Turbo Prop Question

drotto said:
Have you considered going multi?

Biggest issue with most of the Piper M class line is the useful load is marginal at best. There is a a Malibu I sat in a few days ago. Yes it has Great features; fiki, pressurized, 213k, fl25, great cabin, etc, but the useful load was around 1150. As anything more than a four seater and even then leaving 40 gallons out of the plane, it is very limited. If you are wiling to give up the pressurization the Matrix from a hauling standpoint is a better plane. The Saratoga I have been flying has a useful load of 1300.

But I digress, this is about turboprops.
Click to expand...

Not really because a twin turbin is out of my league currently and the single turbin is more capable for MY needs than a piston twin.
 
Wingsofglass said:
I went from a Cirrus to a Meridian. Let me just say that the cost differential between the two is substantial and fuel has almost nothing to do with it. In my opinion it's worth every penny to fly a pressurized, FIKI turboprop if you can afford it. I'd much rather fly the Meridian on a 250nm trip than the Cirrus. The checklist is longer in the Meridian but there is no time difference in getting to the hold short line between the two planes.
Click to expand...

I under stand the overhaul coat and hot section cost. Are there other normal day to day cost that I'm missing?
 
JoshJ said:
Not really because a twin turbin is out of my league currently and the single turbin is more capable for MY needs than a piston twin.
Click to expand...
It's out of my league too, much more so than yours from the sound of it. But we stumbled into one and it's been good, especially considering this is our typical terrain. You might want to run the numbers on some of the older kerosene twins again and see how it falls out, especially if you can push engines as far as part91 allows and then be open to the idea of used engines.
 

Attachments

  • early snow.jpg
    early snow.jpg
    323.1 KB · Views: 44
JoshJ said:
Not really because a twin turbin is out of my league currently and the single turbin is more capable for MY needs than a piston twin.
Click to expand...

Does money cost you money ?

Capital, training and depreciation included, a short-body Mu2 may not be any more expensive to operate than any of the SETPs. Yes it burns more fuel, but the engines have long TBOs and your capital investment is much lower.
 
I am no accounting genius, but if one is only flying a couple of hundred hours a year, the lower acquisition and capital costs of an older twin turbine might make more sense than dropping 3-4M on a new or nearly new SE turboprop. For under a mil, you can get a decent Cheyenne or King Air and the interest on the saved money may pay for the extra fuel burned.
 
Kristin said:
I am no accounting genius, but if one is only flying a couple of hundred hours a year, the lower acquisition and capital costs of an older twin turbine might make more sense than dropping 3-4M on a new or nearly new SE turboprop. For under a mil, you can get a decent Cheyenne or King Air and the interest on the saved money may pay for the extra fuel burned.
Click to expand...
cept some tax accountant genius will come and say that the newer ones qualify for some special kind of capital depreciation deductions....that the older ones don't.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
cept some tax accountant genius will come and say that the newer ones qualify for some special kind of capital depreciation deductions....that the older ones don't.
Click to expand...

If you are one of the few that can actually work that to advantage, you're most likely in the market for a TJ, not a TP.:lol:
 
Kristin said:
I am no accounting genius, but if one is only flying a couple of hundred hours a year, the lower acquisition and capital costs of an older twin turbine might make more sense than dropping 3-4M on a new or nearly new SE turboprop. For under a mil, you can get a decent Cheyenne or King Air and the interest on the saved money may pay for the extra fuel burned.
Click to expand...

That's my view as well. I'd be looking the Jeff route if I went turboprop, and go twin.

But the OP said he wanted a single, so I left it at that. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's my view as well. I'd be looking the Jeff route if I went turboprop, and go twin.

But the OP said he wanted a single, so I left it at that. :)
Click to expand...
In this case, the jeff route is to find someone who will let you have it for essentially free as long as you can keep it running, and i happen to have the piece of paper in my wallet that lets me do the mx and sign the phase inspections. I've got a feeling that when we move away from here, this thing becomes a yard ornament. Maybe i can make the OP of this thread a smokin hot deal on a king air. Just flown to church on sundays by a little old lady, it's a creampuff. Any rumors of it flying building materials into forest dirt strips are greatly overblown.
 
JoshJ said:
I under stand the overhaul coat and hot section cost. Are there other normal day to day cost that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

As someone else mentioned previously, the operating costs of a turbine single are much higher than a piston aircraft. The fuel is the least significant of those costs and you can mitigate that by subscribing to one or more contract fuel programs. The additional variable costs that you should be thinking about are:

1. Unscheduled maintenance reserves;
2. Avionics maintenance reserves;
3. Scheduled maintenance and correcting airworthiness items;
4. Routine engine maintenance, such as compressor washes; and
5. Higher handling and overnight fees at FBOs.

In addition, the fixed costs are higher. Insurance will be more expensive, as will the cost of the hangar for the airplane.

I disagree with the people who say that you should be looking at legacy twin turbine aircraft. The acquisition costs are low for a reason. I looked at an MU2 and a Commander 1000 and the maintenance schedules and costs would have eaten me alive. In addition, to feed and care for two turbine engines is going to almost double the cost of operating the airplane. When things go wrong on turbine engines, it is very expensive to fix them. Even routine maintenance is significant. I did not want to double the chance that I was going to have to write a REALLY big check!

Also, people are comparing a new single engine turbine airplane to a legacy twin turbine. The more realistic comparison is a 2001 to 2007 single engine turbine to a 1980s vintage twin turbine. Others may have different experience, but my experience is that older airframes cost more to maintain.

However, this is a really fun analysis to go through and you should explore all of your options so that you walk into your decision with your eyes wide open.

Abram Finkelstein
EA50
N48KY
 
JHW said:
In this case, the jeff route is to find someone who will let you have it for essentially free as long as you can keep it running, and i happen to have the piece of paper in my wallet that lets me do the mx and sign the phase inspections. I've got a feeling that when we move away from here, this thing becomes a yard ornament. Maybe i can make the OP of this thread a smokin hot deal on a king air. Just flown to church on sundays by a little old lady, it's a creampuff. Any rumors of it flying building materials into forest dirt strips are greatly overblown.
Click to expand...

Ignore the sheep crap in the wheel wells and on the tires, that's a corrosion inhibitor.

I know your deal is special (although maybe one day I'll get that piece of paper), my point was more a legacy and keeping it flyable inexpensively, or as much as is possible.
 
Biggest problem is that most of those cheaper older twins have soh time of 3000 or so, with recommend overhauls at 3600 hours. Now if you are a lower hour pilot doing 100 or so per year, that is a problem for five years from now. Those turbines cost 125k plus each to ovwrhaul. So redoing the engines my pay the owner what ghat plane itself did. Not to mention. Other costs.
 
JoshJ said:
I under stand the overhaul coat and hot section cost. Are there other normal day to day cost that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Desal wash if you're costal.
 
drotto said:
Biggest problem is that most of those cheaper older twins have soh time of 3000 or so, with recommend overhauls at 3600 hours. Now if you are a lower hour pilot doing 100 or so per year, that is a problem for five years from now. Those turbines cost 125k plus each to ovwrhaul. So redoing the engines my pay the owner what ghat plane itself did. Not to mention. Other costs.
Click to expand...

Or you do like most Part 91 guys do on PT6s: do a HSI and run them to 7200, which is more than most private operators will do in their careers.
 
I am not sure you can overhaul a turbine for $125K any more, I would guess $200-250K each might be closer.:eek: Hot sections can run $30-150K per side. ;)

drotto said:
Biggest problem is that most of those cheaper older twins have soh time of 3000 or so, with recommend overhauls at 3600 hours. Now if you are a lower hour pilot doing 100 or so per year, that is a problem for five years from now. Those turbines cost 125k plus each to ovwrhaul. So redoing the engines my pay the owner what ghat plane itself did. Not to mention. Other costs.
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
cept some tax accountant genius will come and say that the newer ones qualify for some special kind of capital depreciation deductions....that the older ones don't.
Click to expand...

That ship has sailed.
 
Abram said:
As someone else mentioned previously, the operating costs of a turbine single are much higher than a piston aircraft. The fuel is the least significant of those costs and you can mitigate that by subscribing to one or more contract fuel programs. The additional variable costs that you should be thinking about are:

1. Unscheduled maintenance reserves;
2. Avionics maintenance reserves;
3. Scheduled maintenance and correcting airworthiness items;
4. Routine engine maintenance, such as compressor washes; and
5. Higher handling and overnight fees at FBOs.

In addition, the fixed costs are higher. Insurance will be more expensive, as will the cost of the hangar for the airplane.

I disagree with the people who say that you should be looking at legacy twin turbine aircraft. The acquisition costs are low for a reason. I looked at an MU2 and a Commander 1000 and the maintenance schedules and costs would have eaten me alive. In addition, to feed and care for two turbine engines is going to almost double the cost of operating the airplane. When things go wrong on turbine engines, it is very expensive to fix them. Even routine maintenance is significant. I did not want to double the chance that I was going to have to write a REALLY big check!

Also, people are comparing a new single engine turbine airplane to a legacy twin turbine. The more realistic comparison is a 2001 to 2007 single engine turbine to a 1980s vintage twin turbine. Others may have different experience, but my experience is that older airframes cost more to maintain.

However, this is a really fun analysis to go through and you should explore all of your options so that you walk into your decision with your eyes wide open.

Abram Finkelstein
EA50
N48KY
Click to expand...

Depends on what you choose.

A Garrett powered turbine will cost about half of what a PT6 powered one costs in engine reserves. 5400hr TBO vs 3600 TBO and less to HSI or O/H.

The fuel cost per mile for a twin TP is the same as for a legacy piston. A 421/414 will burn over 40-50gal/hr at $5.50/gal vs a turbine twin that will burn 65gal/hr at $4.50/gal going 50kts faster. It's a wash.

The insurance on mine cost the same as the piston twin.

And from owners I know (I'm too new to it to have any data to fall back on) they say the dispatch rate is much higher. Unscheduled maintenance is rare.

And lastly - on the Garretts there's an oil change every 800hrs. You'll spend over $30K on oil changes on a piston twin over the engines lifetime (every 50hrs). A huge hidden cost.
 
Abram said:
I disagree with the people who say that you should be looking at legacy twin turbine aircraft. The acquisition costs are low for a reason.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. Supply and demand. There is a reason why the current owners are trying to get the hell out and willing to accept a low price.
 
LoneAspen said:
Stratobee - Maybe you posted in another thread and I missed it. I'm assuming you traded up to a twin turbine Commander?
Click to expand...

Haven't really posed about it because I've not started flying it properly yet, but yes I did. Getting stuff fixed and it's taking longer than I want. I will post more about it when I finally get it out of the shop and get some real world numbers.

But the insurance (liability only) came back as $1340/year. That's only $20 more than I paid for the Aerostar, which surprised me more than anything else. I was expecting at least double. So that was a pleasant surprise. :thumbsup:
 
stratobee said:
Haven't really posed about it because I've not started flying it properly yet, but yes I did. Getting stuff fixed and it's taking longer than I want. I will post more about it when I finally get it out of the shop and get some real world numbers.

But the insurance (liability only) came back as $1340/year. That's only $20 more than I paid for the Aerostar, which surprised me more than anything else. I was expecting at least double. So that was a pleasant surprise. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Cool - congrats on the new plane, and looking forward to seeing more detailed post later once things are in order! Enjoy flying her!
 
Thanks Aspen! Interesting times ahead.
 
JoshJ said:
Whats your thoughts on a single engine turbo prop (Meridian or TBM) when 80% of the flights will only be 200-300 miles? The other 20% of the flights will be 1000+ miles.

I curently have a Saratoga, but may need to upgrade for business.

I have absolutly no interest in a twin, piston or turbin.

Josh
Click to expand...

You will like going from a piston to a turbine, as long as you understand the costs will be higher. I went from flying a piston powered Navajo to a turbine powered Cheyenne and it changes everything. Pressurization, speed, better systems for dealing with weather, the ability to climb on a single engine, etc. We do a combination of short 150 mile and longer 900 mile trips. I have never felt the Cheyenne was overkill for the short trips, especially when the weather was bad.

Depending on how you use your airplane for business, you may want to reconsider a turbine twin. If you have passengers who aren't use to flying general aviation, a twin really helps put them at ease. You can try explaining how reliable a single turbine is, but it won't matter. They will simply be more comfortable in the twin.

Ryan
 
This has been a very interested read through this thread as its a debate that I enjoy having with my aviation mates I a regular basis... Now there are some fairly clever chaps here in South Africa that at some point must had had the same questions, and then they came up with this! Obviously started life as a C402, now called the Falcon 402...

3c29fcc73b0e08b8a6e190587b747b49.jpg


00c3e1eeb3794cddc11aae653727b7f3.jpg


ccf9e9a10b9ae6403debca750ce04a44.jpg


A short YT vid here
http://youtu.be/ggnMAzFBiTQ

I don't know how valid this ad is but it'll give some idea of the technicalities!

http://www.fosteraero.co.za/show.php?ac_id=775&ac_name=Falcon 402 Turbine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top