Mountain Flying Airplane

[SarDragon]

Col Reed

You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig

IDK, I've flown in it and other than the seats sucking more than a hoover it was a fairly enjoyable ride and the pilots love to show it off. We were able to pull off a photo tasking(MP,MO,MS) while flying a media flight that had two local reporters aboard. I'd like to see someone do that with a Cessna.

That would be pretty much a no-sweater in our 206.

[davidsinn]

Col Reed

You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig

IDK, I've flown in it and other than the seats sucking more than a hoover it was a fairly enjoyable ride and the pilots love to show it off. We were able to pull off a photo tasking(MP,MO,MS) while flying a media flight that had two local reporters aboard. I'd like to see someone do that with a Cessna.

That would be pretty much a no-sweater in our 206.

Just with two of us in the back the payload was over 500 lbs. Adding in the other three people and I bet we were on the sunny side of 800. We had 64 gallons of gas as well. IDK what the capacity of a 206 is but I bet that's close. Did I mention that all three in the back had a row to ourselves so we had freedom to move around without taking out the person next to us? I get the hate for ARCHER because it was a horribly run program that never accomplished anything but the aircraft is pretty sound once you take the system out.

Here's video of the flight I'm talking about. I'm behind the pilot. It was a great flight because our return trip was straight over my house

[Spaceman3750]

I think if we wanted to we could get a lot of good use out of the GA8s moving stuff and people in and out of major missions.

[bosshawk]

$20 M and all CAP gets out of the deal is a people and stuff mover?  Could hire a bunch of C-130s for that much money.

[simon]

The thread is getting a little off topic.

My only point is that for two, possibly three people searching in the mountains, even at altitude, a turbo piston is hands down the most economical way to go. A 206 is a lot of bang for the buck. There are other options of course. But if you don't want to add a zero to the hourly costs, they will all have reciprocating engine up front.

If you don't mind paying 5 times as much, go for a turbine. Because that's what it costs in capital and maintenance over the life of the article. Strange how the sales guys don't mention that. Of course, you can't compare the capabilities of the two. 300 vs. 600hp.

One also can't compare costs when it is a private operation vs. local government, especially military. When there is talk about things like discounted fuel, "in house mechanics" etc., it isn't an apples to apples comparison. If those things are available, then sure, there is the nice option of picking a more expensive and capable machine because the true costs are buried. If a government buyer has someone in house that can work on turbines, that's great, but to be fair there is the factoring in of employee costs, benefits, pensions etc. These costs over a year are HUGE compared to $100 an hour for a contract mechanic.

In the business I am dealing with at the moment, only when one amortize everything over the life of the equipment, depreciation, labor, overheads etc., does it reveal that the direct operating costs of a piece of equipment are minor fraction of the overall costs. Not trivial. Just the smaller balance of the total costs.

[SarDragon]

I just checked with our pilots, and determined that the max payload of a U206G is basically 1000 lb with full tanks. It can carry 5 people with no junk in the back, and no chubbies, but isn't recommended.

[blackrain]

One other thing to consider is the type of fuel that's available Jet-A/JP-whatever will likely be available (more so than 110LL) when operating from military facilities or in joint operations in general.

Also if an organiztion uses helicopters as well then you're likely also looking at Jet-A for them too so a turboprop gives fuel commonality among platforms. Having spent time working with maintaining jet turbines on the civ side their overall reliability is pretty amazing. 

I know there's been talk of 110LL being harder and harder to find for everyone in the future. Of course that's a ways down the road.

(A nod to Col Reed. He mentioned the 2 MD500s and fuel commanality already)

[simon]

Yes, a small turbine is more reliable, lighter and more powerful than any reciprocating engine. They are awesome.

But I think where the article started was the question of what would make a great SAR aircraft and opening the options to a turbine given that discounted Jet-A might make it cheaper to run than a reciprocating engine.

Unless the Jet-A is practically free, hour-for-hour in the long run, a 206 is still going to be cheaper to buy, maintain and overhaul than any turbine aircraft.

[NIN]

Yes, a small turbine is more reliable, lighter and more powerful than any reciprocating engine. They are awesome.

But I think where the article started was the question of what would make a great SAR aircraft and opening the options to a turbine given that discounted Jet-A might make it cheaper to run than a reciprocating engine.

Unless the Jet-A is practically free, hour-for-hour in the long run, a 206 is still going to be cheaper to buy, maintain and overhaul than any turbine aircraft.

Rob: I know a place hanging a PT-6 on the front of a 206 (no, its not Soloy..)  When the STC is available, you guys can fly your 206s to them and have them converted. There are plenty of older PT-6s out there that are more than sufficient for this mod.

[NIN]

I just checked with our pilots, and determined that the max payload of a U206G is basically 1000 lb with full tanks. It can carry 5 people with no junk in the back, and no chubbies, but isn't recommended.

Rip all the superfluous  junk out of it like seats and the yoke on the right side and you can fit a pilot and six skydivers wearing rigs. Not that I know anything about U206s.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

The Turbo Beaver by Viking wins hands down: http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270

Because it's built in Canada and I like the name 

[NIN]

BTW, Rob, it looks like GippsAero has their GA-10 closer to first flight: longer than a GA-8, same basic planform, Allison/RR 250 B17 under the hood.  I bet your mechs have some familiarity with that powerplant, even.

[Flying Pig]

Hmm, Intersting.  Yeah, we have C20R++'s on the MD500s and PT-6's on the Bell 212.  B17 is pretty much a C20B.

If anyone can find me a photo of the GA10 with the turbo prop mounted.....Il see that your highly decorated.

[SarDragon]

I looked on the GA site, and all they have is CGI stuff. First flight was supposed to be last month, but there's no news items that I could find.

[Al Sayre]

Hmm, Intersting.  Yeah, we have C20R++'s on the MD500s and PT-6's on the Bell 212.  B17 is pretty much a C20B.

If anyone can find me a photo of the GA10 with the turbo prop mounted.....Il see that your highly decorated.

"First flight of the GA10 developmental prototype is scheduled
for November 2011, which will lead to the development flighttesting
phase. Type certification by the Australian CASA is
anticipated in February 2013. This will be followed by the type's
public debut at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon,
near Melbourne, in March 2013."   So far it's all CGI as far as I can find

[blackrain]

Just curious but how important is "Buy American" to government agencies nowadays? Is there a preference in the bidding process? I know exchange rates can affect prices too.

[davidsinn]

Just curious but how important is "Buy American" to government agencies nowadays? Is there a preference in the bidding process? I know exchange rates can affect prices too.

Not very important. See the KC-X project and the new COIN aircraft where the US built AT-6B lost out to a Brazilian aircraft.

[NIN]

I looked on the GA site, and all they have is CGI stuff. First flight was supposed to be last month, but there's no news items that I could find.

Let me see if I can find the photos of the fuselage in the jigs. Thats the closest I've see to "complete aircraft"

Here's the CGI of the airplane: http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/03/ga10-to-fly-later-this-year/

There was a bit of a discussion this week over on Dropzone.com about this aircraft (they were being cagey as to what it was, I figured it out). I totally forgot they also own the rights to the GAF Nomad and are planning to start producing those as the GA-18 next.

Ah, here's some sheetmetal in a jig:

[Spaceman3750]

I looked on the GA site, and all they have is CGI stuff. First flight was supposed to be last month, but there's no news items that I could find.

Let me see if I can find the photos of the fuselage in the jigs. Thats the closest I've see to "complete aircraft"

Here's the CGI of the airplane: http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/03/ga10-to-fly-later-this-year/

There was a bit of a discussion this week over on Dropzone.com about this aircraft (they were being cagey as to what it was, I figured it out). I totally forgot they also own the rights to the GAF Nomad and are planning to start producing those as the GA-18 next.

Ah, here's some sheetmetal in a jig:

With some sheet metal, a few clecos and a powerplant you could build one of your own!

[NIN]

With some sheet metal, a few clecos and a powerplant you could build one of your own!

How about an OH-58 that arrived on a flat-bed sans anything except for a connex full of parts?

Yeah, that was a fun six months.  Took a little more than some clecos, sheet metal and a lick of paint.

But I was the guy in the left seat for the MTF.