Magic Smoke in the cockpit over LM, Pulse Ox readings, Baron 58s

WDD said:
I thought the rule was "8 hours, magic smoke to throttle".
Click to expand...
Actually the rule is no smoking 8 hours prior to flight and no alcohol within 50' of the aircraft.
 
EdFred said:
The magic smoke was from a USB hub charger plugged into a cigarette lighter adapter when I went to charge my phone. Plugged in the phone, smoke came out. Pulled the phone USB plug, smoke kept coming out, yanked the charger power and the smoke stopped. Got on the ground for fuel, retested, USB hub be dead.
Click to expand...
It's hard to get the smoke back in after you let it out
 
Jim K said:
So would that mean a single turboprop would be about 1.5 the opex of a piston twin? Maybe 2x of a non-pressurized twin?

I don't really even understand how to calculate the hourly reserves for a turboprop. I guess there's inspections every 2500 hours or so that can be $10,000-50,000 depending on what they find? Is there a life limit? What's required for the annual inspection? @Ted can you shed any light on this for me? I'm sure Garretts and PT-6s are different animals, but estimating costs has to be similar?
Click to expand...

I tend to think it's harder to compare a lot of the SETPs to legacy twin turboprops. Everyone looks at fuel, but they also tend to have some of the bigger PT-6s with more expensive parts at hot section/overhaul. So a single hot section could cost as much as two hot sections on a legacy KA90, Cheyenne I/II, or Conquest 1. Even the Blackhawk conversions seem to do pretty well with the -135As for HSIs. But bigger engines = more expensive.

Airframe wise, it really comes down to how the manufacturer set up the inspections. KAs are pretty expensive as far as inspections go. MU-2s are the cheapest. Cheyennes and Conquests seem to be somewhere in the middle. I have a couple of friends who own/did own TBMs and they seemed fairly pleased with the maintenance compared to the piston twins they came from, and we certainly saw a reduction in $/hr (not to mention $/mile) going from the 414 to the MU-2. But, the equations get complicated. New turboprops are expensive to buy (sure if you borrow right this is less of an issue) and there are fewer of them around as parts airplanes. Factory support is nice. But you're basically looking at a Meridian/JetProp, TBM, or PC12. The PC12 is big. Meridian/JetProp/TBM are all about the same as far as cabin goes.

On the MU-2, your inspections were 100 hr/1 year, 200 hr/1 year, 600 hr/3 year, 10 year, and then some other aging airframe inspections that were based on TTAF. It was really a pretty friendly program, although low utilization pilots complained about the calendar times that they tended to run into before the hours. KAs have a 6 year gear inspection that people complain about. Cheyennes I forget, but I think it's basically hours only. TBMs and Meridians I have no idea.

Costs, $10-15k for a 100/200 hr inspection on the MU-2. That's a good chunk lower than my friends with other turboprops spent. But then the HSI on the one side was $60k or so, that was the Cloud Nine price, and the engine had a lot wrong with it. It seems my friends with PT-6s usually have not had as expensive of HSIs, so take that for what it's worth.
 
Ted said:
I tend to think it's harder to compare a lot of the SETPs to legacy twin turboprops. Everyone looks at fuel, but they also tend to have some of the bigger PT-6s with more expensive parts at hot section/overhaul. So a single hot section could cost as much as two hot sections on a legacy KA90, Cheyenne I/II, or Conquest 1. Even the Blackhawk conversions seem to do pretty well with the -135As for HSIs. But bigger engines = more expensive.

Airframe wise, it really comes down to how the manufacturer set up the inspections. KAs are pretty expensive as far as inspections go. MU-2s are the cheapest. Cheyennes and Conquests seem to be somewhere in the middle. I have a couple of friends who own/did own TBMs and they seemed fairly pleased with the maintenance compared to the piston twins they came from, and we certainly saw a reduction in $/hr (not to mention $/mile) going from the 414 to the MU-2. But, the equations get complicated. New turboprops are expensive to buy (sure if you borrow right this is less of an issue) and there are fewer of them around as parts airplanes. Factory support is nice. But you're basically looking at a Meridian/JetProp, TBM, or PC12. The PC12 is big. Meridian/JetProp/TBM are all about the same as far as cabin goes.

On the MU-2, your inspections were 100 hr/1 year, 200 hr/1 year, 600 hr/3 year, 10 year, and then some other aging airframe inspections that were based on TTAF. It was really a pretty friendly program, although low utilization pilots complained about the calendar times that they tended to run into before the hours. KAs have a 6 year gear inspection that people complain about. Cheyennes I forget, but I think it's basically hours only. TBMs and Meridians I have no idea.

Costs, $10-15k for a 100/200 hr inspection on the MU-2. That's a good chunk lower than my friends with other turboprops spent. But then the HSI on the one side was $60k or so, that was the Cloud Nine price, and the engine had a lot wrong with it. It seems my friends with PT-6s usually have not had as expensive of HSIs, so take that for what it's worth.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

How often are HSI's? Is that based on hours? Or maybe cycles?

Do turbines last indefinitely so long as you keep throwing dollars at them?

I didn't realize there was that much difference within engine models. I figured a pt-6 was a pt-6.

Sorry for the 20 questions, I just want to be well informed if I'm spending Ed's money :D
 
Jim K said:
Thank you.

How often are HSI's? Is that based on hours? Or maybe cycles?
Click to expand...

HSIs are hours. So for most TPE-331s it's HSI at 1800 and 3600, overhaul at 5400. For most PT-6s it's HSI at 1800, overhaul at 3600. But Part 91 you can just do another HSI on either of them and keep going.

Do turbines last indefinitely so long as you keep throwing dollars at them?
Click to expand...

Anything lasts indefinitely so long as you keep throwing dollars it. :)

The components have limits, both inspection limits and hour/cycle limits. A lot of the wheels have cycle limits as the cycle is the part that has the most stress. Or sometimes it's hour + cycle. Inspection limits are often what red tag components.

I didn't realize there was that much difference within engine models. I figured a pt-6 was a pt-6.
Click to expand...

It turns out that they made different engines and didn't just put in the different dash numbers for fun. ;)

This also can impact HSI interval and TBO. I'm not super familiar on PT-6s, but for example the Cheyenne 400LS has the super big TPE-331s which are 1500 HSI and 3000 TBO. Parts are made of unobtainium.
 
So you are selling the Comanche? Is that the takeaway from all these posts?
 
charheep said:
So you are selling the Comanche? Is that the takeaway from all these posts?
Click to expand...

Not for the next few years at least. unless a screaming deal comes along. Or somebody wants a partner on one local
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top