Cessna Caravan - All Model Presentation - A Video on the History, Reliability and Capability of the Cessna Caravan. For all your Pre-Owned Cessna Caravan needs, Contact Airflite www.airflite.com.au
This is my favorite plane on Microsoft flight simulator 2020 and I use to fly it a lot in MFSX as well. I don't know why I like it so much seems like a good rugged bush plane with good range and weight capacity, and fun to fly in harsh environments.
Over $2,000,000.00 U.S. :) and that's excluding insurance, options, and an engine upgrade if you by used. The 675hp engine from Cessna was underpowered from the get go.
If you read thru all 270+ hull loses with the Caravan, you'll find 61 are directly attributed to power lose or engine failures, do the same thing with the King Air 200 and you'll find 8 hull loses due to engine failures and two of those were double engine failures because the pilots just ran the aircraft out of fuel. Im not against any single engine machines, but when you use them for mini airliners, safety will never go up.
The Caravan is a nice plane. Very under powered and it's maximum weight is way too low. It really needs 1000 HP and a 10,000 maximum weight. Hot and heavy, the runway performance is reasonable but it can't climb very well and cruising airspeed is too slow. With these drawbacks it is still a very good airplane. TKS deicing, oxygen system and radar is a must but I can live without the cargo pod. One note about the video, if you put 10 passengers in it with luggage you will only be able to carry about 1000 pounds of fuel or about 3 hours (no reserve). For executive travel the PC 12 and TBM are much better.
Haha mate its a great old bus. Around Australia there isn't much better. I like the cargo pod makes life a lot easier when you're single pilot ops doing 10 minute turnarounds. Even on a hot day when density is plummeting before a storm they go better than a half loaded 206.
Turbine engines are more reliable than piston engines, but they are designed, built and maintained by men it is impossible for them to be 100 percent reliable. That being said I have flown all over the southern US in a single engine aircraft, but to suggest a single engine turbine is just as reliable as a well designed twin in a commercial operation is a very ignorant statement, I have personally seen over a dozen in flight turbine engine failures on multi engine aircraft and all made safe landings.
Over a dozen failures, that seems excessive. I have over 4000 hours (not a lot compared to some pilots) flying behind PT6 engines of various types and never even so much as a hiccup. Turboprops seem to get abused by poorly trained pilots ie exceeding manufacturers limitations. Over the last ten years I have had only one flight delay of 2 hours due to an igniter box and still able to pick up passengers on time. Other than that one flight, 100% dispatch reliability.
Read thru all 341 accidents for the Cessna Caravan, you'll find 61 confirmed accidents due to power loss or engine failures. If you consider the other numerous aircraft that utilize the P&W PT-6 turboprop engine, a dozen inflight engine failures is not unreasonable.
Caravan beats PIlatus PC-12 hands down on interior roominess and payload -- you can carry 8 normal persons and all their bags on a 3 hour flight in the Caravan with fuel reserves easily. Caravan true airspeed is about 170 kts. and it is not pressurized. Pilatus is much faster, pressurized, a lot prettier and at least $1 million more expensive. If your missions are mostly fun, flying to the islands or the mountains or
I've flown many, many times on both, short hops through the mid Atlantic states. We carried a mix of passengers and cargo, I preferred the Caravan for our mission.
