Courier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_Courier

If you want an airplane you can actually find and use, try the turbo 182.

[Flying Pig]

Out here in the mountain west, 12000' is not high enough. Need to be able to make 14 or higher. Turbo 182s work pretty well. You just have to watch the weight.

Yeah, I fly the Sierra all the time. Not sure how I typed 12,000.  I meant 20.  Actually 20+.   
A 182T would actually be a downgrade.  Im flying a TC206H right now and get it up to about 18K for highbird on SARs sometimes and can still climb with no issues.  Flying the canyons up around Mammoth is fun in it also when I have it stripped out and just have one Observer. Im looking at the turbo prop Helio Courier.

We may have the opportunity to upgrade at work.  Just seeing what peoples ideas are. 

[a2capt]

We may have the opportunity to upgrade at work.  Just seeing what peoples ideas are.

With a caption.. "Buy Cocaine! We want a new airplane!!"

[Flying Pig]

Yip  

[blackrain]

I admit that a Swiss made A/C like the Pilatus would be good (the Swiss should know a thing or two about mountain flying

But I vote for the Questair Kodiak. Decent 170 Kt cruise too.

[simon]

What is the best airplane for mountain search flying?

For CAP or professional pilots?

For CAP it has to be the Turbo 206. It needs to be simple because the average CAP mission pilot doesn't fly much. The turbo will give you the altitude. But the turbo increases the weight so at least in the 206, unlike the 182, you can carry 3 people and their gear (Including oxygen). Lands slow. Cheap to run, easy to train CAP pilots in, familiar etc.

For professional pilots and organizations with a budget, there has to be some nice turbine choices out there. But I'd say though that it would want to be something fairly common that pilots in the organization would find easy to step into or that you could find people that have a lot of time in them. I don't think having a mish-mash of a bunch of different aircraft across a search and rescue organization is a good idea, for that reason along with a unified maintenance program, parts, service experience etc. Any organization based around flying is so much simpler and profitable when it operates one type of aircraft. Look at Fedex with their big fleet of short haul Caravans, Southwest with a single model of aircraft that every pilot can fly and every mechanic work on etc. There is always going to be some kind of specialized aircraft that does an outstanding job at one thing, like SAR, but isn't great at some of the other tasks that the organization may need. I would think that the professional SAR organizations around the country have already studied this one and chosen. Maybe just look at what they've done. I'd also look to see European agencies have chosen. They have a lot more people in higher density mountain environments than in the US.

[Flying Pig]

Law Enforcement actually.

Im liking the Helio Courier turbo prop.   Im flying a TC206H right now but its actually more expensive to operate because of the cost of 100LL.  We get DoD Jet A which is about $3 per gallon cheaper than the pump rate the average Joe pays.  With what I fly the 206 per year, that same amount of flight time would be about $45-$50,000 cheaper in fuel costs if I could burn Jet A.  CRAZY HUH!!??  We have our own Dept mechanics so that really brings down the maintenance costs that other people would need to consider into it.  Plus, we are self insured so us operating a turbine isnt calculated the same as a private business operating a turbine.

[blackrain]

Are the new manufacture Helio Courier's Turbo Props powered by PT-6s? I saw where the Couriers list a piston engine but the Helio Stallion has a Turbine. Seems most if not all smaller turbo props use a PT-6.

I must have missed something. But that wouldn't be the first time

[simon]

http://www.policehelicopterpilot.com/police-helicopter-journal/tag/courier

[simon]

How do you figure saving 45-50k annually on fuel for a turbine, even with your discount?

Let's say a Turbo 206 averages 17 gallons an hour. With 100LL at $6 a gallon, that's $102 an hour. And let's say a very small turbine (The helio has more than one) averages 25 gallons an hour. If Jet A is $6.25 a gallon, with your discount that is $3.25. So $81.25 an hour.

That makes an hourly saving of $20.75. To save 45-50k annually, you would have to fly 2,169 to 2,410 hours.

You fly that much?

I think also you need to factor in purchase and overhaul costs. What is the cost of a new Allison 370shp turbine? $350,000 (I'm just guessing here. Somebody else chime in). What's a Continental - $50k by comparison. And the TBO? For a Continental is it going to be in the order of 1700-2000 hours. For a turbine you have the hot section inspection at what - 1500 hours - that's probably 50k. Then the overhaul might be at 3500 hours. Another 300k - at least that's what a P&W might cost. So the capital required is going to be a couple of hundred grand higher and the hourly engine reserve maybe $85 vs. $30.

Turbines are just off the scale in running costs compared to pistons. Fuel just doesn't enter into it, IMHO. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd sure like one.

[PHall]

How do you figure saving 45-50k annually on fuel for a turbine, even with your discount?

Let's say a Turbo 206 averages 17 gallons an hour. With 100LL at $6 a gallon, that's $102 an hour. And let's say a very small turbine (The helio has more than one) averages 25 gallons an hour. If Jet A is $6.25 a gallon, with your discount that is $3.25. So $81.25 an hour.

That makes an hourly saving of $20.75. To save 45-50k annually, you would have to fly 2,169 to 2,410 hours.

You fly that much?

I think also you need to factor in purchase and overhaul costs. What is the cost of a new Allison 370shp turbine? $350,000 (I'm just guessing here. Somebody else chime in). What's a Continental - $50k by comparison. And the TBO? For a Continental is it going to be in the order of 1700-2000 hours. For a turbine you have the hot section inspection at what - 1500 hours - that's probably 50k. Then the overhaul might be at 3500 hours. Another 300k - at least that's what a P&W might cost. So the capital required is going to be a couple of hundred grand higher and the hourly engine reserve maybe $85 vs. $30.

Turbines are just off the scale in running costs compared to pistons. Fuel just doesn't enter into it, IMHO. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd sure like one.

Then why are they replacing the radial engines on Beavers and Otters up in Alaska with PT6's?
The reasons I've heard are lower operating and maintenance costs.

[bosshawk]

Guys: just remember that FP flies for a sheriff's office in Central CA: costs are figured differently.  They already have two MD500s, so have mechanics and fuel for them.

[simon]

Then why are they replacing the radial engines on Beavers and Otters up in Alaska with PT6's?
The reasons I've heard are lower operating and maintenance costs.

Now we are bringing a third variable in for comparison: Radial Engines, as one owner put it to me, "Convert cash into noise".

The Otter has a 1340 cubic inch, 9 cylinder Pratt & Whitney radial first run in 1925's. These engines are OLD and they have a number of AD's, some of which involve expensive internal inspections, e.g. this 150 hour crankshaft one:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/9b82084e46fe8a3a8625684700614d32!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-8

The Beaver also uses a P&W radial, the Wasp Jr. It ceased production in 1953.

I don't think comparing an engine that went out of production over half a century ago is a valid comparison to one that can be bought new from the factory and has a nationwide network of overhaul shops and ready supply of parts.

So before even looking at fuel consumption, with the radial vs. turbine comparison, one has to consider other factors. First off - weight. Radials are heavy and these two planes you mentioned are freight dogs (Either self loading or otherwise). So the ability to take a couple of extra passengers with a turbine is a factor. Next, reliability. Obviously for a radial, which have to be coaxed into life, especially in cold conditions. Maintanence, availability of parts etc. I'll bet it all adds up, expecially in a commercial operation where they need these planes to go day after day. It may just be that fuel is a smaller part of the overall picture.

But I would still like to see the financials on a piston vs. turbine comparison for carrying 2-3 people in a slow, high wing plane in the mountains.

[Al Sayre]

One of the main reasons for switching from Radial to Turbine is the TBO for the engines.  Radials generally have a TBO (Time Between Overhauls) of 1500-1800 Hours, whereas a lot of the newer turbines have a TBO between 4500 - 6000 Hrs.  This translates to less downtime for maintenance, and overall lower maintenance costs (Turbines have a lot fewer moving parts that need replacement on a regular basis, although they do cost more when they have to be replaced...

[PHall]

A big reason to switch from a radial to a turbine.

If a radial isn't leaking oil it means the oil tank is empty.

[AngelWings]

How about a L-39C  ? It cost under $250,000, has jet engines, and after a year or so doesn't need too much maintence! I joke, I joke.