Helicopters And Small Planes?

I used to be a private pilot, but it's been a few years so I don't have all facts at hand.

One of the larger Cessna single engine models (such as the 206) would work for your scenario except for the speed.

For a plane that can carry five passengers and has that kind of speed you're probably need to look at a multi-engine aircraft, such as one of the Cessna 400 series (or possibly one in the 300 series).

I assume you're talking about flying in the US. You need a private pilot's license with a multi-engine rating if you're flying a multi-engine plane (and generally those with a ME rating also have an instrument rating). It's not called a permit.

Of course, if money is no object, there are also jets that can be legally flown with one pilot.

Also, is there small plane out there which would be able to land in a small-ish space (like in an inner-city) (for an emergency pick up, at one point in my story), or am I thinking too much along the lines of a helicopter? (not sure if a helicopter would fit for what I need)

Click to expand...

You'd need a helicopter for that. Helicopters can land in cul-de-sacs too small for a full-sized school bus to turn around in - they don't need very much space. Planes need runways and inner-city roads would be too built up with signs and stoplights and overhead junk for you to land safely.

If you're going the small plane route (and I agree with alleycat - check out the Cessnas or small jets), you need to make sure that the airport that your plane is taking off from and landing from allow general aviation aircraft to use their facilities. A lot of big airports don't allow it, and smaller airports would be better anyway (less time spent waiting for take-off/landing) since your characters are in a time crunch.

Aviation uses knots instead of mph and nautical miles instead of miles. Figure roughly 1 knot = 1.15 mph.

For the distance, speed, and passenger load, you need a small business jet. A Cessna Citation Mustang will fill the bill.

http://www.cessna.com/citation/mustang.html

It would not, however, be able to land on a city street or rooftop. It needs a runway of just over 3000 feet. Helicopters don't go as fast as you need. Most urban areas have nearby airports with sufficient runways for a bizjet.

P.S. A Gulfstream G150 is a good choice, too.

http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g150/

When you've finished writing your story, please have it beta-read by a pilot. It's easy to get technical details wrong and it's egg on your face. I threw Tom Wolfe's "A man in Full" across the room when he put the engines of a Gulfstream on the wrong part of the airframe.

If an aeroplane is designated STOL (short takeoff or landing) it can probably handle the take-off/landing you need. Any of them should be able to land/take off from a decent sized park, or school grounds.

The Zenith CH 801 is close to what you need. It's a four seater, but I suppose you could fit five in a pinch.

A de Havilland might work better, they're a bit larger. There's a fairly wide range of them that could fit the bill, since the company specialises in bush planes.

Go to this list and search the page for 'STOL' (ignoring returns like Bristol)

The trouble with STOL is, the more passengers, the more runway it needs, so check the specs with a full passenger load, enough fuel to make the round trip, and whatever else you have on board.

The other problem with going in and out of urban parks, etc., is wires. Most cities are a maze of power lines, phone lines, guy wires, and other kinds of cables. And they usually don't have sufficient vertical clearance at either end. That would be most unbelievable to a pilot.

Now, if they had a Saturn V...

ETA: No responsible fixed-wing pilot would plan a trip that involves a park/schoolyard landing and takeoff. It would be extremely unsafe and would invite a visit from the FAA. Don't do it.

I'm guessing it's an Earth shattering-type emergency Al.

If they're saving the world, the FAA might overlook it.

STOL is defined as being able to take-off/land over a 50 ft obsticle from/to a complete stop over 1,500 feet.

Most decent-sized parks have 1,500 feet of clear space, and most trees/power lines are under 50 feet, so any STOL aircraft should be able to handle the trip.

I don't buy it. Parks and schoolyards have people, playground equipment, benches, buildings, trees, lakes, beachers, and all kinds of obstacles to a safe rollout. And, of course, they don't restrict the wires to crossing only at the ends. Sorry, but that's just a completely unbelievable scenario. A real book-thrower.

And, btw, it's not "short takeoff or landing." It's "short takeoff and landing." Not for your edification, but for the OP's in case he really wants to use your suggestion.

And the 1500-foot criterion assumes something less than gross weight. Five passengers, a pilot, and sufficent fuel just won't make it.

Scenario two: Bizjet or commercial flight, origin to nearby destination airport. Medivac helicopter from airport to hospital heliport or the roof heliport of a nearby office building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_Mustang

• Takeoff distance: 3,110 ft (948 m)
• Landing distance: 2,380 ft (729 m)

Unless you have a clear space a kilometre (bit over half a mile) long, no chance. That is an airport-only plane.

-alex- said:

Thanks again, Al.

So, going with the Cessna Citation Mustang (or something similar), how do I work out how long the flight would take from A to B?

Click to expand...

390 mph / distance in miles = hours in flight.

-alex- said:

Also, looking at scenario two, I’m thinking a Cessna Citation Mustang wouldn’t be able to “go-urban”? Right?

Click to expand...

Right.

-alex- said:

Meaning, if they were in a large space, say... park, docks, lorry port, or a roof of a large building, it would need more space to take off again. Am I correct?

Click to expand...

You are correct. Airport only.

I've never heard of a "medevac airplane" in an urban area. Probably due to the reasons listed about runway erquirements, etc.

It should be easy to find out for the city in question what resources they have for medevac. I Googled "Kansas City Medevac" and came up with their local resources just as a test. I know my local resource would be a County Sheriff Bell UH-1 "Huey".

As for airplanes, since it didn't seem like runway length was an issue... I was shopping (in case I won the Mega Millions $650M jackpot, which I didn't), and I like the Gulfstream G650. For when "Price Is No Object." I'd be willing to go for a timeshare on one, if anyone is interested.

If your people are exotic-minded and environmentally friendly, the Piaggio Aero Avanti is a thing of beauty...

Sure wish I'd won the lotto.

The Beechcraft King Air 200GT and the newer 250 can make the 600 mile bop in around two hours.

There's not a helicopter in the world that can cover that much territory in the amount of time you want...unless you consider the V-22 a helicopter, and even then, there's a 50% chance it would bury its nose in the dirt somewhere along the way.

RE: using a STOL -- remember, in order to clear a 50 foot obstacle (which is likely in an urban situation), the requirements under load will almost always ensure a STOL like a Maule won't work!

Al Stevens said:

Scenario two: Bizjet or commercial flight, origin to nearby destination airport. Medivac helicopter from airport to hospital heliport or the roof heliport of a nearby office building.

Click to expand...

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but just to throw in my opinion, I agree with Al for this part of the scenario.

Landing a helicopter at a random, unimproved location in a city is very dicey. You have no idea just how hard it is to see power lines from the air. We military types who fly low-level a lot have a healthy terror of power lines. Look for the poles/towers, not the wires. Even local medivac will have people on the ground at the landing site that will give them details on the conditions and the most likely place to land with a description of obstacles, especially power lines. Although you can land a helicopter in a very small space, you still want a healthy margin for safety. Again, you wouldn't believe how small a spot looks from the air when you are lining up to land. Small trees, poles, wires, etc, all can ruin your day in a split second. TV and movies always do it wrong and leave people with the wrong impression on what you can really do safely.

Anyway, airplane and transfer to a waiting helicopter at the airport for the flight to the medical facility with an established helipad is the way it's done in the real world and probably how you should do it in your story.

Al Stevens said:

I don't buy it. Parks and schoolyards have people, playground equipment, benches, buildings, trees, lakes, beachers, and all kinds of obstacles to a safe rollout. And, of course, they don't restrict the wires to crossing only at the ends. Sorry, but that's just a completely unbelievable scenario. A real book-thrower.

And, btw, it's not "short takeoff or landing." It's "short takeoff and landing." Not for your edification, but for the OP's in case he really wants to use your suggestion.

And the 1500-foot criterion assumes something less than gross weight. Five passengers, a pilot, and sufficent fuel just won't make it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it will. I regularly fly a non-STOL 206 out of a 1350 foot strip at or near max TOW, over obstacles, and that's six pax. We also have a Robertson 172 that is regularly flown out of the same strip at and often above (not by me) MTOW.

Lots of airplanes will do one or the other, but I can't think of many things that'll do 250 kts and do it. A turbine converted Cessna 210 with a STOL kit could come close, though.

There was an operation proposed during the Carter administration to rescue the hostages in Teheran by landing three C-130s inside of a football stadium in the middle of the city. They were to use JATO (jet assisted takeoff) for the takeoff and the landing ( using them as retro-rocket devices) it was scrubbed because the Iranians spread out the hostages, making a Guerilla raid to collect all of them at once impossible.

Here you go: This would do the job.

BTW, the takeoff and landing distances are ground roll only. It'd need almost twice those figures to clear decent sized trees and the like.

http://www.onaircraft.com/The-Planes/The-Silver-Eagle.aspx

Prophetsnake said:

Here you go: This would do the job.

BTW, the takeoff and landing distances are ground roll only. It'd need almost twice those figures to clear decent sized trees and the like.

http://www.onaircraft.com/The-Planes/The-Silver-Eagle.aspx

Click to expand...

And, being a manufacturers spec, they assume minimum gross weight and ideal density altitude.

I still don't buy it. If you would land that bird in a city park, I'll wait on the ground.

Al Stevens said:

And, being a manufacturers spec, they assume minimum gross weight and ideal density altitude.

I still don't buy it. If you would land that bird in a city park, I'll wait on the ground.

Click to expand...

No, that's at MTOW
A stock 210N will do it at Max TOW in 2100' over a 50 foot obstacle at sea level, zero wind, and that is with 310 HP. That conversion ups it to 450 HP and, of course, it's a turbine, so there is no loss of HP up to reasonable altitudes, and since it's de-rated, there is no loss for temp either. It also has reverse.
That is the MTOW performance figure.
In any case, the 206 has more or less the same wing and considerably less HP at roughly the same TOW I fly one out of here ( or did til I wold it and got a 182 which I also fly out of that strip at MTOW as well as an old 172 and a fairly wheezy 150)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athboy_Aerodrome

Here's a vid a visitor took flying in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqHiPDS7HQI

He's light, but he's from a much larger airfiled which is why he thinks this is a big deal.

These are normal operations and many of the guys are low time PPs, not astronauts. Mind you, they are well trained in short field operations.

Whatever you say. I've flown in and out of some tight places. Often flying junk. Think Gibson and Downey in Air America (Not a realistic depiction, though). I wouldn't do what's being suggested here.

Al Stevens said:

Whatever you say. I've flown in and out of some tight places. Often flying junk. Think Gibson and Downey in Air America (Not a realistic depiction, though). I wouldn't do what's being suggested here.

Click to expand...

I don't think either Downey or Gibson actually did that, in fact. I have.

Anyhow.
Alex, for your story, these are the things that you would have to consider:

The guy flying this particular airplane would have to be reasonably experienced. Not professional, neccesarily, but someone who has had a few flying lessons wouldn't be able to start it, for one thing. It's a turbine engine and it takes a little instruction to learn to operate them. Someone who has operated similar sorts of airplanes and has some experience would be able to do it, but a plucky 16 year old who plays microsoft flight sim would not.
This airplane needs reasonable altitude to get the kind of speed and range you are talking about. So if you are thinking about the airplane doing the 700 miles at treetop height for whatever reason, it's not going to do it. It also won't make the return journey on one fillup of fuel. The fuel load out of the short strip would have to be restricted, depending on the payload (passengers plus cargo) and that would restrict its range as well. the good news is, a turbine will run on just about anything. It is recommended they be run on Jet fuel, but that's basically just Kerosene. Pratt and Whitney publish info on running the PT6 on gasoline/petrol, but that brings about a restriction on the engines life, but if it's life or death, it would work. It could run just as well on diesel or home heating oil. Neither is recommended, but the engine would run fine on either one for a very long time. So you could organize a refuel simply by syphoning some out of some diesel cars or such. If it arrived empty, and you needed to make a three hour flight (at about 240 MPH) back to where you came from, the fuel required would be about 60 or 70 US gallons.
Anything else you want to know you can PM me.

Prophetsnake said:

No, that's at MTOW
A stock 210N will do it at Max TOW in 2100' over a 50 foot obstacle at sea level, zero wind, and that is with 310 HP. That conversion ups it to 450 HP and, of course, it's a turbine, so there is no loss of HP up to reasonable altitudes, and since it's de-rated, there is no loss for temp either. It also has reverse.
That is the MTOW performance figure.
In any case, the 206 has more or less the same wing and considerably less HP at roughly the same TOW I fly one out of here ( or did til I wold it and got a 182 which I also fly out of that strip at MTOW as well as an old 172 and a fairly wheezy 150)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athboy_Aerodrome

Here's a vid a visitor took flying in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqHiPDS7HQI

He's light, but he's from a much larger airfiled which is why he thinks this is a big deal.

These are normal operations and many of the guys are low time PPs, not astronauts. Mind you, they are well trained in short field operations.

Click to expand...

The point isn't if it is possible. There's a number of specialized airplanes that will do the job on short strips and places much more difficult than that grass strip in the video. Note, however, the question isn't if it's physically possible. It is. The question is if it's reasonable, which it isn't. The odds of pulling a landing off in an urban environment, with no pre-planning, with unknown obstacles, is pretty remote. And it isn't a question of pilot skill and willpower. It's a question of luck.

That's all fine for the story. The writer can setup any conditions they want and make it work for the story. Most people will probably accept it.



As long as we're sharing, here's a popular destination out this way. It's a tough one. The runway is longer because of the elevation and the big, hard things we call hills, at the end of the runway. Note the dogleg on entry to miss the tall, pointy things, we call trees. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNmAc3dl1vY
Random video I found.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/6OR9