Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Is the Jetprop the right plane for my mission? (and other high performance types)

Malibuflyer wrote:

Can one operate TC690 under NCO?

I would think so. Twin-engine turboprops are classified as complex aircraft, but a derogation permits operation under part-NCO rather than part-NCC as long as the MTOM is not above 5700 kg – which it is not for the TC690. (Air Ops regulation, Article 6, paragraph 8.)

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 13 Jan 14:10
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

I would think so. Twin-engine turboprops are classified as complex aircraft, but a derogation permits operation under part-NCO rather than part-NCC as long as the MTOM is not above 5700 kg – which it is not for the TC690. (Air Ops regulation, Article 6, paragraph 8.)

Interestingly, part-NCC has a rule that you do have to consider ASDR, with an exception for just those aircraft that don’t have to apply part-NCC anyway!

NCC.POL.125 Take-off—aeroplanes
(a) …
(b) Except for an aeroplane equipped with turboprop engines and a maximum take-off mass at or below 5 700 kg, in the event of an engine failure during take-off, the pilot-in-command shall ensure that the aeroplane is able:
(1) to discontinue the take-off and stop within the accelerate-stop distance available or the runway available; or
(2) to continue the take-off and clear all obstacles along the flight path by an adequate margin until the aeroplane is in a position to comply with NCC.POL.130

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 13 Jan 14:10
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

but a derogation permits operation under part-NCO

I had forgotten about that one, you are right.

Antonio
LESB, Spain

Yes, if you have to comply with start stop regulations, then 600m is impossible. 600m is tight in a 690 anyway, but doable lightly loaded. Maybe a Silver Eagle is the best option then.

Antonio – yes, the TPE is susceptible to hot starts with weak batteries. With newer Concord batteries with greater capacity and with well maintained starter/generators, it’s a lower risk, but still.

Cessna P210/SE/337 Prez’d, CHAPTER FOUR: PAYLOAD/RANGE

Since these are travelling machines, equipment varies heavily from one aircraft to another, which affects useful load. I’ll try to provide my real-world experience.

  • P210 . Ours is quite light with about 1470lbs useful load. I have seen examples with air conditioning, radar, full deice, heavy interiors, aux tanks etc bringing useful loads down to as low as 1250 lbs. A typical average is more like 1300-1400lbs.

Standard fuel is 89USG usable but we additionally have a 29.4 aux fuel tank in the baggage compartment. That still leaves a lot of room for luggage as long as it is not too long or bulky+rigid. I posted sample pictures before like here.

Full fuel with our typical LOP 16GPH cruise provides 6 hrs endurance plus 15 USG reserves (50nm diversion plus 60 mins at loitering power) or about 1100NM practical range at 190KTAS cruise. This leaves a maximum of 775lbs or 351kg useful load (about four adults and some luggage or, in our case more typically a male, a female and three kids plus over 100kgs of luggage). However do not expect to fly that weight out of a 600m grass strip with obstacles.

The OP was for 2 adults and 2 kids or about say 85+55+35+35=210 kg plus say 40kg luggage or a total of about 250kg. You can obviously fit that in most P210’s with 118USG fuel, However for a 500NM mission, you will only need about 2.75-3 hrs plus say 15 USG reserve. This is about 70USG T/O FOB (22USG first hour, then 16 GPH) , which will give you a TOW of about 3500lbs on my airplane or perhaps 3600lbs on a typical heavier P210.

This will result in a real-life (w/ intercooler mod) 360m T/O roll at 25C at SL on dry short grass, no wind, using flaps20 (400m with flaps 10), but 650m to 50ft.
So a 600m grass runway is realistic at that weight as long as there are no obstacles.
For long grass or soft ground, you need to factor an extra 100-200m depending on how bad it is. I like to have margins so I would not venture into such a field without first trying at lighter weights and also I would need confirming that the ground is not significantly soft.

If you will not refuel at your grass field destination, then you need to depart base with an extra 55USG FOB or a total of 70+55= 125USG >118max FOB. Most of the times the 500nm return mission would not be feasible without refuelling at destination. Maybe at a lower power setting. Realistically, the refuel-less return mission is more like 400-450nm max on a 118USG P210 depending on wind and required reserves.

Bearing that in mind, landing at the planned weight of 3200lbs should not be a problem in a 600m grass runway. I have landed in 700m with a 3750lbs weight with room to spare, no wind, at 2500ft dens alt.

  • Silver Eagle .Again I have no direct experience but I will relate what I know.
    Most SE’s have 118 or 148USG fuel including standard 90 USG wing tanks plus 29USG baggage plus optionally 30 USG wing tips.
    Useful load is similar to piston P210’s despite the lighter engine so say 1300-1400 lbs useful load.
    118 USG will leave 220-270kg useful, or just about your payload. Since SE uses about 32USG the first hour and 20-25 thereon, this is about 750nm range plus 25USG reserves.
    148USG will leave about 130-180 kg useful or barely two adults. This results in some 1000NM plus reserves.
    The above range figures will be improved or worsened depending on OAT, much more so than the piston version.
    For the 500NM mission I estimate you would need 2.6-2.75 hrs or about 100USG including reserves.
    This leaves a useful load of 280-330 kg which is plenty for the OP’s needs.
    The TOW with 250kg payload will be around 3850lbs, which is more than I would feel comfortable with the piston version on 600m grass, but I am pretty sure it would not be a problem for the SE.
    The unrefuelled return mission would not be possible unless the mission range is reduced to about 400NM-450NM same as before, but then you run into departure weight issue restricting payload to only two POB.
    The planned 250kg payload would reduce the unrefuelled return radius to that possible with about 118 USG or about 325-375NM.
  • P337/T337G
    Standard fuel on this one is 150USG. Fuel use in the first hour is 36 then 22-23GPH from then on if LOP . This is almost 5 hrs endurance plus reserves or about 900nm, There are wingtip tanks options too to extend range if you are of the light-bodied type.
    Our “heavy” aircraft (remember, aircond, full deice, STOL…) has a useful load of under 1200lbs which at full fuel results in barely two adults.
    It has five seats so you can definitely sit your planned 2+2. Again assuming the OP’s 250kg payload will leave 108USG fuel: enough for 3-3.2 hrs plus reserves or a bit more than a wind-free 500nm.
    You will definitely need to refuel at destination with this one (if you depart legally with enough fuel for a return mission then radius will be little over 200nm). The airplane will probably fly happily over gross but , other than the questionable legality of the situation, you will not maintain altitude on one engine voiding the point of the the twin.

In summary: assuming you will refuel at destination, all three types can do it. Otherwise only the P210 or SE can fly the unrefuelled return mission, but on slightly shorter radius than required. HAving said that, a 600m grass field with 50ft obstacles will be a challenge, especially for the piston P210. I would say 700m with obstacles, 600m without obstacles are feasible for this mission. Best fit for this chapter would be Silver Eagle

Last Edited by Antonio at 13 Jan 16:15
Antonio
LESB, Spain

Antonio wrote:

Standard fuel is 89USG usable but we additionally have a 29.4 aux fuel tank in the baggage compartment. That still leaves a lot of room for luggage as long as it is not too long or bulky+rigid.

The maximum load of the baggage area is 200 lb; if you fill up the aux fuel tank (176 lb of fuel) plus the empty weight of the aux fuel tank, do you have any weight budget left from the maximum 200 lb for baggage?

ELLX

HI Lionel! I believe we discussed that in another thread some time ago.

Space-wise, you have a restriction regardless of how much fuel you have in the tank, due to the fixed tank volume (unlike some aux ferry tanks). The point I was trying to make is that, despite the volume taken up by the tank, enough space remains for quite a lot of luggage to be carried onboard, especially if you do not occupy all six seats in the cabin! I explained that more in detail for each bag, indicating location inside the aircraft, a couple of posts further down on that other thread

Weight-wise it is just as you said. I typically carry 15USG in the baggage compartment for CG management, which leaves about 100lbs available for luggage. If I plan to carry more luggage then I either place it in the main cabin or carry less auxiliary fuel.

There was an infamous Silver Eagle take-off accident in Belgium where weight and balance was way outside the envelope after much more than the allowable 200lbs were carried in the baggage compartment, likely compounded with frost on the flying surfaces.

Antonio
LESB, Spain

Thanks again Antonio. Great write up on the pressurized Cessnas. I guess looking at it, the P210 is really a quite remarkable airplane and, apart from the OP’s wish for turbine, the ideal airplane for him too.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Yes, the P210 seems to be the top contender. As much as would love a 690 Commander, it’s out of budget and way too heavy.

I am contemplating whether I can drop the turbine requirement for the P210, but then I would want to have a STOL mod (e.g. Robertson). Lower stall speed = increased safety margin in an engine out scenario. But if STOL, then no FIKI. On the other hand, as was discussed in a different thread some time ago, there is no FIKI concept in Europe, so as long as there is functional de-ice capability, it should be fine? Apparently there are de-iced Robertson STOL P210.

Alternatively, I might indeed drop the grass requirement and just go for a JetProp.

Switzerland

On STOL vs FIKI, I was told those who fly STOL at MTOW full of mud dirt on their tail & wings on a wet 100m runway can cope with airframe icing without FIKI

I have not tested that claim (extensively )

Last Edited by Ibra at 13 Jan 21:34
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top