Cheapest certified turbine single - and no one is buying.

[RotorAndWing]

RR-250s efficient? Compared to what?

Have you ever operated the allison? Ever actually seen one?

 

[Henning]

Have you ever operated the allison? Ever actually seen one?

Nope, not operated, but have seen seen several. I know for 425hp they burn about 30% more fuel than a 985. Turbines by nature aren't very efficient. My turbine operating experience is with PT-6s and TPE-331s. I have worked on an A-36 with the Allison and even with tip tanks the owner was grousing about the poor range.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Nope, not operated, but have seen seen several. I know for 425hp they burn about 30% more fuel than a 985.

You can't compare turbines versus piston engines.

I had R-985's on my BE18. IIRC they burned about 22 to 24 gph in cruise. The C-20's burn about 24gph at the same altitudes, maybe slightly more if really loaded.

Turbines by nature aren't very efficient.

Define "efficient". You're making a very generalized statement.

My turbine operating experience is with PT-6s and TPE-331s.

Really? From a lot of your postings you don't seem to have much operating knowledge on them.

C-20's (420 shp) will average 24 gph down low. The Allison's are the work horse of the helicopter world. The C-18's (300shp) will come in around 18 to 20 gph. This is sub 10k altitudes.

I have worked on an A-36 with the Allison and even with tip tanks the owner was grousing about the poor range.

Perhaps he should (a) learn to operate his airplane correctly, or (b) investigated the real world operating numbers before buying.

"Grousing" about poor range is his mistake, not the airplanes.

 

[Abram]

Abram. Paging Abram.

That was funny!

As Ken anticipated, I would argue that, although the TBM is an outstanding airplane, all of the single engine turboprops out there are really good and have their stengths.

The Meridian is a fantastic, fast and efficient airplane and the PT6 in that application generates 500 shaft HP.

Also, for the most part, you fly these airplanes to be high and fast. At FL270, you are above most of the weather most of the time, but not always. However it is far better than being in the teens. Also, most of the icing that I run into is in the teens, not in the flight levels. The turbine allows you to climb through the icing relatively quickly.

The Meridian burns less fuel at FL270, but you can keep it under FL200 and not get penalized too badly, so if you want to stay low for any reason, you can.

Ken, let me know if I missed anything!

Abram
N301D

 

[Ted]

Dave - as I've understood it even in part 91 that's not an option to run over TBO with turbines. The difference is that the time limits are part of the type certificate which they're not with most pistons. You have no choice but to either comply or buy an STC that will put them on a condition with inspections basis.

Chapter 5 life limits for turbines and TBOs are two different kettles of fish. You are thinking of the former, which may not line up with the latter.

Life limited parts on turbines are listed with their limits (which are typically cycles). The concern is low cycle fatigue (hence cycles for the limit) which will lead to a crack initiation and propagation, and ultimately failure. Obviously this is done conservatively so there is a reasonable assurance that following the required cycle limits will not result in failure.

TBO is determined for a multitude of reasons and is separate altogether.

 

[Ted]

Nope, not operated, but have seen seen several. I know for 425hp they burn about 30% more fuel than a 985. Turbines by nature aren't very efficient. My turbine operating experience is with PT-6s and TPE-331s. I have worked on an A-36 with the Allison and even with tip tanks the owner was grousing about the poor range.

What makes you think I was comparing an RR250 (or any turbine) to a piston for efficiency?

However, your statement that turbines by nature aren't very efficient is not true. There are a lot of variables involved, especially which turbine you're talking about. They especially get better as they get bigger.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Yeah, they beef up the pressure hull in certain areas - around the emergency exit, windows, doors. It's only available on the 700/Superstars, so it seems like the 350hp engines and the bigger turbos are a pre-requisite. They probably have enough bleed air to spare. So on my 601P with the 290hp this wouldn't be an option, as far as I can understand.

Dave - as I've understood it even in part 91 that's not an option to run over TBO with turbines. The difference is that the time limits are part of the type certificate which they're not with most pistons. You have no choice but to either comply or buy an STC that will put them on a condition with inspections basis.

Pretty thorough discussion of that on another board with cites. Part 91 isn't obligated to comply with manufactuer's recommendations. ADs, yes. I'd suggest anyone serious do their own research. We're comfortable as is our maintenance facility.

Best,

Dave

 

[Inverted]

I would imagine it is US certified, but there is an Extra 500 based in Burbank. It is a cool airplane.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

As Ted said, there are cycle limits. When an overhaul is done, one must look at whether it's worth replacing things with those limits. That could cause overhaul, if one runs into those limits, but TBO is a manufacturer's recommendation. There are some that disagree, but they really reach and get into things like cycle limits.

Best,

Dave

 

[Inverted]

By no means am I in the market, but my guess is the landing gear config, speed and support network are the main issues. If I were in the market, I'd buy a Pilatus.

You are talking about airplanes that are no where near the same ballpark price. 2M versus 18M...

 

[N747JB]

Pretty thorough discussion of that on another board with cites. Part 91 isn't obligated to comply with manufactuer's recommendations. ADs, yes. I'd suggest anyone serious do their own research. We're comfortable as is our maintenance facility.

Best,

Dave

I concur.

 

[Dave Theisen]

You are talking about airplanes that are no where near the same ballpark price. 2M versus 18M...

Huh? Brand new PC12 is around 4.6M. Where did you come up with 18?

 

[Ted]

As Ted said, there are cycle limits. When an overhaul is done, one must look at whether it's worth replacing things with those limits. That could cause overhaul, if one runs into those limits, but TBO is a manufacturer's recommendation. There are some that disagree, but they really reach and get into things like cycle limits.

I think people who live in the piston world typically don't have a good understanding of the differences within turbines. Yes, parts in them do wear out with age and use and you can extend their lives through careful and proper operation, just like pistons.

However unlike piston engines, the real failure mode that you have to worry about is low cycle fatigue from the ridiculous stresses (mostly in things like disks) that you'll get during startup, takeoff, and reverse thrust (which, to the engine, is similar to another takeoff). Primarily this is caused by the heat coming outwards and working inwards, so the disk isn't getting heated evenly.

High cycle fatigue can be a killer in piston engines (reference the Lycoming crankshaft issue), but keep in mind that at say 1,200 cycles per minute in a typical piston engine during cruise, it's going to take you a long time to reach high cycle fatigue. Meanwhile, in a turbine engine with parts spinning anywhere between, say, 8,000 and 45,000 RPM, you'll get there in no time.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Some throw out different planes with no look to the cost of that plane: of course, some don't know what they cost. A lot more folks can afford to purchase a 500,000 older plane than can purchase a 3.5 million newer plane, just like pistons. One can fix a LOT and still have a lower total investment with that older plane. The big problem I found with older was outdated avionics. We found a nicely equipped one and that made the difference.

Best,

Dave

 

[SoloEqs]

In order to sell a plane, it has to meet the mission profile of someone with the money to spend, and do so better or more cost-effectively than alternatives.

THEN it has to be put in front of that person before they buy something else.

 

[Alexb2000]

To the OP's original point: Perhaps there are other factors besides initial price that are more important. For example a PC-12, KA, or TBM has very little depreciation. You can have one for not much more than operating and opportunity cost. Who knows about an Extra 500.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Meanwhile, in a turbine engine with parts spinning anywhere between, say, 8,000 and 45,000 RPM, you'll get there in no time.

Various models of the C250 run up to 54,000 RPM.

Dan

 

[Inverted]

Huh? Brand new PC12 is around 4.6M. Where did you come up with 18?

Holy proofread Batman. I typed it on my phone and was trying to type 6M.

 

[ronnieh]

Dave is correct on the part 91 requirements. As Ted said cycles is different. For example the -61's I was familiar with had a 10,000 cycle limit on both the PT and CT blades. If you actually keep up with cycles as we did that would be 12,000 to 15,000 hours depending on mission profile.
The problem with running turbines past TBO is the pay me now or pay me later problem. Nothing is free on turbines. Every time you do a hot section the blades normally get ground a little to true them. This causes a loss in efficiency. At some point you will want to get the efficiency back up or the blades get too short. I know Dave says he gets "book" numbers. Dave and I have had the discussion on my opinion on the value of book numbers. That is another thread.
I do concur that it is feasible to run turbines past TBO, we did on the -61's. It worked out OK. But, when something goes wrong... For example one set of PT blades for the -61 three years ago listed for $84,000, each engine has three sets. One set was too short. If you are getting into the world of kerosene you need to be able to write checks with lots of zeroes and get over it. That is true for all of them Garrett, Pratt or Allison. Though I have come to the conclusion that the Pratts may be a little worse.
This is the reason I have always felt when going to turbines, get all the speed you can. It costs very little more per hour to run a KA 200 than a KA90. Acquisition is certainly more but not cost per mile which is a main consideration. The care and feeding of a turbine, any turbine is breath takingly (sp?) expensive. My $.02 worth

 

[Henning]

That's why you never see a turbine Ag plane shut down during a working day, you get 1.5:1 on your cycles if you don't shut down. When you're doing something like seeding rice, you may be doing close to 80 take offs a day.

 

[ronnieh]

Exactly

 

[dans2992]

I didn't know used King Airs could be so inexpensive.

This one looks cheap, but I'm sure there must be some major maintenance upcoming. Anyone know what that might be?

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-E90/1973-BEECHCRAFT-KING-AIR-E90/1292420.htm

I have heard that 90-series King Airs typically cost $900 / hr in fuel and maint. Does that sound about right?

 

[Ted]

Some throw out different planes with no look to the cost of that plane: of course, some don't know what they cost. A lot more folks can afford to purchase a 500,000 older plane than can purchase a 3.5 million newer plane, just like pistons. One can fix a LOT and still have a lower total investment with that older plane. The big problem I found with older was outdated avionics. We found a nicely equipped one and that made the difference.

Best,

Dave

Dave, you said it perfectly. There's a lot of capital investment difference between new and used. On the Twin Cessna group president often points out that we fly $1-2M planes that we bought for a fraction of that price, and that's absolutely true.

 

[N747JB]

That's probably about right for a run out E-90. It's probably not a bad airplane with fresh hot sections and fresh prop overhauls. There are 5 and 6 year items on King Airs that are a little pricey, landing gear is one of them, not familiar with the others.
If I were buying, I'd consider the MORE program as a runout even though it can still be operated, the engines don't owe you anything.

I didn't know used King Airs could be so inexpensive.

This one looks cheap, but I'm sure there must be some major maintenance upcoming. Anyone know what that might be?

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-E90/1973-BEECHCRAFT-KING-AIR-E90/1292420.htm

I have heard that 90-series King Airs typically cost $900 / hr in fuel and maint. Does that sound about right?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

What we're finding in the market today, is used -21s that are mid time for reasonable prices. Don't think we'd ever overhaul the engines on this plane: that would cost more than the worth of the plane. We have a standing offer out to our folks to pick up a mid time -21 in decent shape if they see or hear of one. The last hot section on this plane was one of the cheapest my mechanics had seen done. Seemed to be in very good shape, so, we'll cross our fingers and keep on flying. Financially, we can replace an engine if need be. Certainly don't want to, but I sure wouldn't recommend it to someone that can't or is willing to walk away and sell/part out the plane. Coming up on two years and 270 plus hours for me on this one now. Thanks Ronnie; always good advise.

Best,

Dave

 

[Fearless Tower]

Those who have $1.6M, have $3.0 and can access other first and second generation jets. . .

I think you nailed it right there. The people that can afford this plane probably have greater needs in speed and capacity and can afford to pay more for those needs.

Those that can just afford it will likely go for a used King Air.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I didn't know used King Airs could be so inexpensive.

That's the point. One can pick up a nice older KA for a pretty reasonable price right now, but you really better know what you're doing. Phase inspections, cycle times etc. I had the benefit of being able to lease mine for 20 hours before purchasing and knew the former owner. My mechanic was caring for this one and I do trust him. Lots of gotchas if you're not astute. Of course, even if you do everything right, something can still break. We figure on $40,000 to $60,000 a year in maintenance and side fund for that. Fly it about 200 hours a year. So far, we only came close when both six year gear and phase III and IV were due. We knew we wanted some things fixed when we bought the plane and did all that at once. This year, no major inspections due; just phase inspections. We're also side funding for a Garmin 600.

The way we ran our numbers, if we get no residual value in eight or ten years, it works for us. Not counting on some large residual. If the plane went down tomorrow, I could walk away or afford to fix.

It can be a great deal for the right person.

E model has some nice stuff like more fuel for longer range and a more powerful engine than my C90, but they haven't made them in quite awhile and one would have to upgrade avionics on that one to suite me. Es sell for a light premium over the C, but I couldn't find one with decent avionics and didn't want to pay more for an older plane; then, put in avionics. Ours also had a nice interior and great hot section. Ronnie will point out, I'm sure, be careful who did the hot section. I know several folks that purchased one with a fresh hot section a broker had done that had problems shortly afterward. We use a guy to represent us when it's done that was a long time PW guy.

We had all gauges calibrated so when we say we get book power, we know the gauges are accurate. We also are making book on the C90-A model settings which are higher than the straight 90.

BTW, Wayne found this one for the previous owner and did a very good job.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I could have afforded to purchase a more expensive plane, but it just wasn't worth the extra speed to me v. the extra cost. I don't have to be somewhere 20 minutes faster at a multiple of the cost. For trips under two hours, a Citation I or II didn't save that much time. Yes, one goes higher and faster, but I can wait if I need to. For longer trips, it stated to make sense, but I wouldn't fly it enough to be worth it to me. If I fly the C90 200 hours a year and did the same trips, I'd be flying under 150 in the jet factoring in the time saved on longer trips. Not enough to stay proficient. Insurers require recurrent every six month; it's not that I couldn't do that, but why?

The KA has wonderful manners; it's an SUV where I can haul a lot and I cruse at 230 knots in the high teens and low 20s. This very much meets my needs. Great trip to the Bahama with four adults, three kids and a bunch of STUFF! Very dependable, great K-ice compared to my P Baron and just a joy to fly.

I've looked at jets and the cost differential for the amount of time saved just doesn't make sense for me. Really like where I am. May fly a 200 also so I can haul more but I'd need to do a lot more traveling for business for the jet to make sense.

Best,

Dave

 

[stratobee]

Just heard from someone close to the factory in Europe that:

Extra 500 Nr. 1 owned by Walther.
Extra 500 Nr. 2 based at EDAZ
Extra 500 Nr. 3 Belgium flies for a company
Nr. 4 and Nr. 5 are in the builiding progress

 

[Ted]

Dave, some friends of mine were in a very similar position to you about 3 or 4 years ago. After having an Aztec for something around 20 years and his having flown Navajos, Cheyennes, Citations, etc. for various people for fun and profit, it was time for an upgrade. They looked at the Citation and ended up deciding on a Cheyenne II. It makes about 3-3.5 hours each way for their milk run from PA to Florida. Paid something around $400k as I recall, and I think he could have gotten an older Citation for a similar purchase price, but a significant increase in trip costs, especially on the short trips. For someone who loves to fly and now has a happy wife sitting in the spacious rear cabin, I think he made the right call, and he does, too.

I rarely wish I had a faster plane than the 310. At 187 KTAS down low on the fuel burn, it is a good compromise on speed and efficiency. I definitely wouldn't want a slower plane, but I wouldn't mind a bigger plane. Your point about "stuff" is a good one. On Friday I start a 7,000 mile trip over 5 days in the 310. That is one of the rare times I wish I had a faster plane. But I also wish there was enough room to be able to fit my cargo and have enough room to bring the family along and put a swing set in back for kiddo. Anyone got a Gulfstream I could borrow?

 

[ronnieh]

Yep jets are another whole magnitude of costs. In this arena not only do you have to be able to write checks with lots of zeroes but you have to be able to not even be interested in what it cost.
Dave is in a unique situation as an owner pilot. That is not real common in the world of kerosene. Many people who get to that station in life are only interested in their time. Dave enjoys the flight and the slower the plane (to a point) the more enjoyment time he has. Generally speaking I still think it is better to buy as much speed as you can afford on initial investment. Once over that hump the cost per mile does not vary that much.
Also in the case of the -21's there are many engines laying around with time left on them. As you move up in size the choice diminishes somewhat. I suspect there is quite a huge difference between a used mid time 21 and an overhaul by an approved shop. The owner I had would not consider anything but overhauls by a P&W approved shop. He felt it was a safety issue. Young wife and kids, parents and other relatives. I am not sure that position could be supported in its entirety but he can afford it.

The only point I am making and I think even Dave would back this up is that the word cheap and turbine does not go together. The acquisition price is only the cost of admission. If $1000/hour DOC plus fixed costs causes heartburn you might want to stay with 100LL. The Cheyenne that I flew used 110 gallons the first hour then 80-90 per hour after that depending on altitude. However you could fill all nine seats and carry 4+ hours of fuel. It is all relative. Flying high and pressurized is all about the zeroes. The more zeroes you put on the check the higher and faster you fly. Again just one persons opinion.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

When I purchased the P baron, that was my goal as a pilot. Thought that would be my final plane and I was very happy to have it. I had a wonderful partner in it. We financed it but it was very affordable for us.
Worked hard and got out of the real estate market before the down turn for the most part. Kept one subdivision and it worked out very well. Deeply sorry for those that got caught up in it and may have worked just as hard.
Anyway, the KA became affordable for me and I couldn't be happier with it. I sometimes go back and forth about a jet, but it would take a Citation II to carry what I can in the C90; pretty big step up and I don't need the extra speed: so, I think I've found my best bird and couldn't be happier with it.
There aren't too many GA guys flying these around themselves. Very well mannered bird that makes me look like a better pilot than I am.
I had some turbine time in the Army many moons ago; so, it was an easy transition for me. Great mechanic that really helped.
I hope each of you get a chance to fly one. There is no other country like this in the world. After almost eight years in the Army; some time as a stock broker; I started my own business and got here. Don't know where else one can do that in the World.
I genuinely hope the same opportunities are there for folks behind me.

Best regards,

Dave

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

That was funny!

As Ken anticipated, I would argue that, although the TBM is an outstanding airplane, all of the single engine turboprops out there are really good and have their stengths.

The Meridian is a fantastic, fast and efficient airplane and the PT6 in that application generates 500 shaft HP.

Also, for the most part, you fly these airplanes to be high and fast. At FL270, you are above most of the weather most of the time, but not always. However it is far better than being in the teens. Also, most of the icing that I run into is in the teens, not in the flight levels. The turbine allows you to climb through the icing relatively quickly.

The Meridian burns less fuel at FL270, but you can keep it under FL200 and not get penalized too badly, so if you want to stay low for any reason, you can.

Ken, let me know if I missed anything!

Abram
N301D

Yes, but isn't the problem with the Meridian that it has a limited payload and range??

I started a thread a few weeks ago asking about it and the consensus seemed to be that it couldn't take 4 people very far, less that 900 miles IIRC.

 

[ChitDisturber]

Heres a good operating cost sheet, it's for DZ ops, but still good numbers for KAs and 208s etc

http://www.utilityaircraft.com/costcomparisons.html

 

[stratobee]

The reason I chose the Aerostar is because it's a good plane for me to grow with and upgrade as I go along. I mostly do longer trips, so I wanted something capable. I do miss the short field/grass field capabilities of my old Commander, but you can't get a plane that does it all. This one ticks 9 out of 10 boxes. However, being steeped in the Commander world, I did look long and hard at Commander 685's. Their prices have come down a lot over the years. They're basically the same airframe as the turbines, but with piston engines. A 685 can be had for about the same price as an Aerostar, give or take.

Aero Commander 685. The same airframe as the turbine - but without the turbines.

PROS OF 685:

1. Fully de-iced.
2. Extreme long range with the 320gal tanks.
3. Bleed air pressurisation (not hydraulic like the previous 680FP and FLP's).
4. A bad shortfield performer contrary to the smaller Commanders, but can be landed on grass in a pinch, at least. Not so much with an Aerostar unless it's ballroom smooth.
5. Very quiet.

CONS OF 685:

1. Gas guzzler with those highly strung engines.
2. Geared engines. I don't fear them, but the fact is they're getting harder and harder to support and are expensive to overhaul and have crappy TBO.
3. The Aerostar is also fully supported, 685 is not.
4. I also fly predominantly alone or with few passengers - do I really need to lug around 9000lbs of airplane for one person? Seems a bit irresponsible...
5. Has to abide by all the recurring AD's of the turbine - pressure vessel integrity tests, gear system overhaul every 5 years etc, etc.

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..

 

[ronnieh]

Trying to learn something here. Bleed air with piston engines vs. Hydraulic for cabin pressure. Can you explain that for the uninformed?

 

[ChitDisturber]

The reason I chose the Aerostar is because it's a good plane for me to grow with and upgrade as I go along. I mostly do longer trips, so I wanted something capable. I do miss the short field/grass field capabilities of my old Commander, but you can't get a plane that does it all. This one ticks 9 out of 10 boxes. However, being steeped in the Commander world, I did look long and hard at Commander 685's. Their prices have come down a lot over the years. They're basically the same airframe as the turbines, but with piston engines. A 685 can be had for about the same price as an Aerostar, give or take.

Aero Commander 685. The same airframe as the turbine - but without the turbines.



PROS OF 685:

1. Fully de-iced.
2. Extreme long range with the 320gal tanks.
3. Bleed air pressurisation (not hydraulic like the previous 680FP and FLP's).
4. A bad shortfield performer contrary to the smaller Commanders, but can be landed on grass in a pinch, at least. Not so much with an Aerostar unless it's ballroom smooth.
5. Very quiet.

CONS OF 685:

1. Gas guzzler with those highly strung engines.
2. Geared engines. I don't fear them, but the fact is they're getting harder and harder to support and are expensive to overhaul and have crappy TBO.
3. The Aerostar is also fully supported, 685 is not.
4. I also fly predominantly alone or with few passengers - do I really need to lug around 9000lbs of airplane for one person? Seems a bit irresponsible...
5. Has to abide by all the recurring AD's of the turbine - pressure vessel integrity tests, gear system overhaul every 5 years etc, etc.

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..

If I were going that route I'd go turbine.

If I was going turbine I'd want a 331

If I was going to swing a 331 I'd go MU2, great high speed high wing loading, with the big azz flaps she can get into short fields too, priced like a used C90 too!

 

[ronnieh]

They are cheap, might be for a reason. SFAR for the pilot. I think at 7500 hours you have to disassemble the entire thing $$$. Prop AD's kind of aggravating. They are quite fast if you stay in the teens. It works for some people.

 

[Henning]

Trying to learn something here. Bleed air with piston engines vs. Hydraulic for cabin pressure. Can you explain that for the uninformed?

Bleed air uses compressor side air off the turbocharger driven by the exhaust to pressurize the cabin, hydraulic uses a hydraulic pump of the engine to run a hydraulic motor to turn the compressor to pressurize the airframe.

 

[ronnieh]

How about that, never heard of the hydraulic system before. Never heard air from the turbocharger referred to as bleed air. But, I guess it could be called that. I have a good bit of time in the 602P (built by Piper) and some P Navajo time. Not a fan of using turbocharger air for cabin. Any change in power setting bumps the cabin pretty bad. My experience is the turbos just barely pump enough air for the engine. YMMV.
Learned something new on the hydraulic system. Must not have been too successful. Who all used that system? Thanks Henning for the response.