banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 03:39 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2018, 13:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:

So you don’t like subsidies unless you agree with them?

I think that putting Essential (and we can certainly debate that term) Air Services in the same bucket as electricity is a bit of a stretch. Also sounds like your home airport situation is complicated by the usual local corruption.

I just think that if taxpayer monies are subsidizing commercial efforts, that the recipient of those taxpayer funds should spend them to the max extent possible on US goods. I use the term taxpayer purposefully; the government creares zero wealth/capital. Every dollar it gets originated with taxpayer effort. I agree that rules beget more rules. But if you are going to take taxpayer funds, then I think there should be a corresponding responsibility to spend those funds domestically.

The Cape Air model, backed by EAS, has less financial risk than the majors. Will be fascinating to see if EAS funding that Cape Air receives, goes up substantially when these new birds get bought. The capital requirements are enormous compared to the current fleet of Cessna 402s.



What about little airports? You know, the ones only old, rich, white men use in their Cessna Cubs and private jets??? Maybe we should just shut all those down, unless they have major airline service that pays for them.

Then you wouldn't be able to fly that G58 even across the country. No where for you to stop for gas along the way.

In other words, it breaks the national transportation system.

Little airports exist because it makes a national infrastructure for air transportation possible. The EAS thing came about as a result of de-regulation of the airlines. It was meant to assure that people who lived on unprofitable routes would still be able to reasonably reach a hub airport.

I don't know if EAS is the best way to run this stuff. I don't know if Cape Air is making the wisest decisions with their piston aircraft. I'm happy enough to let them figure it out. They seem to be making a go of it.

The other part, and you miss this completely, is that *every* rule the government creates, requires an entire bureaucracy to enforce it. Add a rule to the EAS that they can only buy USA made aircraft, then you need a bureaucrat to define, "USA Made Aircraft". If Cessna does composite assembly in Mexico and buys subassemblies from Australia and engines from Canada, is it still a "USA Made" airplane? What if Embraer buys avionics, engines and APU's and other substantial components from US companies and does airframe assembly in Brazil and final outfitting in the USA, is it then, "US-enough???"

What if the USA made aircraft is sent to El Salvador for a major airframe service or re-furbishment? Will it still count???

Hell, I don't know. But I am darn sure that the US government can commission a study for $50,000,000 to write a rulebook and hire at least 1200 people to enforce that rule book on all 74 aircraft used in the EAS program.

On the other hand, if they used the much simpler criteria of seeing to it that passenger and freight service is running between point x and point y at least z-number of seats each way each week, at least that's all the oversight it would need.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2018, 19:52 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/30/15
Posts: 714
Post Likes: +740
Location: NH; KLEB
Aircraft: M2, erstwhile G58
Username Protected wrote:

So you don’t like subsidies unless you agree with them?

I think that putting Essential (and we can certainly debate that term) Air Services in the same bucket as electricity is a bit of a stretch. Also sounds like your home airport situation is complicated by the usual local corruption.

I just think that if taxpayer monies are subsidizing commercial efforts, that the recipient of those taxpayer funds should spend them to the max extent possible on US goods. I use the term taxpayer purposefully; the government creares zero wealth/capital. Every dollar it gets originated with taxpayer effort. I agree that rules beget more rules. But if you are going to take taxpayer funds, then I think there should be a corresponding responsibility to spend those funds domestically.

The Cape Air model, backed by EAS, has less financial risk than the majors. Will be fascinating to see if EAS funding that Cape Air receives, goes up substantially when these new birds get bought. The capital requirements are enormous compared to the current fleet of Cessna 402s.



What about little airports? You know, the ones only old, rich, white men use in their Cessna Cubs and private jets??? Maybe we should just shut all those down, unless they have major airline service that pays for them.

Then you wouldn't be able to fly that G58 even across the country. No where for you to stop for gas along the way.

In other words, it breaks the national transportation system.

Two thoughts, 1) if that happens, that is OK. I will adapt and make different decisions. 2) more to the point... the airport system is actually part of the government. The EAS is a government (taxpayer) subsidy of private companies. Two different beasts. One is part of the gov't infrastructure the other is a subsidy of private companies.

Little airports exist because it makes a national infrastructure for air transportation possible. The EAS thing came about as a result of de-regulation of the airlines. It was meant to assure that people who lived on unprofitable routes would still be able to reasonably reach a hub airport.


Why should people who choose to live near major airports and major metropolitan areas, subsidize the travel of those who choose to live in more rural areas? Why not take this to its logical extreme and "normalize" all air fares so that the per mile average coach fare is exactly equal to the most competitive per mile coach fare on the most competitive city pairs in the country? Life is full of trade-offs. Living any place has its benefits and its drawbacks in terms of economics, access, crowds, etc.

Look at the decline in GA and aircraft sales.... fell off the cliff in 1978 coincident with the one of the oil crises, stagflation under James Earl Carter, and the inception of the EAS Act.
Wondering if GA would be more vibrant if the EAS carriers were not an option? Not stating an opinion or assertion, but asking a genuine question.


I don't know if EAS is the best way to run this stuff. I don't know if Cape Air is making the wisest decisions with their piston aircraft. I'm happy enough to let them figure it out. They seem to be making a go of it.

Not questioning the wisdom of their decision. Questioning the propriety in light of taxpayer subsidies. They are making a go of it, but due to subsidies. I don't know how EAS rates/subsidies are set, but I am guessing it is a bit of a negotiation between the carrier and the Feds. Not too hard to figure out who is likely the better negotiator. And these things, like utility rates can be gamed. There is no market. I am based at an EAS airport. Prior to learning to fly, I used to fly Cape Air quite a bit. Could not for the life of me figure out how they could afford to put three people in a plane for $50 a head, fly from KLEB to KBOS and stay in business. Yes, $50 one way. You could by a book of coupons, 10 for $500.00.. madness. The bus from our town to Boston Logan cost $35. Did I fly Cape Air? Yes. Would I have pouted or cried if the route dried up? No. I thought it was loony.

The other part, and you miss this completely, is that *every* rule the government creates, requires an entire bureaucracy to enforce it. Add a rule to the EAS that they can only buy USA made aircraft, then you need a bureaucrat to define, "USA Made Aircraft". If Cessna does composite assembly in Mexico and buys subassemblies from Australia and engines from Canada, is it still a "USA Made" airplane? What if Embraer buys avionics, engines and APU's and other substantial components from US companies and does airframe assembly in Brazil and final outfitting in the USA, is it then, "US-enough???"

No I did not "miss this completely". You missed completely that I agreed with you on the point that rules beget rules, go back and re-read if you like.

What if the USA made aircraft is sent to El Salvador for a major airframe service or re-furbishment? Will it still count???

Hell, I don't know. But I am darn sure that the US government can commission a study for $50,000,000 to write a rulebook and hire at least 1200 people to enforce that rule book on all 74 aircraft used in the EAS program.

On the other hand, if they used the much simpler criteria of seeing to it that passenger and freight service is running between point x and point y at least z-number of seats each way each week, at least that's all the oversight it would need.


Very simple point here my friend, am completely aware that some folks will disagree... but when a private company takes subsidies from the US taxpayer, that company should be obligated to make every effort to purchase US made goods.

You may disagree with the above, but the following is incontrovertible... average working wages have stagnated in the United States in the last 40 years. This has happened as countless companies have "off-shored" millions of jobs, while enjoying the rule of law in the United States and the stability (so far) of the US dollar. Companies that take taxpayer dollars should support the taxpayer in their purchases. If a company wants to spend as they please, then they should generate revenue from market demand, (i.e., a real price that a real customer is willing to pay out of his or her own pocket; unsubsidized), not taxpayer subsidies.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2020, 12:26 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/03/12
Posts: 713
Post Likes: +344
Company: Aviation Fabricators
Location: 805 N 4th St. Clinton, Missouri 64735
SkyCourier milestone today 3.23.20


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2020, 14:22 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/20/11
Posts: 661
Post Likes: +280
Location: WA77, KRNT, S50
Aircraft: S108, A36, BE36TC
Username Protected wrote:
The frighter version big enough to hold containers unmodified makes a huge amount of sense.

The passenger version, however seems to be after exactly the same market as the twin otter....


I used to fly ATR-72/42 for Fedex. The airplanes are bulk loaded with safety nets between zones. It was labor intensive and very time consuming. I always said cans were the way to go.

Not to mention, with these new lightweight cans, they have firebane in the walls. So when that undeclared haz starts to cook you have a much better allowed time to get her on the ground. And I believe some cans have fire sensors as well.

Lastly, to mitigate load shift, you simply fill all spots with a can empty or not.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2020, 19:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/14/19
Posts: 673
Post Likes: +581
Location: MCW
Aircraft: 7ECA
Username Protected wrote:
SkyCourier milestone today 3.23.20


Thanks for the update! Keep waiting for the first flight.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2020, 20:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/04/18
Posts: 116
Post Likes: +87
Company: Commander, 79th FS
Location: Sumter, SC
Aircraft: F-16, P210 TN550
Username Protected wrote:
SkyCourier milestone today 3.23.20


Why are you posting this in the Cape Air, ESA, Tecnam thread?

:woot:

_________________
CSEL, CMEL, CFII
USAF F-16 Evaluator/WIC Instructor


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 08:56 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/26/16
Posts: 17
Post Likes: +2
Location: Europe
Aircraft: B300
Look like the Skylander.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUCmZhtWP6s


or the N219 Nurtanio...


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 23:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
What's old is new again. Looks a bit like a Do228.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 19 May 2020, 21:36 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/28/15
Posts: 41
Post Likes: +28
Aircraft: Cessna 208B
Attachment:
BAC4A804-7B1F-4711-A69A-7ADE9639FB1A.jpeg

The Textron Sky Courier made it’s first test flight on May 17th. Flew for two hours and 15 minutes.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 20 May 2020, 07:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
SkyCourier milestone today 3.23.20


Oh look, a TwinOtter !


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 20 May 2020, 08:12 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/05/11
Posts: 9553
Post Likes: +6410
Company: Power/mation
Location: Milwaukee, WI (KMKE)
Aircraft: 1963 Debonair B33
I wonder what the deal is with the exhaust stacks pointing up on the left sides of both nacelles.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 20 May 2020, 08:27 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
On a Pratt there is an abbreviated cycle count formula that gives a lot of credit if you don’t shut down. In our Ag applications we probably average one start per five flights with each flight lasting 45 minutes. The formula will put between 225 to 375 cycles in a typical year with 600 hours. Those cycles go against components rated for 20-30 thousand cycles.

If you had to shut down after each and every flight, you would get taxed one cycle per and stuff would cycle out between 10,000-15,000 hours assuming half hour flights. That also assumes that the caravan engines get the same cycle limits that my 34s and 41s get.

Garretts have a similar formula that counts cycles even when you don't shut down but you do idle. You have to add a fraction of a cycle for each takeoff and landing when you return to idle. I don't think it's as generous as the Pratt formula.

Source: Service Bulletin TPE331-A72-2130

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 30 May 2020, 12:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Garretts have a similar formula that counts cycles even when you don't shut down but you do idle. You have to add a fraction of a cycle for each takeoff and landing when you return to idle. I don't think it's as generous as the Pratt formula.


You can afford to be generous when you charge $500K for an OH


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 30 May 2020, 13:17 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/30/18
Posts: 2223
Post Likes: +1707
Location: NH
Aircraft: F33A, A320
Username Protected wrote:
I wonder what the deal is with the exhaust stacks pointing up on the left sides of both nacelles.


The Shorts 360 is the same way, I think it has something to do with the prop slipstream and keeping the hot exhaust from going under the wing.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2020, 12:31 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/03/12
Posts: 713
Post Likes: +344
Company: Aviation Fabricators
Location: 805 N 4th St. Clinton, Missouri 64735
Username Protected wrote:
I wonder what the deal is with the exhaust stacks pointing up on the left sides of both nacelles.


Jim, This pic complicates your question in that the LH inboard stack and RH inboard stack are angled differently. Possible noise abatement test?

Jeff


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.AAI.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.