Cheapest certified turbine single - and no one is buying.

stratobee

stratobee

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
1,112
Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
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.

extra1

Not a single US one on the registry. That's Walter Extra himself by the controls, BTW.

Extra%20EA-500_e2_e.jpg

I think they look real cool, but I can see why they might not be to everyone's taste.

extra500.png

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.


500-2-329x400.jpg

I hope to see a US registered one someday at some airfield.
 
Poor marketing? Is a silver eagle P210 conversion almost as good for less money? I like the Extra 500's looks as well.
 
I think the Silver Eagle conversion is probably a little cheaper, so maybe that's part of it.
 
There's got to be more to that story.

I'm a PC-12 person myself :)D) but I'm thinking there are at least 2 or 3 personal turbine people who would get one of these just to be different, think Piaggio Avanti.

Something must be off though it's hard to imagine what given the pedigree.
 
Perhaps just the fear of anything that's not PT6, unless heavily discounted. Kestrel is going to face a similar hurdle.
 
Being a Rolls Royce engine does not help even though they have a good reputation with this engine. It was developed by Allison and sold to RR. As mentioned it is a very slow aircraft. Service ceiling of 25000 means it will be a high teens aircraft. The landing gear is like a MU2. I am sure it is rugged but if you have ever landed a MU2 especially in a cross wind you know what I mean. If I am going to feed and maintained a turbine I am going to fly faster than 225 Knots and I am going to be able to cruise at least into the middle 20's to upper 20's. JMO.
 
Sure, but the Silver Eagle is even slower, has shorter range and has a ceiling of 23000ft - yet it has sold in quite a few numbers. Maybe the price delta is enough to make that one acceptable and the E500 not.
 
Don't know the price difference so your guess is at least as good as mine.
 
I'll buy one. Lacking about $1.5M of the $1.6M . . . thats the explanation.

Those who have $1.6M, have $3.0 and can access other first and second generation jets. . .
 
stratobee said:
Sure, but the Silver Eagle is even slower, has shorter range and has a ceiling of 23000ft - yet it has sold in quite a few numbers. Maybe the price delta is enough to make that one acceptable and the E500 not.
Click to expand...

How many Silver Eagles have been done recently? They've been around for a long time, before the advent of the Meridian and TBM.
 
Some people even take a Baron and go for a single conversion. Harpoon I came across at KRYY...

393459.jpg


Here is a crazy one, P-Navajo single turbine conversion.

1094380.jpg
 
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.
 
Stratobee- the dollar tanked right after the introduction. That's what happened....
 
I'd buy a Kodiak. No, wait: a PC-6. Even better: an old Helio Stallion, if there are any around.

5368.gif


Dan
 
stratobee said:
I think the Silver Eagle conversion is probably a little cheaper, so maybe that's part of it.
Click to expand...

Bah, that lil thing is too small, doesn't have the tankage to properly support the turbine, doesnt have the range/endurance to support it's price tag, a normal 210 is a great plane, just because you can shoehorn a turbine on it doesn't mean you should.

zaitcev said:
Perhaps just the fear of anything that's not PT6, unless heavily discounted. Kestrel is going to face a similar hurdle.
Click to expand...

You have not tasted the goodness that is TPE 331 I see. Longer TBO, way faster spool up time, simpler design, SRL and TTL, of course I have way more time behind a Garrett, most of my Pratt time is of the radial variety.
 
stratobee said:
Case in point: Extra 500 from famous aerobatic manufacturer Walter Extra. Cheapest brand new single turbine at $1.6 million. Fully FAA certified...
Click to expand...
Is it FAA certified? The Extra web page, under certification, says only "EASA Approved." Found a news report from Sun-n-Fun this year that says that FAA approval has been delayed for years, but that Extra and the FAA had agreed on what additional testing would be required. Has the FAA finally granted them approval?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Maybe it isn't. I remember reading that on various US dealers websites, but perhaps it never officially got it? They were gearing up for manufacture in Montrose, CO, so I assumed this was in place. But if it has EASA certification, the FAA one should be more or less a formality.
 
wanttaja said:
Is it FAA certified? The Extra web page, under certification, says only "EASA Approved." Found a news report from Sun-n-Fun this year that says that FAA approval has been delayed for years, but that Extra and the FAA had agreed on what additional testing would be required. Has the FAA finally granted them approval?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
That sounds like the deal. How can you sell a few without a demonstrator/reference. How can you sell without certification?
 
The question has been answered, this is now an interesting single engine turbine thread.
Thread-jack be damned...post cool single engine turbines, converted, original, FAA certified or not! All hotlinked for your pleasure...sorry OP.

651898.jpg


Cessna_207-A_PH-ZZF.jpg


n15sa.jpg


image.php


SIPA_Antilope_F-BJSS_LBG_19.06.65_edited-2.jpg


1970722.jpg


7yuz.jpg


folioLarge01a.jpg


WTF section:

Dsc00003.jpg


Turbine_Super_Cub.jpg


266.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ugh.

Taking all of those beautiful twins and turning them into singles. :(

I would love to have RR250s. They're quite efficient little things, and very light. The Silver Eagle 340 conversion is great.
 
Because it isn't certificated, no Extra 500 to be found in the TCDS database
 
And if you look at that aspect, a Lancair Evolution will do 300 KTAS with the single PT-6 for less money. I'll go for that first.
 
Huh. I coulda sworn I'd seen one, but I think it was December of 2002, so it must have been a 400.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ugh.

Taking all of those beautiful twins and turning them into singles. :(

I would love to have RR250s. They're quite efficient little things, and very light. The Silver Eagle 340 conversion is great.
Click to expand...

RR-250s efficient? Compared to what?
 
Slightly off-topic, but if I was to choose a turbine airplane, it would be one optimized for 15-18000ft cruise, but capable of 25K if needed -- so I could go VFR direct most of the time, and IFR only when I had to. FIKI, plus radar. The good thing about turbine engines is that they produce enough mojo to make an otherwise-way-too-heavy single a real good performer. T-210 is a pretty good airplane, but the P-210 is a sled...just too heavy. As also mentioned, I like Garretts, particularly the Dash 10s such as the ones on Merlins, C-441s, Turbo Commanders and MU-2s. I thought the converted P Navajo was kinda cool. 300kts @ 18000ft would be a good benchmark.
 
Oh, I've got it: How about a single (tail wheel) version of the P Navajo with a Cheyenne 4 eng/prop combination...how cool would that be?
 
j1b3h0 said:
Slightly off-topic, but if I was to choose a turbine airplane, it would be one optimized for 15-18000ft cruise, but capable of 25K if needed -- so I could go VFR direct most of the time, and IFR only when I had to. FIKI, plus radar. The good thing about turbine engines is that they produce enough mojo to make an otherwise-way-too-heavy single a real good performer. T-210 is a pretty good airplane, but the P-210 is a sled...just too heavy. As also mentioned, I like Garretts, particularly the Dash 10s such as the ones on Merlins, C-441s, Turbo Commanders and MU-2s. I thought the converted P Navajo was kinda cool. 300kts @ 18000ft would be a good benchmark.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you would want to be stuck at the worst weather altitudes.:dunno:
 
The running joke amongst jet guys is that ALL turboprops can only get you high enough to really get your a55 kicked. There's not too mucking fuch difference between 18000 and 25000 in significant weather, in fact when flying turboprops, one will often ice up when trying to climb to the twenties, and get stuck in the teens. Higher sometimes makes it easier to see convective stuff, though. Remember the Interceptor 400?
 
j1b3h0 said:
The running joke amongst jet guys is that ALL turboprops can only get you high enough to really get your a55 kicked. There's not too mucking fuch difference between 18000 and 25000 in significant weather, in fact when flying turboprops, one will often ice up when trying to climb to the twenties, and get stuck in the teens. Higher sometimes makes it easier to see convective stuff, though. Remember the Interceptor 400?
Click to expand...

Exactly, however there is no particular need to limit turboprops to 25,000', the Avanti does 41,000 IIRC.
 
I haven't seen a 6 seat single engine turboprop that can really compete with the TBM.

With a plane of that size, it seems you just need 600+HP for it to do anything useful.
 
Henning said:
RR-250s efficient? Compared to what?
Click to expand...

PT-6s, TPE-331s. At least when I get told fuel burn numbers, the 250s are lower.

Henning said:
Exactly, however there is no particular need to limit turboprops to 25,000', the Avanti does 41,000 IIRC.
Click to expand...

That's true, but as with anything else there's a compromise to get up that high. The Avanti's PT-6s I'm told burn a lot more at low altitudes than normal PT-6s. You also need RVSM once in RVSM airspace, which is a huge expense. I would tend to not want to mess with RVSM for that reason. The Cheyenne really gets pretty slow by 25k.

Personally what I like about piston twins is the fact that they can run very well in the mid/high teens while being able to reach 25k when necessary. Pistons give you the advantage of being able to lay low when it's advantageous without insane fuel burn. However I'd like to see them have things like autofeather to help on the safety side. Reverse thrust would be nice, too. If I were building an experimental twin, I'd be looking to include those features.

My one issue with turbo piston engines in the forms we see them in these days is that they have some pretty unreliable parts, like the turbo controllers. The exhaust isn't great, either. How my Mitsubishi can do these items just fine while a Continental or Lycoming can't is rather surprising to me. It's not that hard to do.
 
A certified service ceiling is only a performance entry. Just because an aircraft is certified to 25000ft, does not make it illegal to go higher. How they achieve this number is in one of three ways:

1. Either they just arbitrarily define it based on legalities (insurance needs, airspace restrictions) etc.

2. When the rate of climb drops below 100ft/min (50ft/min in EASA certified aircraft which is why the TB20's and many others have higher ceilings in Europe).

3. When the max pressurisation differential can no longer hold a legal cabin.

A very good example is the 5.5psi pressurisation upgrade on the Aerostar. The service ceiling goes from 25000ft to 28000ft. Nothing has changed with the engines - they still produce the same amount of power. So if you're willing to sip oxygen with the old 4.4psi cabin and can suffer the long time it will take to get up to 28000ft, you're legals to do so. Just make sure you have a high altitude endorsement..:D

As for turbines - the PT6 is the most fuel thirsty of all of them. Garrett's are considerably less thirsty than PT6's as they're not free turbines. Don't know where the Allison fits in between the two, but at least not more than the PT6's.
 
Last edited:
I realize that you're referring to turbines in the relative GA class ranges near where we fly, but there are turbines that suck 1000 pph at ground idle or more.

On the Aerostar, how do they do the pressurization increase? Someone just got the paperwork that allows you to turn it up or do they actually change anything?
 
When I looked at turbine conversions, they all gained power, but lacked something a certified plane had. Most of single conversions had shorter range than I needed. Which meant one got up fast, and went faster but for a shorter distance. My KA C90 has six hours of fuel in the low 20s. That can cover a lot of ground. Some didn't have sufficient rudder. The Baron conversion had a lot of compromises and once again, short legs.
I thought it better to look at an older KA that was at or near TBO. Part 91 can keep flying them if they make power and one does required hot sections. Flying 200 hours a year, my next hot section is about 15 years away. I exceed book power, the last hot was two years ago and it passed with flying colors (g). Commercial folks can't fly past TBO without being on an approved maintenance program lime MORE which requires frequent inspections. So, IMO, there is a niche for part 91 folks if you can find a turbine at TBO that is in good shape. From a value standpoint, the engine value is reduced to trade in core value, so, you're mostly paying for AF, interior and avionics. Of course, with any older plane you pay less to purchase and more to maintain.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
On the Aerostar, how do they do the pressurization increase? Someone just got the paperwork that allows you to turn it up or do they actually change anything?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top