Who said anything of perfection, but you? I've flown new equipment, and very old equipment, and was a Director of Maintenance and Check Airman for both, in a King Air operation. Having done the job, I don't agree with you a bit. There is no more difficulty rigging an older King Air vs. a newer one, regardless of time or cycles. It's not exactly rocket science. Again, no one has said anything about perfection, but you. Proper maintenance and rigging isn't a miracle, and isn't uncommon. You appear to have consigned yourself to flying poorly maintained equipment. You don't appear to have much experience with King Air's or PT6 powerplants. Are you not familiar with max motoring practices, as well as cooldown practices? So long as engine temperatures aren't exceeded, there's no reason not to restart the motor, and there's no great difficulty in rigging the engine. There really isn't. You seem to believe it's a holy practice that needs a priest. It isn't. The rigging practice is spelled out very clearly in the aircraft and pratt maintenance documents. Keeping it in rig isn't complicated, and age of the aircraft has nothing to do with the matter. I don't know anyone, personally, who has ever damaged an engine as a function of rigging the engine. Have you done so? Yes, I do. From small pistons to the largest radials, both operating them and maintaining them, as well as most types of turbopropeller and turbine engines. I've seen piston engines damaged almost every way you can imagine, from failure to put oil in engines to running them rich and running them lean, from propeller strikes to lifted heads to blown and failed turbos and PRT and superchargers to sucked valve and badly timed mags. It's easy to hurt a piston engine; there's not a lot one can do operationally to hurt a PT-6. You've never actually rigged an engine, let alone a PT-6, have you? Sounds like you contracted to have someone else paid to do it, and have your understanding second hand. You're mixing unrelated details. Do you not understand blade classification? Obviously engines have different levels of efficiency, and different states of condition; this isn't exactly a revelation. This is why we rig the engines, you see. There is no reason why the engines can't be rigged properly, and the controls rigged evenly in the cockpit. This is standard, this is expected, this is normal. I've flown 200's a great deal at night, primarily doing aeromedical operations. I've flown a lot of other PT6 powered aircraft at night, as well, and I've never seen a four foot flame coming from the PT6 at night. I really think you have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't believe for a minute you've ever seen a four foot flame coming from a PT6 exhuast at night. I've been through Flight Safety for the King Air as well as Simuflight. I've taught and instructed in the airplane, I've flown them on the line, and I've maintained them and as previously mentioned, have been a Director of Maintenance twice; once in an operation using multiple King Airs. I've never seen a four foot flame out of the exhaust stack of a King Air, and I very much doubt you have, either. If you have, and if you think that's normal, you have some serious judgement issues and have had some very seriously poor experience with poorly maintained equipment. Furthermore, if you're flying equipment capable of producing four feet of flame out the exhaust for even a short term, you're looking at severe engine damage, burned combustor liners, and a very damaged hot section. You won't be operating the aircraft in that condition for long. You really think 45 hours a month is a lot?? You understand the difference between hours and cycles, do you not? I have flown for government agencies, and I've never seen the money spent on those flight operations with frivolity. I've also flown in charter operations, fractional operations, military operations, cargo operations, passenger and medical operations, atmospheric research operations, test and maintenance operations, and instructional situations and operations. Spending money on properly maintaining the aircraft is no "witch hunt." That you believe this to be the case ends the conversation, betrays your inexperience, and speaks volumes about your judgement. Simply put, you're unsafe. You're unsafe because you don't know the depth of your ignorance on the subject, and you're unsafe because you accept mediocre maintenance and equipment. Given your inexperience, you may rest assured that 45 hours a month is a low use aircraft, that mismatched rigging is not the norm in King Air's or most other equipment, and that the PT6 isn't a difficult powerplant to operate, and is fairly bullet proof. It's the only turbine engine you've ever operated, isn't it?