Jump to content


Photo

Who Is Flying In A Citation Mustang?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 jpd9191

jpd9191

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:44 AM

Rumors being what rumors are, and with various platform options, are any program using or considering a citation mustang for their fixed-wing transport? We need short runway options, two engines are a requirement and hopefully jets over our turbo prop.

Please feel free to include any data points.


Thanks
  • 0

#2 Jwade

Jwade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:06 AM

Rumors being what rumors are, and with various platform options, are any program using or considering a citation mustang for their fixed-wing transport? We need short runway options, two engines are a requirement and hopefully jets over our turbo prop.

Please feel free to include any data points.


Thanks



Very doubtful anyone is using a Citation Mustang for Air-Ambulance work. The insurance requirements to fly this aircraft single pilot IFR are crazy.

Also, the performance specs are not the greatest for short field work. The takeoff roll is is over 3000ft, landing is almost 2500ft, and full fuel payload is only 560 pounds......By the time you throw in all the medical equipment, stretcher system, medical crew, gear bags, I seriously doubt this would be a viable air-ambulance platform.

I would not even remotely consider it from an administration point of view. Short runway options are pretty much limited to turbo-props for the most part, with a few exceptions.

Now, from my pilot perspective, would be a great aircraft to fly. I have a lot of time using the G1000 avionics, so, I would be right at home.

Bottom line, much better options for aircraft for FW EMS....

JW
  • 0
John Wade MBA, CCEMT-P, FP-C, RN

"Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become" Steve Jobs

#3 Jwade

Jwade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:23 AM

For comparison,

The Pilatus PC-12 has a usable load with full fuel and a 200lb pilot of 1009 pounds.......Not to mention, landing and takeoff rolls are much shorter.

Also, The King-Air 200 cannot be beat either for this type of work......

The Mustang is just a terrible choice for Air-Ambulance work.

JW
  • 0
John Wade MBA, CCEMT-P, FP-C, RN

"Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become" Steve Jobs

#4 vferebee

vferebee

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 07:52 PM

Very doubtful anyone is using a Citation Mustang for Air-Ambulance work. The insurance requirements to fly this aircraft single pilot IFR are crazy.

Also, the performance specs are not the greatest for short field work. The takeoff roll is is over 3000ft, landing is almost 2500ft, and full fuel payload is only 560 pounds......By the time you throw in all the medical equipment, stretcher system, medical crew, gear bags, I seriously doubt this would be a viable air-ambulance platform.

I would not even remotely consider it from an administration point of view. Short runway options are pretty much limited to turbo-props for the most part, with a few exceptions.

Now, from my pilot perspective, would be a great aircraft to fly. I have a lot of time using the G1000 avionics, so, I would be right at home.

Bottom line, much better options for aircraft for FW EMS....

JW


  • 0

#5 vferebee

vferebee

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 07:52 PM

Spectrum makes a stretcher for the Mustang...
  • 0

#6 Jwade

Jwade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:56 PM

Spectrum makes a stretcher for the Mustang...



You can make a stretcher for whatever aircraft you want, who cares, the aircraft still needs to be able to have the performance and specs to carry out the mission profile. When you look at the performance charts and spec sheets for the Mustang, there is NOTHING that would make me want to use this aircraft for FW air-ambulance work. NONE......There are better, more capable aircraft out there currently. The negatives far outweigh any limited positives.

I just don't see any scenario where this aircraft does full-time air-ambulance work.

JW
  • 0
John Wade MBA, CCEMT-P, FP-C, RN

"Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become" Steve Jobs

#7 jpd9191

jpd9191

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:08 AM

Beyond our copters, we have two Lear 31a jets for our long range flights. Good size and great speed, but need C runways. Many of the local runways, not always served by our copters due to weather etc, are A/B runways.

This void is covered by two commander 690A turboprops. Good for short runways, but make patient care very difficult even in moderate turbliance. Plus, this short runway turboprop is moving into areas with well known worse conditions, which the Lears handle much better. Not to mention we have weight issues with the commander and cannot always take along a rider (family center care).

Long story short, I am trying to gain info on well established, short runway options that can handle 1/2 pilot, two RNs, the Pt and a rider. Single engine platforms are almost impossible to sell to the medical staff.

Thanks
  • 0

#8 Jwade

Jwade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:08 PM

Beyond our copters, we have two Lear 31a jets for our long range flights. Good size and great speed, but need C runways. Many of the local runways, not always served by our copters due to weather etc, are A/B runways.

This void is covered by two commander 690A turboprops. Good for short runways, but make patient care very difficult even in moderate turbliance. Plus, this short runway turboprop is moving into areas with well known worse conditions, which the Lears handle much better. Not to mention we have weight issues with the commander and cannot always take along a rider (family center care).

Long story short, I am trying to gain info on well established, short runway options that can handle 1/2 pilot, two RNs, the Pt and a rider. Single engine platforms are almost impossible to sell to the medical staff.

Thanks



KING AIR 200 is your best option by far based on the above requirements.
  • 0
John Wade MBA, CCEMT-P, FP-C, RN

"Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become" Steve Jobs

#9 Macgyver

Macgyver

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 868 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:49 PM

If you are buying $ unlimited, go with a Beech 250C (cargo door version of upgraded B200) if used a C90B with GT and Raisbeck mods works well. What is your shortest runway and worst density altitude?
  • 0
Ken BHSc, RN, REMT-P

#10 jpd9191

jpd9191

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:25 AM

Looks like the shortest field is 2300 and highest is 2700 or so. Money is always an issue.
  • 0

#11 jpd9191

jpd9191

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 05:14 PM

I did find Benefis Mercy Flight now has a new Mustang for their fixed-wing transport.
  • 0

#12 Jwade

Jwade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:56 PM

I did find Benefis Mercy Flight now has a new Mustang for their fixed-wing transport.



I just read the article. The aircraft looks nice........However, looking at the spec sheets and performance charts, I still would take a King-Air 200 over this little thing any day of the week. They must have stripped every single thing they did not need off this plane to make it usable for air-ambulance........

Personally, I think they are cutting the margins too close, this is the same program that had a Fatal Fixed Wing CRASH back on 2-6-07...........Parked their King-Air 200 right into the ground.

If you read the article, the hospital person is quoted as saying the EC-135 is the perfect aircraft for high mountainous terrain........Well, anyone who knows anything about aviation knows that to not be true......LOL.......SO, it does not surprise me they went this direction.

The NTSB report for their accident is pretty interesting as well.......


Too each their own.....Some people and programs have to learn the hard way.

JW
  • 0
John Wade MBA, CCEMT-P, FP-C, RN

"Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become" Steve Jobs

#13 jpd9191

jpd9191

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:16 AM

One of the reasons for switching from the commander to another platform is weight. I am not the best at specs, limited knowledge base, but we need something able to carry two RNs, the Pt, perhaps another medical person such as a neo RT and a rider. So in short, perhaps 5 people not including the pilot. We can, sometimes, do this in the Lear.

I assume, from your last post, the mustang just cannot handle what we need. Is this safe to say?

Looks like the king-air 200 or the Pilatus PC-12 for our short runway needs.

Thanks for your help.
  • 0

#14 Jwade

Jwade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:32 AM

One of the reasons for switching from the commander to another platform is weight. I am not the best at specs, limited knowledge base, but we need something able to carry two RNs, the Pt, perhaps another medical person such as a neo RT and a rider. So in short, perhaps 5 people not including the pilot. We can, sometimes, do this in the Lear.

I assume, from your last post, the mustang just cannot handle what we need. Is this safe to say?

Looks like the king-air 200 or the Pilatus PC-12 for our short runway needs.

Thanks for your help.



There is NO way a Mustang, based on the factory specs will carry all those people....NONE..........

I flew in a commander for the first few months during my time on the Navajo Reservation before we got our King-Air 200's, so, i know what a giant PIA they are to work in, and I completely agree with you that you need something different. There is BARELY enough room in the commander for 2 med crew let alone anyone else........

The King-Air 200 and the Pilatus PC-12 cannot be beat.....I love the Pilatus for the large cargo door, very easy loading. The King-Air can fit all the people you want to bring on the flight and then some.......And it has your two engine requirement.......Short Field those two aircraft beat the mustang everyday of the week.......

There is ZERO chance you will get 5 people not including the pilot in the mustang.......Not with all the med equipment......Personally, i think Benefis made a piss poor choice of aircraft......Yes, it looks nice, but, for mission profile, i guarantee the King-Air and Pilatus will out perform it on a yearly basis.........

JW
  • 0
John Wade MBA, CCEMT-P, FP-C, RN

"Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become" Steve Jobs

#15 Medic09

Medic09

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 414 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:40 PM

If you can get a cargo-door version of the King Air, I'd look into it. I've worked in an Aero Commander 690, and later a King Air 200. The one thing I did not like about the King Air is loading it. High, steep, and pretty narrow entry into the cabin; where the Commander 690 has a very low entry. I actually like the Commander for short, rural pickups. The faults have already been mentioned; and it was noisier too. I didn't need my headset (formerly John's) in the King Air. As already noted, the Pilatus is a dream at loading. I had a nice tour of the one flown out of Farmington a few years ago. They had easy loading with the ramp, ample room for two patients and ramp storage.
  • 0

Mordechai Y. Scher
NRP, FP-C, RN

It's all about kind, competent patient care; and getting home safely to tell about it.


#16 boxedmedic

boxedmedic

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:12 PM

I just read the article. The aircraft looks nice........However, looking at the spec sheets and performance charts, I still would take a King-Air 200 over this little thing any day of the week. They must have stripped every single thing they did not need off this plane to make it usable for air-ambulance........

Personally, I think they are cutting the margins too close, this is the same program that had a Fatal Fixed Wing CRASH back on 2-6-07...........Parked their King-Air 200 right into the ground.

If you read the article, the hospital person is quoted as saying the EC-135 is the perfect aircraft for high mountainous terrain........Well, anyone who knows anything about aviation knows that to not be true......LOL.......SO, it does not surprise me they went this direction.

The NTSB report for their accident is pretty interesting as well.......


Too each their own.....Some people and programs have to learn the hard way.

JW


I work in the area with the Mercy crews. These are accurate statements. I have loaded pts on to their plane while working ground and there is not a lot of room to work. The loading of pts is dificult also.
  • 0

#17 timdhawk

timdhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:18 AM

I have sat in Mercys plane (called the MLP for My Little Pony). In my own opinion, it is a very poor platform for EMS transport. Hopefully without stepping out of my lane by speaking for them and not being to specifc, they have had many isses with tryiing to make it into an EMS platform. They have had crew/pt/equipment weight issues and equipment storage and workspace usability have posed big problems as well. It is a sexy little number as far as aircraft go, but at the end of the day you can put expensive lipstick and lingerie on a pig, but that don't make it a playboy centerfold! = )
Its just simply not an airframe suited for EMS no matter how much re-working and retrofitting is done.
  • 0

#18 Macgyver

Macgyver

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 868 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:46 AM

Assuming twin engine over single, jet over turboprop, pressurised over unpressurised, STOL to 1500' MTOW capability (since an above ISA day can give you density altitudes that need 2300+ feet) and able to carry 5-6 people and medical equipment:

Your field length is an issue - especially as not knowing elevation or temperature range. Even with a King-Air C90GTx at 2550' and (used) $2-3M. But if pressurisation is a critical item this is probably your best bet. On good days will be able to do most of what you need if SPIFR and low crew/gear/pt/fuel weight.

Have yet to find a twinjet that can use 2700' at MTOW even on a below ISA day at sea level... Not even the Mustang or Citation 560 or Phenom 100 (3000'+ and $3M+). The PC-24 when certified ay be in the 2700' range, but will be SPENDY. The basic problem is physics - short takeoff needs a different wing design than high speed (jet) so no matter the number of occupants, or the altitude, those two design criteria are always going to be in conflict. If you can afford to pay for the engineering a compromise is always possible (see NASA and tiltrotors below) but not currently available and certifiable for civil use in the US.

DHC-6-400 (Twin Otter) dual turboprop, unpressurised, 1200' at sea level on a standard temp (ISA) day http://www.vikingair...ent.aspx?id=276 is honestly your best bet for what you state your needs at. Even with 2 pilots, 3-4 heavy crew, 2 patients and 2 escorts. Even an older DHC-6-200/300 will do just fine. I've done many scene as well as IFT MedEvac's in them and love their all-around versatility, ruggedness and maintainability. So I might be a bit biased.

If you can use a single, PC-12.

If money is no object (HAH!) get an AW-609 as soon as certified (about $15-20M and a few more years) unpressurised twin turboprop tiltrotor.

Although if you can get NASA to surplus this to you... http://www.youtube.c...d&v=_4QiW-ROJtg

You can fly a brick with enough thrust and Jet A
  • 0
Ken BHSc, RN, REMT-P