Which Plane?

[Threefingeredjack]

Having flown similar profiles in the Aleutians, I would ask: No HC-130????

EDIT @ 1055: My bad...missed the "cost is a factor" clause.

 

[Henning]

There you go, the Cheyenne did the job.

 

[CJones]

And we have a winner.

The 310 and Navajo were out. Even though there might have been a way through the icing at altitudes those two could do, wanting to stay at a reasonable pressure altitude for the passenger may not have been feasible while staying away from ice. The duration of the flight here was a consideration as well - the crappy weather was heading right for the pickup point, and 24 hours later it was so bad that the airliners weren't going in and out. So an overnight was not an option.

The Malibu would never have been a consideration for me. Even though it can fly at appropriate altitudes to get above the weather, a piston single over the North Atlantic in January (at night for the return trip) is not a good idea, in my opinion. Doubly so for a piston single with a high rate of engine failures. If it was better weather and we weren't flying over such inhospitable areas, maybe.

The Lear would've been nice, but the trip required a stop anyway on the return trip to clear customs (international). There would have been a time benefit, maybe even a significant one, but the extra cost would not have made it worthwhile. A lower-cost smaller jet might have been a more viable option, but wouldn't have been available.

We ended up taking the Cheyenne II. With the 80 kt winds at FL250, we were doing 300 kts over the ground on 400 pph combined, made it there in just under 4 hours including the climb and an approach. Flying back home we stopped for clearing customs on what by then was the western edge of that bad weather. Flying home we were at FL200 for both legs. 500 pph combined and only 180 kts GS. But we had a nice 4,000 ft cabin pressure, which was comfortable for crew and passengers.

It was 10 hours of flight time. Part 91 operation and I've had much longer days than that, but it was nicer having two people for that long in one day.

Aww bummer.. You already gave the answer to this one. I was going to play spoiler.

BTW - How are the patient(s) doing lately?

 

[N801BH]

Aww bummer.. You already gave the answer to this one. I was going to play spoiler.

BTW - How are the patient(s) doing lately?

The patient had a heart attack and died when Ted handed him the bill for the flight.

 

[Everskyward]

The patient had a heart attack and died when Ted handed him the bill for the flight.

Just think what it would have been if he had taken the Lear.

I would have been reluctant to take someone who was "feeing horrible" on trip that was any longer than necessary but glad it worked out.

 

[N801BH]

Just think what it would have been if he had taken the Lear.

.....

Good point.....
With the Lear ,the patient would have a stroke first, then had a fatal heart attack..

 

[Ted]

Aww bummer.. You already gave the answer to this one. I was going to play spoiler.

BTW - How are the patient(s) doing lately?

Patients are doing great.

 

[Ted]

Just think what it would have been if he had taken the Lear.

I would have been reluctant to take someone who was "feeing horrible" on trip that was any longer than necessary but glad it worked out.

Well, to put it in perspective, the alternative was a 3-leg ommercial flight with bags and waiting in line to clear customs, pluus layovers.

The Cheyenne proved a capable and comfortable option. We wouldve taken the Commander (extra 50 kts cruise speed), but it was broken at the time. Would've saved probably an hour on the return trip block time.

 

[gismo]

Late to the game but I picked the PA31 with pretty much the same reasoning as Ted and (gasp) Henning. I passed on the Lear simply because Ted mentioned that "cost is a factor" and the Cheyenne could do the job for less money but just as safely.

 

[Ted]

Lance, there are two PA31s listed.

Navajo: PA-31-310/350 (I had both available as options)
Cheyenne II: PA-31T-620

Assuming you picked the Cheyenne.

 

[Everskyward]

Well, to put it in perspective, the alternative was a 3-leg ommercial flight with bags and waiting in line to clear customs, pluus layovers.

But probably much cheaper.

I agree that the decision is usually based on what people think their time and convenience is worth especially if they are paying for it themselves.

 

[Ted]

But probably much cheaper.

I agree that the decision is usually based on what people think their time and convenience is worth especially if they are paying for it themselves.

Yeah. The commercial flight would've been cheaper (by a lot). The situation is what warranted the use of GA, and specifically a turbine twin. If a Pilatus/Meridian/TBM had been all that was available then we might have gone for that, but night flying over expanses of very cold water with one engine, even a turbine, isn't what I consider a great idea. The 310 wouldve been fine if it was summer (I.e. Not tons of ice).

A 340 wouldve gone high enough and had two engines, but wouldn't have the range the Cheyenne did, and required stopping in a less desirable location with respect to weather. Additionally, the better pressurization on the Cheyenne was very nice.