Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4106 times:
Which are the best freighter aircraft currently available? Typical payload capability should be between 4 to 8 tonnes and minimum range should be 2000 kms. It must be able to fly "above the weather".
The Caravan would have been ideal but is too small and cannot fly above the weather. That leaves the Fokker F27/F50 and the ATR series. The ATR series has the advantage of being a newer DESIGN and also offers crew commonality benefits across the 42/72 models. But on the downside it is expensive.
The aim is to put together a bizplan for a airline operating Freighter service from Pune(VAPO) to other cities within the state as well "long haul" to DEL, CCU and GAU (max 1800 kms, min 120 kms, avg 300-400 kms). Ability to operate from RWY's less than 3000 feet is a must. Max fleet: 4-5 aircraft.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4078 times:
There are EMB-120, Saab 340A, and Beech 1900 cargo conversions that would fit in nicely between the C-208 and the ATR/Fokkers. Not sure when the Saab 340B will become available, but there are 6 of them in storage up here at KLAN at Aerogenisis.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3982 times:
How about the BAE146-100/200/300? Can carry a good load, very quiet and can land and takeoff from very short runways. The Metro 3/23 is another popular freighter and cheap compared to an ATR/Saab. Or what about some of the smaller jets like the Falcon/Learjet/Citation? These could be converted to carry freight.
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3841 times:
The only reason to fly above weather is passenger comfort. You don't carrry passengers so why do you care?
Pressurization is only required for organisms that respirate.
There is no altitude where pressurization becomes essential. It is never essential, and is only a creature comfort.
What weather are you looking to get above? Why do you need to get above it? Deviate around it. Anything your going to fly will be certified to fly in known icing conditions. Your not likely to get above thunderstorms, and have to deviate around them anyway.
In your business the probably wont be any need for containerisation.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3841 times:
Speaking of pressurisation: at what altitude does pressurisation become essential? And Is 15000 feet flying "above the weather"?
Strictly speaking if you fly above 10,000 feet your plane will need to be pressurised. Cargo flights can go a little higher i think- FL120 or so without oxygen(don't quote me on that). I wouldn't consider 15,000 feet to be "above the weather"- although sometimes it is. FL200+ is above the weather.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29939 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3841 times:
Pressuization probably isn't an issue with them, but you would have to protect those items from freezing. Flying Tigers got their start moving flowers around the US in unpressurized C-46's after the war.
Roy, I remember reading that India had a mandatory 20 year retirement on airframes, can you elaborate?
But, cheap easy and bulletproof is the way to go.
I remember reading an article touting the A300 freighter conversion over a simular one for the 767 because of the laters higher resale value.
The problem with freight containers is that the smaller the aircraft is, the more payload you are sacrificing for the load itself. And 4 tones, isn't that much to load, it might be simpler just to bulk load. Less containers and equiptment to buy and maintain that way too.
4 to 8 tones isn't a whole lot of weight, shoot, A C-46 will lift 10 tones.
The ATR on your list is probably the best choice, The 42 is about your size, It has that big forward cargo door. And since it is still in production parts shouldn't be a problem. The large worldwide fleet is a plus to.
Initial costs will be higher then the F-27. But the heyday of converting those to freighters was 10 years ago. If you invest in that aircraft, you are investing in an orphan with no support.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3616 times:
One Indian operator is operating Pax fully loaded ATR-72's from short runways. I dont know how short but they shouldbe around 3000-4000 feet only.
Another operator is also using pax ATR42's to the North East with quite short runways.
So I guess it should be possible.
Undoubtedly, the ATR series makes a lot of sense, but it seems quite expensive both to lease or purchase (completely out of the question). So the Fokker F27 series seems to be most appropriate. Some 80's vintage Fokkers should be available for purchase quiet cheaply, and in the long run purchased aircraft would make more sense.
Any idea on the maintainability of the Fokker F27 series? Are spares etc easily available? Also since the Fokker hangs so low off the ground would it cause problems like FOD ingestion when operating to semi-prepared runways?
TT737FO From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 472 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3522 times:
>>>"Strictly speaking if you fly above 10,000 feet your plane will need to be pressurised. Cargo flights can go a little higher i think- FL120 or so without oxygen(don't quote me on that). I wouldn't consider 15,000 feet to be "above the weather"- although sometimes it is. FL200+ is above the weather.
By whose rules??? Indian rules differ as do the rules in the USA.
FAR 135.89 states that from 10,000-12,000 you must have oxygen system on board if the flight is over 30 minutes in duration. Over 12,000 it must be in use continuously. There is nothing about pressurization, and Indianguy will have to review his rules--don't confuse O2 with pressurization.
Unless Indianguy is flying live animals at high altitudes, it's not going to matter.
WRT Fokker-27, that pneumatic system they have strikes me as a mx hog.
Concur with Convair 580, but crew training would be expensive.
I'm with JET, the "irish concorde" has my vote on this one.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3502 times:
Pressurization discussion... well...
There are people living in the Andes - some live at 10,000+ ft...
La Paz, Bolivia, is at 13,500 MSL -
You talk to them of 10,000 ft rule of oxygen...
They will laugh at you...
Do you think they carry portable 02 to make babies...?
The 10,000 feet rule is for "worst case scenario" for average people...
Actually, FAR 25 mandates that cabins be pressurized at/below 8,000 feet..
I have flown from Mendoza, Argentina to Santiago, Chile, in a L-21...
We had oxygen, my son did not use it, yet he was flying the plane...
We were at 14-15,000 feet in the mountain passes, at times...
Happy contrails -