I've only heard of it on the Commander, but I've never worked with it, wouldn't be surprised if the B-29 and B-36 used it. Personally I liked the concept because I like keeping all the TC pressure for the engine.
Cheapest certified turbine single - and no one is buying.
- Thread starter stratobee
- Start date
I've only heard of it on the Commander, but I've never worked with it, wouldn't be surprised if the B-29 and B-36 used it. Personally I liked the concept because I like keeping all the TC pressure for the engine.
Totally agree on the turbocharged aircraft. These engines like on the 602P are in a bootstrap condition anytime above around 12,000 feet. The 602 used two smaller turbos unlike the Navajo that used one larger one. When bootstrapped any change in attitude causes a change in MP causing the cabin to bump. It is a little annoying to passengers.
LoneAspen
Line Up and Wait
In the end the Aerostar is great bang for the buck. If the guys at EPS ever do certify that diesel they're developing, that would be a great STC mod to do. Almost turbine speeds, extreme range (1800nm) and burn Jet A1. Of course, a MU-2 would be a nice ship to upgrade to, but I simply couldn't afford to write those turbine checks. And it's not likely my income will improve much over my remaining flying years..
A diesel Aerostar? That would be interesting...
After doing more reading (especially like posts in this thread), I've come to the conclusion that a turboprop is just not in my future, even with the most optimistic number juggling.
So far, the #1 plane on my list that ticks the most boxes is a DA42 NG or -VI. I haven't even really populated the #2 spot...yet. But I think a diesel Aerostar would probably fill it pretty quickly, if there was such a thing.
Capt.Crash'n'Burn
Cleared for Takeoff
I've been thinkng about a plane for the same mission and the TBM seems like the best bird for the job.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Although I love piston engines, pressurized pistons I think have a lot of compromises. Using turbo bleed air for pressurization has tended to result in some sizing issues on the turbos, but I suspect it was typically chosen because it's much lighter weight than adding a separate pump specifically for cabin pressurization purposes.
The irony is that pressurization makes it harder for a piston engine to work well at higher altitudes, which is where you'd be wanting to fly if you have pressurization. Go figure.
The irony is that pressurization makes it harder for a piston engine to work well at higher altitudes, which is where you'd be wanting to fly if you have pressurization. Go figure.
I've seen similar comments regarding the Malibu (I.e. Asking too much of the engine) but not as much with the P210. Is there a difference?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I've made the comment on both the Malibu and P210, and both seem to have reliability issues.
But the P210 cabin is smaller than the 'Bu cabin, and thus has fewer opportunities to leak air outside. I'd suspect the P210 has lower demands on the pressurization side. Also, P210 has a factory rating of 285 HP compared to the 310-350 of the Malibu.
5.5psi for the Malibu vs IIRC 3.2psi for the P210.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
That would definitely be another one.
5ish psi is a wonderful number. It's what I'd want if I did pressurization.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Each of these direct competitors are designed for a mission and have strengths and weaknesses. The Malibu and TBM don't have a great payload with full fuel. My C90 has over 900 pounds. No facilities in the former v. relief tubes and small potty in the KA. I have to tell you, on trips with kids especially, that makes a real difference. I don't need to mention redundancy for the KA.
OTOH, the KA is like an SUV and the others more like sedans. They are faster. It's a matter if one wants creature comforts or faster with better fuel burn. The KA can true at 265 to 270 if one upgrades to the -135 engines. As I've stated before, that little extra speed wasn't worth the increased cost to me, but some others may like that. I really hated being in my P baron and finding someone needed a potty break, even on a short trip. Took a long time to climb to the flight levels, then; down we had to go! Of course, the KA has two engines so almost twice the fuel burn. In many places commercial folks still can't use a single over water and some other places.
It sure is comforting over water, low IMC night and mountains to have that second engine to me.
Best,
Dave
OTOH, the KA is like an SUV and the others more like sedans. They are faster. It's a matter if one wants creature comforts or faster with better fuel burn. The KA can true at 265 to 270 if one upgrades to the -135 engines. As I've stated before, that little extra speed wasn't worth the increased cost to me, but some others may like that. I really hated being in my P baron and finding someone needed a potty break, even on a short trip. Took a long time to climb to the flight levels, then; down we had to go! Of course, the KA has two engines so almost twice the fuel burn. In many places commercial folks still can't use a single over water and some other places.
It sure is comforting over water, low IMC night and mountains to have that second engine to me.
Best,
Dave
stratobee
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,112
- Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
The hydraulic pressurisation system in the Commanders was not a great system. It was also run at 3000psi, with a horrible fluid called Skydrol. Anyone who's ever used that will know it will strip paint off of anything. The company that made the system were called New York AirBrake and they've been out of business for decades, so they're completely unsupported. On many of those Commanders, one has to rely on the FAR that allows the owner to provide self made/repaired parts to keep them working.
What I don't understand is this: why not make pressurisation systems electric like they've done on Dreamliner? Sure, you might need to beef up alternators and maybe battery slightly, but those are readily available. That eliminates all of the problems with turbos not giving enough at altitude, low rpms etc. Hmm, maybe I have an STC and a retrofit business here....
What I don't understand is this: why not make pressurisation systems electric like they've done on Dreamliner? Sure, you might need to beef up alternators and maybe battery slightly, but those are readily available. That eliminates all of the problems with turbos not giving enough at altitude, low rpms etc. Hmm, maybe I have an STC and a retrofit business here....
Last edited:
N747JB
Final Approach
The words Cheap and Turbine really shouldn't be in the same sentence together.
Cheap to buy is way different from cheap to own!
The market decides what airplanes are worth, it takes into account operating costs per mile, both fuel and maintenance. Older KA's are less to buy than newer ones because they are slower and require more mx. Same with all the other airplanes, MU-2's are supposed to be great airplanes, fast, efficient etc, the market views a KA90 which is 40-50 knots slower as being worth more money. All airplanes are compromises, we'd all like to fly a little faster, carry a little more, burn a little less fuel etc.
Cheap to buy is way different from cheap to own! The market decides what airplanes are worth, it takes into account operating costs per mile, both fuel and maintenance. Older KA's are less to buy than newer ones because they are slower and require more mx. Same with all the other airplanes, MU-2's are supposed to be great airplanes, fast, efficient etc, the market views a KA90 which is 40-50 knots slower as being worth more money. All airplanes are compromises, we'd all like to fly a little faster, carry a little more, burn a little less fuel etc.
Ruthless53
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 82
- Display Name
Display name:
Ruthless53
For the money I don't believe there is a better plane than a Merlin III. From initial costs, operating costs, performance and payload they just don't get much better for under a million. With the 331-10 engines your cruising close to 300knots, 2k+ nautical mile range, max diff pressuer of 7.0, bigger cabin and baggage, 5400 hr TBO, cheaper overhaul on a garret and a huge useful load.
Now obviuosly its gotta have some downside as there are a whole lot more KA's flying than Merlin's. Biggest downside is that they are a tough airplane to fly once your on the ground. Ive hand flown the plane alot in the air (not nearly good enough to attempt to land any plane that size) and it flies like an airplane but i guess to to hydrolic steering it becomes pretty tricky when the wheels touchdown (again this is my understanding). My dad compares it to a tailwheel plane vs a tricycle when talking about a merlin vs a KA or Jet. (he's typed in quite a few jets and turbines). You do need quite a bit more runway than you would for a KA. Loaded 5k feet is preferred but 4k is doable if its not a super hot day.. Ive read where it talks about Merlin's costing alot to maintain but we have not experienced that. Good places to work on Merlins are hard to find but one of the best in the states is in Georgetown, Tx.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
There are shops that work well with owners that don't think dealers and new for everything is better. Just like some folk rather go to the dealer to get their car repaired, many others rather go to a good local shop that doesn't pay for dealer parts. We have a shop that realizes we can trade a bit of down time for them to shop for parts and do work themselves. Others need the plane to be available more and are willing to pay for that. If one finds a good shop that does things they way they want it, hang on to it!
Recent example: six year gear inspection was almost $70,000 from a place that just replaced everything. It is an INSPECTION but takes time to take the gear system apart and replace as needed. Cost us less that half of that by having our shop inspect and replace. Some folks are willing to pay more to have the plane available as soon as possible.
Best,
Dave
Recent example: six year gear inspection was almost $70,000 from a place that just replaced everything. It is an INSPECTION but takes time to take the gear system apart and replace as needed. Cost us less that half of that by having our shop inspect and replace. Some folks are willing to pay more to have the plane available as soon as possible.
Best,
Dave
ChitDisturber
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 374
- Display Name
Display name:
ChitDisturber
Much more mx intensive and not the same wider envlope as the Mu2, isn't the Merlin III also two crew??
Dave -- It doesn't sound like you're on an engine maintenance program. Is that because the plane wasn't on one before you bought it and it would have been too cost prohibitive to catch it up?
N747JB
Final Approach
Not speaking for Dave, but most of the engine maintenance programs are geared towards newer jets and maybe an occasional turbo-prop. If it's in place, it's probably a good idea to keep it up, but to start with mid-time or in Dave's case engines that are past TBO would be cost prohibitive! I think they would want the price of the engine upfront since it was already "due" for an overhaul.
I have owned 3 turbines, 441, 551 and now a 425, all have been used and I have never been on a maintenance program, just pay as I go. So far it's worked out OK, I did overhaul the Citation engines, but we planned for that when we bought it.
Ruthless53
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 82
- Display Name
Display name:
Ruthless53
We don't have alot of maintenance that is out of the ordinary or expensive by any means. Not saying others aren't but ours has been hassle free.
A Merlin III is under 12,500 so you don't need a type and it can be flown single pilot operations but it does help alot to have a second set of hands. I fly right seat nearly every flight and as well as my mother who is not a licensed pilot. Just mainly to run the radios, avionics, double check power settings, and help with the checklists. Dad does fly it alone on occasion when it does go to Georgetown for inspections ect. while I fly over in my plane to bring him back.
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
What John said plus what MORE does is make one do more inspections more frequently and you're really paying to avoid large unexpected charges. I don't want to call it insurance, but some self insure and others go to a third party. My feeling is if we really know what we're doing and can afford to fix something if it breaks, why pay a third party? We side fund to have money available for a large expense. Don't see a reason to have a third party dictate what they think makes sense if we already know what we're doing. But, to some folks it's worth it.
And, yes, putting over TBO engines on MORE wouldn't make much sense. Commercial folks can't fly over TBO; so, completely different considerations.
Mid time -21 seem to be around for reasonable prices. That's the direction we'd head if there was a major engine issue.
As the carnival barker says: youse pay your money and you takes your chances
Best,
Dave
And, yes, putting over TBO engines on MORE wouldn't make much sense. Commercial folks can't fly over TBO; so, completely different considerations.
Mid time -21 seem to be around for reasonable prices. That's the direction we'd head if there was a major engine issue.
As the carnival barker says: youse pay your money and you takes your chances
Best,
Dave
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I'm not even aware if PT-6s have a maintenance program as an option. Most of the maintenance programs I'm aware of are on jets, but they may exist for turboprops, as well.
On turboprops, it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense these days, especially for the older ones. There are enough used engines out there that even if yours grenades (unlikely), you are probably better off just buying another used one vs. doing a full overhaul. This will ultimately save you money vs. being on a program.
Some of the older jets are finding this as well. With the prices of some of the aircraft, you could just buy the plane for the engines and give the hull away and still do alright.
On turboprops, it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense these days, especially for the older ones. There are enough used engines out there that even if yours grenades (unlikely), you are probably better off just buying another used one vs. doing a full overhaul. This will ultimately save you money vs. being on a program.
Some of the older jets are finding this as well. With the prices of some of the aircraft, you could just buy the plane for the engines and give the hull away and still do alright.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I think that's the way to do it, and what I'd do if I went turboprop. Basically I'd just fly the engine until there was a problem significant enough, and then just put a good used one on.
Excellent news on keeping the gear inspection cheap. Like you, I save a lot of money keeping the aircraft flying by sourcing parts myself or looking at what's broken or needs inspection, then handling it specifically. A good example was when my de-ice relay went out. $3,000+ from Parker. The relay itself was a $2.98 part from DigiKey and that was went bad. Simple fix. Similarly, prop heat controller burned a wire out inside. New one is about $2,000.
N747JB
Final Approach
A friend of mine bought a Citation V (I think) and then they bought another one and swapped the engines, sold the second one at a slight loss, but they have much fresher engines for not a lot of money.
I have the stock -114 engines on the Conquest, less than 500 since hot section, but my plan if one pukes is buy a used take off from Blackhawk or somebody that does conversion work.
I've seen some TBMs for sale being advertised as being on a maintenance program (same one as our G200 in fact).
Thanks for the responses. Interesting stuff.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
A friend of mine bought a Citation V (I think) and then they bought another one and swapped the engines, sold the second one at a slight loss, but they have much fresher engines for not a lot of money.
I have the stock -114 engines on the Conquest, less than 500 since hot section, but my plan if one pukes is buy a used take off from Blackhawk or somebody that does conversion work.
Not the least bit surprising at all.
The other option is just parting out the plane. When I was looking at engine options on the 310, I did consider just buying another airplane, swapping engines, and parting out the rest of the airframe, keeping the few parts I wanted. The problem ended up being that most of the aircraft that made good candidates had engines that had been sitting quite a bit, and I was worried about potential corrosion issues for the piston engines. It would have made more sense if I had engines that were junk. I think turbine engines are better candidates for this simply because there are fewer variables in their operation than pistons.
Good to know that they do exist. If you start from 0, then it probably makes more sense.
The maintenance programs are usually good deals for both sides on newer, higher dollar aircraft. They provide predictable maintenance costs and reduce financial risk for the owner while also giving the OEM incentives to try to reduce costs and increase reliability for the fleet. After all, if they do that then they can make more money on the program.
On the older aircraft, though, it just doesn't make sense.
BobThePilot
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 161
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob
I'm sorry, but that is incredibly ugly. If I had the cash to spend on a high performance turbine single, it wouldn't be on this! Zero ramp appeal whatsoever.
j1b3h0
Line Up and Wait
Yeah, I like the Merlins, too. Of course 4000hrs in the Metro III might have a little to do with it. Merlins go fast, have great pressurization, (sea level cabin@16,800ft) and will carry pretty much any one you care to take with you...not with full fuel, but hey, why drag around 5000lbs of extra gas? The nose wheel steering is not that difficult: rudder pedals steer 10 degrees, unless a spring-loaded button, on the capt's side panel is held down, then 60 degrees for tight parking spaces. BUT, when the condition levers are advanced for takeoff, steering cuts out - unless a different button on the left throttle is held in until the rudder is effective, then the button is released. The reverse is true on landing...during the rollout, as the rudder starts to lose effectiveness, the pilot has to pickle the throttle button a couple of times, then hold it in until the condition levers are brought all the way back. The reason it can get a little squirrelly is because if the rudder pedals aren't centered when the throttle button is pushed, the nosewheel will instantly steer the way the pedals are displaced, thereby jerking the airplane left or right accordingly. Twin turboprops like the Merlin are easily steered after landing with asymmetric reverse thrust (throttles) until below 60kts. or so.
I am pretty sure the MORE program is to allow commercial operators to go past TBO. It is not a maintenance program. Would not have much appeal to part 91 operators since they can ignore TBO. Seems like there is some power by the hour for larger turboprops like the 60A and larger, not sure.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Correct. MORE is basically an STC that allows to go past TBO. Maintenance programs charge a fixed cost per hour and handle your maintenance needs. Hot sections, overhauls, etc.
One of the benefits with maintenance programs is that a number of them have loaner engines. So when your engines need to get overhauled, they loan you a pair. Useful for minimizing downtime.
Abram
Pre-takeoff checklist
That is correct. The Meridian has a limited useful load with full fuel and it does not have great range. However, I can get my family loaded up and go 750 miles in less than three hours, which is pretty good, and most of the time I want to stop and stretch my legs after that long, anyway.
My primary point is that they are all good airplanes, each with pluses and minuses and very different acquisition and operating costs. So it is a very personal choice as to what works best for each operator but it is really fun to figure out which choice to make!
Abram
N301D
Shepherd
Final Approach
Nice discussion, but I guess I am either missing the point, or none of it is pertinent to me.
For the same price you can by a P-51D.
Screw the mission. At my age I just want to have fun, and if I'm paying that much money I want to have a lot of loud, fast, wish fulfillment fun.
For the same price you can by a P-51D.
Screw the mission. At my age I just want to have fun, and if I'm paying that much money I want to have a lot of loud, fast, wish fulfillment fun.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Same here. I'm single pilot typed on the SA-227, flew the 16,000gw airplanes.
The aviation business is, if nothing else, consistently conservative. The Spanish inquisition seems like progressive renaissance men compared to the collective pilot community. If it doesn't look exactly like planes have done for 50 years, or comes from some foreign manufacturer, then nobody buys them in the US.
Case in point: Extra 500 from famous aerobatic manufacturer Walter Extra. Cheapest brand new single turbine at $1.6 million. Fully FAA certified, de-iced, roomy, luxurious, 1600nm range and the lowest fuel burn of any of the turbines (19gph economy cruise). With perhaps the most proven turbine this side of the PT6 in the form of the RR250.
I happen to think that the Extra 500 is supercool looking, but I can see how this design might not be to everyone's taste. I love that high wing sleekness - it looks like a bush plane and a business jet all rolled into one. Rugged. But there seems to be a clear preference for low wings when people buy aircraft and especially turbines. Still - not a single one on the US registry? How is this possible when TBM's, PC12, Jetprops, Meridians all cost more? I don't get it.
Not a single US one on the registry. That's Walter Extra himself by the controls, BTW.
I think they look real cool, but I can see why they might not be to everyone's taste.
Rumor was they were going to build them here in the US for the US market (in Montrose), but I don't know if that ever happened.
I hope to see a US registered one someday at some airfield.
I know looks are regarded as subjective, but I would suggest that the market has been unkind to these planes on account of the utterly goofy appearance.
It's quite awkward from every angle.
txflyer
En-Route
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,509
- Location
- Wild Blue Yonder
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
Here ya go ... and it's $1.2 million less...
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
Here ya go ... and it's $1.2 million less...
I'd stay away from that if I was you. If you want something like that, buy a PC-6 or a Helio Stallion.
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
Why no care for Comp Air?
Update: Did some searching and I see the problem with the airplane lol
Last edited:
