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.)
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
Airborne_Again wrote:
but a derogation permits operation under part-NCO
I had forgotten about that one, you are right.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 )