Did you mean to say about 100 to 150 hours per plane per year?

You need 4 planes to do that?

Seems odd at that usage level you need so many planes. Am I misunderstanding something?

Mike C.

They go short hops to different destinations at the same time, and wait there and come back. Might be possible to optimize the routes with the traveling salesman algorithm

Yes I know, it seems a bit inefficient, but when multiple surgeons need to be at a variety of different clinics and surgical sites across the state at the same time in the morning, it is hard to make it work another way. We’ve considered the drop-off along the way “bus route” type of program, but for a variety of reasons, it doesn’t work well. A typical morning flight is 30 to 60 minutes. Same in the evening unless it’s a two clinic day in which case the plane makes a hop around noon to a different city and home in the evening.
Driving might also work, but the roads don’t go direct and in the winter time, they are far more dangerous than the airways and they often close unexpectedly, sometimes for 3 or more days in a row.
Operating with less planes using multiple dead-head legs could work, but it would create many logistical challenges especially when the “work day” is highly variable depending on need. A 6 hour clinic can become 4 if patients can’t make it in, or the day might extend by 1 or 2 hours if patients are added on or a case must be done. If an emergent case shows up at the home base and only one or two specialists in the group can handle that type of case, then the schedule changes again and they go back early. Having that type of schedule reproduced in multiple clinics throughout the state and trying to tie them together with just 2 planes would be tough, especially when you then factor in aircraft down time due to maintenance.

The ideal airplane:

Cheap to acquire, you need 4+ of them.

Must be twin and turbine, per passenger requirements.

Has long inspection/maintenance intervals.

Plentiful spare parts.

Readily available pilots, and operable single pilot.

Works on snow/ice runways.

Reliable both in dispatch and in the air.

Safe in mountains, weather, engine out.

Comfortable.

A fleet of Citation 501SP with TRs and on a Textron LUMP fits the bill. The LUMP extends the phase 1-4 inspections to 3 years, 450 hours, so you aren't doing major work very often. TRs will get you stopped on snow/ice runways (I've landed my V with NO brakes a few times, and given you will be operating at light weights for short legs, should be easy). You can buy these airplanes for well under $500K each. They will be faster, safer, more comfortable than any turboprop. Parts are readily available. Pilots are readily available. Service is readily available, even can come to you by truck if need be.

You will burn maybe 50% more fuel than the King Air 90 for the same missions, but you low usage per year makes fuel a relatively small part of the overall budget.

SETP are out due to twin requirement.

King Airs are out due to being the failing incumbent.

MU2 are out due to lack of pilots and perceptions.

Pistons are out due to speed and reliability needed to operate in the mountains.

Conquest, Commander, Merlin are out for not being ubiquitous enough. Afflicts MU2 as well.

Many jets are out for being two pilot, or lacking TRs, or being runway hogs generally.

The King Air and the Citation are the two most popular twin turbine airplanes in existence. If the King Air isn't working, then the Citation is the next logical candidate.

Your passengers will like the Citation more than the King Air.

Mike C.

A logical and analytical evaluation and response. Thanks Mike. We’ll try to learn more about the maintenance programs you alluded to and see who in our area would be able to service a Cessna twin jet (probably Denver, I’m assuming…2.5 hours by car).

Now run the $$ per nm calculations on that 501sp fleet

Get your fuel card ready!

Given the specific locations you have to go to, you can negotiate fuel with each FBO. This can be surprisingly effective when you fly a jet, it was somewhat less effective for my turboprop due to lower volume.

Given the short legs you fly, if an FBO doesn't play, then tanker in fuel and don't buy.

Citation 501SP would be 450 hours/year, $3.50 fuel average, 170 GPH block = $268K.

King Air 90 would be 600 hours/year, $3.50 fuel average, 100 GPH block = $210K.

It is more fuel, but it more airplane.

If minimum gallons was the goal, then fly everyone around in a Cessna 310 or Baron.

You could get one 501SP and see how it goes, but I predict you are on the slippery slope and won't be able to stop the transition of the entire fleet once you have one.

Mike C.

Out of the box thought...It's a buyer's market for Turbine helicopters right now. Especially the types that are generally used for Offshore worker transport....Buy them cheap, throw them away when they hit whatever inspection/life limits make them uneconomic.

Caveat, I haven't actually done the math on this, but it seems reasonable. Otherwise, Mike C seems to have pretty much walked you through solving this problem.

Yeah…we had a Baron back in ‘84. Brand new and only a couple months after purchase it allegedly had an “engine failure”. Freaked out the doc in back and had it traded on the first King Air in a matter of weeks. I was not here at the time but from the sounds of it, I think it might have been a “rich out” due to loss of turbo compression (wastegate or hose failure?) since it wasn’t a complete power loss. Anyway, the pistons are out. The engine failure we had in the C90 was immediate and catastrophic for the turbine, but the other engine got us back no problem.
In our “neck of the woods” AvFuel is the best deal. One location is CAA, but a few others are not and are still cheaper.
We do tanker fuel from the cheaper locations.
Helicopters might be nice because you can potentially land on site, but #1, they burn fuel like there’s no tomorrow, #2 arriving at your office in a huge helicopter is more than ostentatious and probably would be considered bizarre/over the top by most of our “down to earth” rancher patients, and #3 we get lots of in-flight icing and low visibility snow storms/winds pushing 50 knots at times…might not be great for rotor wing. Our founder (now passed away) once said at a meeting that he didn’t want to ride in a helicopter because they are basically “100,000 moving parts flying in very close formation.” And since in addition to being an orthopedic surgeon, he was a professional sponsored motorcycle racer for Ducati, everyone figured if he was scared to fly in a helicopter, they were too.

A motorcycle racer founding an orthopedic surgery sounds like a great example of bringing maintenance and repairs in-house.

I am amazed that maintenance is outsourced with a fleet that size. Hire two good AMT's, pay them well, and I guarantee that your costs will go down and your availability will go up. No need to replace a fleet of airplanes that are perfect for your mission.

Mike made the point that if you regularly visit the same location, you can often negotiate directly with the FBO for a fuel discount from them. It can be better than the national programs, but usually only available if it is going to pay off for them in certainty of volume. But it sounds like you may visit a small number of locations regularly, which may allow you enough leverage to work something out with the FBO directly.

Yes Adam. In Operations Research we called it the “Transportation Algorithm”. Studied as/along side linear regression, IIRC. I’m sure the MIT guys will correct any error in my memory from 1978 !

1) No argument, but so does a King Air or Citation on 100nm legs...
2) You might be surprised. One of my clients has three helicopters for managing cattle and such at his ranch (up in your part of the world, in fact). As long as you sell it as a tool for doing business rather than a "I can afford it, so why not," they tend to be pretty reasonable. Yes, this particular client is worth nearly 10 figures, but you'd never know it unless someone told you. Hell, he drives a pickup from the 1990's...
3) I don't know, the helicopters used for offshore ops deal with 50kt winds regularly. I can't speak to icing, but I'd think this has been addressed long before we started flying.