Twin engine or Single engine? (Dumb question)

Piloto said:
Still FEDEX opted for a single instead of a King Air.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been in a Caravan and King Air? They aren't competitors and serve completely different missions. The Caravan has much more cargo space and has crew doors up front, plus a huge cargo door. The King Air wouldn't make a good cargo hauler.

I don't fault you for your preferences, but your logic here and on the Aspen thread is not based at all on fact.

mvirg said:
My Columbia is perfect for a 3 member family. Fast, efficient and capable. But what if we want to take friends, or we lose a cylinder 500' over Miami Beach, or we want to fly to Cozumel? So I started looking at twins.
Darn you Ted...darn you!
Click to expand...

You're welcome. :D

FloridaPilot said:
You can always rent a twin, especially if they don't fly with you frequently!

:) Just trying to help
Click to expand...

That is not as useful as it sounds. First, finding a good twin to rent is hard, and harder for a trip where you want to stay a while. Second (and more importantly), if you fly a twin irregularly, you will be less safe in it.
 
Scud_072 said:
So.... what about the stories I have heard about the tendancy of twins to flip over on take off if you loose an engine? Do we have any concerns about that?
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm above that speed before I pull off the ground.

Twins and singles have basically the same total risk factors, singles have some factors because they lack options in some situations, twins have some risk factors because they offer more options. Basically what one says when they say "I dont want a twin, A twin is more dangerous because it can do 'xxx' in a given situation." they are saying "I don't trust myself to think or act properly under stress."
 
weilke said:
The numbers on 100ll use support that. Twins burn a substantial percentage of all 100ll in the market. From living at the airport fence, it has been my observation that no matter how crummy the weather, thecourier twins will still land.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The statistics also aren't backed up by life insurance companies. One guy I knew was told by his life insurance that piston singles weren't allowed. Piston twins were fine, with pilot limitations.
 
Piloto said:
Still FEDEX opted for a single instead of a King Air.

I would rather takeoff on plane that has half the possibilty of an engine failure.

A wood spear will easily penetrate the radome and structure behind on a twin reaching the pilot chest. Try that with an engine in front.

José
Click to expand...
Fedex chose a feeder carrier, not the aircraft. I don't think they care what a/c you fly as long as it meets the requirements for the route. Some of their feeder carriers do fly caravans, but many do fly muli-engine aircraft. Shorts, Metros, ATR's, Convairs etc...

Cool, if you don't like M/E aircraft, but it has nothing to do with Fedex.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That is not as useful as it sounds. First, finding a good twin to rent is hard, and harder for a trip where you want to stay a while. Second (and more importantly), if you fly a twin irregularly, you will be less safe in it.
Click to expand...

Yes. There are twins available for rent, but those that are are typically just the 4 seat trainer type and depending on your location, they may have a high enough demand for ME training that you can't take them on long x-countries.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes. There are twins available for rent, but those that are are typically just the 4 seat trainer type and depending on your location, they may have a high enough demand for ME training that you can't take them on long x-countries.
Click to expand...

And those rentals have very little (if any) OEI capability.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Have you ever been in a Caravan and King Air? They aren't competitors and serve completely different missions. The Caravan has much more cargo space and has crew doors up front, plus a huge cargo door. The King Air wouldn't make a good cargo hauler.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but the most important factor for choosing the Caravan was the operating cost. Half the fuel cost, less than half the maintenance, half the purchase cost and twice the dispatchability rate. And as you mention better suited for the job. Fedex is in the business to make money and a single for them made more sense than a twin.

José
 
Piloto said:
I agree with you but the most important factor for choosing the Caravan was the operating cost. Half the fuel cost, less than half the maintenance, half the purchase cost and twice the dispatchability rate. And as you mention better suited for the job. Fedex is in the business to make money and a single for them made more sense than a twin.

José
Click to expand...

Read what flyingmoose posted, then report back.

A Caravan is not half the fuel cost of a King Air, especially per mile. Nor does it have twice the dispatchability. Again, you do not base your opinions on facts.
 
Caravans are designed to haul freight. That's the mission they were born to do, King Airs are designed for the owner to sit in the right rear forward facing seat. Big difference in why they are what they are. Short hauls 100-300 miles the Caravan is an outstanding hauler of boxes, King Airs are more for hauling self loading cargo. :D
It's like comparing a box truck to a limo, they are both capable of hauling freight and people, and each one does one thing better than the other. :D

Piloto said:
I agree with you but the most important factor for choosing the Caravan was the operating cost. Half the fuel cost, less than half the maintenance, half the purchase cost and twice the dispatchability rate. And as you mention better suited for the job. Fedex is in the business to make money and a single for them made more sense than a twin.

José
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Read what flyingmoose posted, then report back.

A Caravan is not half the fuel cost of a King Air, especially per mile. Nor does it have twice the dispatchability. Again, you do not base your opinions on facts.
Click to expand...

The plain fact is that FEDEX opted for the Caravan. The Caravan is a money maker not a money spender. And when you are in business you are in for profit. I am sure the FEDEX management made a cost analysis that lead to the Caravan decision. One important advantage of the Caravan is the high wing configuration, that allows for quick easy loading. I have seen many of these in the Bahamas and the Caribbean and is a truly workhorse

The Soloy twin engine conversion for the Caravan never pan out because operators plainly didn't wanted the added engine expense.

José
 
Piloto said:
The plain fact is that FEDEX opted for the Caravan. The Caravan is a money maker not a money spender. And when you are in business you are in for profit. I am sure the FEDEX management made a cost analysis that lead to the Caravan decision.
Click to expand...

You are talking so much out of your posterior that your breath stinks.

As mentioned earlier FEDEX has nothing to do with the decisions made by a sub- contractor.
 
flyingmoose said:
Fedex chose a feeder carrier, not the aircraft. I don't think they care what a/c you fly as long as it meets the requirements for the route. Some of their feeder carriers do fly caravans, but many do fly muli-engine aircraft. Shorts, Metros, ATR's, Convairs etc...

Cool, if you don't like M/E aircraft, but it has nothing to do with Fedex.
Click to expand...

That may be partially true, but not entirely true. IIRC, FedEx was the launch customer for the Caravan and they bought them and leased them to their chosen subcontractor. I don't know if this holds true for all aircraft that the subcontractors fly, but it was true for the original batch of Caravans, at the least.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You are talking so much out of your posterior that your breath stinks.

As mentioned earlier FEDEX has nothing to do with the decisions made by a sub- contractor.
Click to expand...

No need for personal attacks.

According to an acquaintance who used to haul boxes, some of the contractor caravans are owned by a fedex subsidiary that leases them to the contractor as part of their hauling contract. UPS puts out bids and doesn't care what you use to haul the boxes, fedex is a lot more involved.

Fedex is ok with losing a contractor pilot to engine failure over the trees every couple of years. The boxes are replaceable, so is the pilot :-(
 
Last edited:
Personal attacks are particularly contraindicated when the attacker is wrong.
 
weilke said:
According to an acquaintance who used to haul boxes, some of the contractor caravans are owned by a fedex subsidiary that leases them to the contractor as part of their hauling contract. UPS puts out bids and doesn't care what you use to haul the boxes, fedex is a lot more involved.
Click to expand...

No offense Weilke, but is there a reference for that other than 'an acquaintance said'? Not saying I don't believe you, but it seems odd. Then again, AMR maintaining ownership of Eagle when all other majors had ditched their regionals didn't make much sense either.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You are talking so much out of your posterior that your breath stinks.

As mentioned earlier FEDEX has nothing to do with the decisions made by a sub- contractor.
Click to expand...


He is getting defensive and lashing out because he is unable to argue with facts or reasoning. :rolleyes2:
 
N747JB said:
Caravans are designed to haul freight. That's the mission they were born to do, King Airs are designed for the owner to sit in the right rear forward facing seat. Big difference in why they are what they are. Short hauls 100-300 miles the Caravan is an outstanding hauler of boxes, King Airs are more for hauling self loading cargo. :D
It's like comparing a box truck to a limo, they are both capable of hauling freight and people, and each one does one thing better than the other. :D
Click to expand...

Costs are only relevant to payload in cost per pound/mile, as for a Caravan having twice the dispatch reliability over a twin turbine is ludicrous.
 
Fearless Tower said:
No offense Weilke, but is there a reference for that other than 'an acquaintance said'? Not saying I don't believe you, but it seems odd. Then again, AMR maintaining ownership of Eagle when all other majors had ditched their regionals didn't make much sense either.
Click to expand...

Can't cut and paste on my cell. The wikipedia entry for fedex feeder rrefers to the relationship as a 'damp lease' . There may be some contractor owned caravans but about 250 in fedex livery are fedex owned with the operator providing crew and maintenance.
 
Wikipedia also confirms my recollection that FedEx was involved in the design of the Caravan and was its launch customer. It all makes sense if your goal is reliability and economy to use an aircraft that was dedicated to the economical movement of freight in amounts that would be economical to serve small communities. It is unrealistic to expect their subcontractors to pony up for new Caravans and even if they did, FedEx gets a better price because it can place a much larger order.
 
weilke said:
Can't cut and paste on my cell. The wikipedia entry for fedex feeder rrefers to the relationship as a 'damp lease' . There may be some contractor owned caravans but about 250 in fedex livery are fedex owned with the operator providing crew and maintenance.
Click to expand...


Aye, thanks. Learned something new.
 
Kristin said:
Wikipedia also confirms my recollection that FedEx was involved in the design of the Caravan and was its launch customer. It all makes sense if your goal is reliability and economy to use an aircraft that was dedicated to the economical movement of freight in amounts that would be economical to serve small communities. It is unrealistic to expect their subcontractors to pony up for new Caravans and even if they did, FedEx gets a better price because it can place a much larger order.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that cessna developed the original and that fedex drove the further development into the super cargomaster.
 
Henning said:
Costs are only relevant to payload in cost per pound/mile, as for a Caravan having twice the dispatch reliability over a twin turbine is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Not when you are taking off from the Moon surface. On the Apollo Lunar Module and the Command Module they only had one engine each. If there is a place where dispatchability is a must the Moon voyage for sure qualifies.

José
 
weilke said:
No need for personal attacks.

According to an acquaintance who used to haul boxes, some of the contractor caravans are owned by a fedex subsidiary that leases them to the contractor as part of their hauling contract. UPS puts out bids and doesn't care what you use to haul the boxes, fedex is a lot more involved.

Fedex is ok with losing a contractor pilot to engine failure over the trees every couple of years. The boxes are replaceable, so is the pilot :-(
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
No offense Weilke, but is there a reference for that other than 'an acquaintance said'? Not saying I don't believe you, but it seems odd. Then again, AMR maintaining ownership of Eagle when all other majors had ditched their regionals didn't make much sense either.
Click to expand...

FedEx Feeder

FedEx Feeder is the branding applied to all FedEx Express propeller-driven aircraft which feed packages to and from airports served by larger jet aircraft.
In the United States and Canada, FedEx Express operates FedEx Feeder on a damp lease program where the contractor will lease the aircraft from FedEx fleet and provide a crew to operate the aircraft solely for FedEx. All of the feeder aircraft operated in the United States and Canada are owned by FedEx and because of this all of the aircraft are in the FedEx Feeder livery.[39] Just like regional airlines, the contractor will operate the aircraft with their own flight number and call sign.
Outside the United States with the exception of Morningstar Air Express, the contractor will supply their own aircraft, which may or may not be in the FedEx Feeder livery. Depending on the arrangement with FedEx, the contractor may be able to carry cargo for other companies with the FedEx cargo.[40]
List of contract carriers:

 
caravans, king airs, 737's, and super cubs are all raging commercial successes. None of them overlap each other's market and function.
 
It seems like Singles are more popular than a twin engines these days most likely because of fuel and maintenance costs. But I read somewhere that depending on what happens to 100LL some Diesel engines will start being produced in aircraft. What do you folks think?
 
FloridaPilot said:
It seems like Singles are more popular than a twin engines these days most likely because of fuel and maintenance costs. But I read somewhere that depending on what happens to 100LL some Diesel engines will start being produced in aircraft. What do you folks think?
Click to expand...

If Diesel was that good how come all cars that I see run on gasoline. And they are really concern about mpg. If AVGAS is going to disappear most likely will be replaced by MOGAS. There is already STCs to convert to MOGAS. Before AVGAS airplanes were running on MOGAS.

And at airport with 3,000ft runways or shorter nobody sells Jet fuel but AVGAS or MOGAS.

José
 
Piloto said:
If Diesel was that good how come all cars that I see run on gasoline.
Click to expand...

There are some cars out there that run on Diesel. The price for Diesel is more expensive then gas (Most of the time) but most Diesel engines have better gas mileage. That might be a benefit in airplanes because you travel further. There are some problems that need to be ironed out with Diesel though!
 
Piloto said:
If Diesel was that good how come all cars that I see run on gasoline.
Click to expand...

That is correct only in the US. In europe, 50% of cars are diesel powered.

I have a diesel car here, much better fuel economy, very low maintenance.
 
weilke said:
That is correct only in the US. In europe, 50% of cars are diesel powered.

I have a diesel car here, much better fuel economy, very low maintenance.
Click to expand...

But in an airplane application you flame out at altitude, you can't unload the airplane to slow down with the prop, jet A prices have no appreciable delta than 100LL in most of the Country, and overhaul is not appreciably cheaper than a Lycosaur. Meh. I'll stick to gas for now.
 
warthog1984 said:
Have you been anywhere outside the US? Diesel is way more prevalent overseas.
Click to expand...

As are manual transmissions! ;) Diesel cars are a niche market in the US, a few, very few imports offer a diesel option. Trucks are another story, very popular with the 3/4 ton and up buyers, I seldom sell a gas F250, if we do it's usually a work truck. Diesel airplanes will do well, especially in other countries with avgas that is more expensive and harder to find. Just about any remote village has diesel fuel, and very few have avgas.;) Not saying you should burn diesel fuel in your diesel airplane that is designed to run on Jet-A, but I bet it happens.;) :D
 
hindsight2020 said:
But in an airplane application you flame out at altitude, you can't unload the airplane to slow down with the prop,
Click to expand...

The only reason for a diesel engine to flame out is lack of fuel. The reason gas aircraft engines run out if fuel is the medieval fuel system on most aircraft. TBMs for example have an automated system thst balances fuel draw from the wing tanks, a header tank is a different option. Really not an issue.

jet A prices have no appreciable delta than 100LL in most of th
Click to expand...

Considerable difference with contract fuel.
 
I've heard rumors from some folks that if you have one of those contract fuel cards, you'll be paying around $3.50/gal for Jet A.

Anyone know if that's true? What is required to get into such a program? I assume there are no such programs for 100LL...
 
warthog1984 said:
Have you been anywhere outside the US? Diesel is way more prevalent overseas.
Click to expand...

None of the cars that I have rented in Europe, Canada and South America were diesel. All of them were gasoline.

José
 
Piloto said:
None of the cars that I have rented in Europe, Canada and South America were diesel. All of them were gasoline.

José
Click to expand...
rental fleets tend to gravitate to petrol because all they care about is acquisition cost. The person hiring the hehicle pays the fuel.

If you haven't noticed diesel cars especially in europe, then you haven't been there or weren't sober enough to remember

many south american countries, such as brazil, outlaw small diesel passenger carrying vehicles as a part of managing price controls for diesel
 
Piloto said:
None of the cars that I have rented in Europe, Canada and South America were diesel. All of them were gasoline.

José
Click to expand...

BeNeLux rents out Diesel C2 Citreons, Avis rents out Diesel Minis, I got a Diesel Opel Astra from Sixt.:dunno:
 
Piloto said:
None of the cars that I have rented in Europe, Canada and South America were diesel. All of them were gasoline.

José
Click to expand...
You need to get around more. Europe definitely has plenty of diesel rentals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top