Hello guys,

Before starting this topic, i'll present myself, i'm Cedric, a froggy from Europe (sorry for my English), I was flying many years in Africa mainly on trubo props (B1900/B200/B300/DHC6) and jet (DA50) and change life but still in aviation.
I just sold my Cessna 310 and now looking to upgrade for turbo prop as I 'm fedup with piston engines hot start & snags coming too often for my point of view.

I never fly an aircraft with a Garrett engine, only PT6 !

I've been reading many topics on this forum (thanks to the search menu ), few topics with the same kind of questions i'll ask.

Now, as future turbo prop owner, I'll avoid King Air, not that I don't like them, they are very nice and never get a mechanical problems on the one I was flying in Africa; but as owner, speed/fuel consumption/maintenance invoices put the King Air in my last choice.

Typical mission will be: 1000Nm, long runways 6 people & 100Nm with short grass runway (2100ft / 2500ft), 2 people.
Then, come the C425 / C441 / AC690 / AC840 (PC12 should be the best, but purchasing cost is not the same and engine provision for a PT6A-67 cost a fortune per hour).

C425 with PT6135:
- Blackhawk have better performance than original PT6, but what is the range in NM (Blackhawk doesn't speak about range on their website ).
I found range for the C425 equiped with -112, sure a -135 will have a better climb rate, cruise speed and higher fuel consumption ... then -112 or -135, which one to choose ?
- I think, you can't go on runway less than 3,000ft long with a C425?

C441:
look like some of them are RVSM, which is good for performance and fuel.
- if not RVSM equpied, how to certify a C441 ? dual Garmin G600 and specific A/P ?
- Can a C441 go on short grass runway ?
- Is the low wing & garrett engine are a problem for FOD on dirt runways ?
Luggage front compartment is not pressurized and it doesn't look very big inside, look like you need to put all your stuff inside, behind a "coach".
- Fuel comsumption: big difference or not, if C441 flies at FL270 (due to non RVSM equiped) and FL310 and up ?

AC690 / AC840:
question for Patrick & Steeve
- is the luggage compartment is pressurized & heated ? (just to know if my mother in law can go in it )
- is the potty is really practicale and private ? (wife 's question )
- seen Patrick's G600, isn't too low to read display information, position of the G600 looks very down on the dashboard.
- some turbo Commander have extra fuel tank, where they install it ?
- only AC1000 is RVSM approved?

Patrick, are you staying long time in France ? you didn't have trouble with french customs?

Seen a nice AC690 for +700k$ but can offer a AC840 at +1M$, what will be the difference between AC690 & AC840, nearly all of them are Dash10 equiped.
Yearly maintenance should be plus or minus the same ?
Can buy a lot of fuel from 700k$ to 1M$ !

All those aircrafts are nice anyway !

Note:
I'll avoid MU2, friends die on a MU2 (prop went out in climb and hit the fuselage ...).
I'll avoid Piper Cheyenne just for spare parts stories and janitrol heating system.

Thanks for the help

Hi Cedric,

I have a -112 powered C425 and before that I was flying a AC500B (piston commander). I regularly operate the 425 out of a 2800' runway at sea level with a moderate load. At high elevations or at max gross I would want more runway. You can just barely go 1000 nm with 6 people total as my useful load is 3300 lbs and a full load of fuel is 2452 lbs. Plan on 500 lbs in hour 1 and 400 lbs every hour after that. Cruise speed is about 255 KTAS at altitude. It has a small enclosed aft potty but it's not exactly luxurious. As for a 2100' grass runway I think it would be tight especially for takeoff in the C425. If the airport is at high elevation, I would say it's not possible (and would be impossible in most other turboprops too).

I don't have any experience in turbine commanders but I have lots in piston commenders. Commanders are great short/rough field airplanes for their size - I could get a moderately loaded AC500B stopped in 500' without much problem and would have no issues using a 2000' sea level runway with a moderate load including back country grass strips in Idaho. I would say you would have better luck with short fields in the commander but if you really want to know PM me and I can put you in contact with an expert in turbine commander operations. As for the 1000 nm/6 pax trip someone else will have to answer. I suspect you can do it though.

The other consideration is money. The 425 is going to cost less to operate than a 690 especially if you plan to hangar it. I'm in the SF Bay area and the cost difference to hangar a AC690 and a C425 is about $1000 per month (the difference is a 44' wing vs a 50.5' wing). Acquisition cost will be a little less for the -112 425 but not by a lot if compared to a AC690. An 840 is basically a 690 but built by Gulfstream and they made a bunch of system and structural improvements. As a result they cost more to buy but a little less to operate because of the improvements (no pressure vessel AD, no spar AD, etc). The "potty" in a 690/840 is in the main cabin right in front of the door so not quite as private as the C425 but neither airplane has a real, wife approved toilet. I guess it depends on how tolerant your wife is.

The C441 is a totally different airplane than the 690 or 425. It seats 9 people comfortably and with RVSM can go 1800 nm @ 300 kts @ 60 GPH @ FL350. I doubt it would do the short field work (2100' runway) but it will do the 1000 nm/6 PAX trip with ease. The 441 is more like a 1000 series commander. I don't know the cost to RVSM but I am sure it is expensive. My guess is $200K+ but there is a guy on this forum who did it (Max N) and he might be willing to share his experience. Or call Executive Air Maintenance in Scottsdale and they can tell you for sure.

One other consideration is where you are based awn proximity to good, type specific maintenance. You may have a little better luck with the 425 compared to a 690 in that department but again it depends where you are based.

I own a -135 425 and echo Scott's comments. I currently operate out of a 3800 ft strip and it is very comfortable. With the four blade props and reverse you can easily get into places you'll have trouble getting out of. I file 275 - 285 ktas depending upon weight and temp above FL240 on 480 - 520 lbs/hr. Mine has a little over 800 lbs useful with full fuel which is good for 1000 miles with an hour reserves. Initial climb is 2000fpm at 150kias, 1500fpm above about 15k and drops to 1000fpm above FL250. Pressurization is 5psi so you will have a +10k cabin at FL280.

The 441 has more capability with better efficiency, but has some drawbacks.

What are the drawbacks?

What are the drawbacks?

What are the drawbacks?

not wanting to butt in but, define a fortune over the other engines?

I like the 441 or the 690........you can't go much wrong with either.

Welcome.

For short field usage you will want a great power to weight ratio. The Conquests don't have as good a power to weight ratio as the commanders.

The larger wing on the commander is also an advantage.

These qualities gives the commanders great short field and awesome single engine performance.

The cargo area can be heated but are never pressurized. Give you mother in law some O2!

I am 6ft 1in tall and I can lay flat in my cargo area. It's big, bigger than the 690 although the 690 is large also.

The 840,980,900,1000 can all be equipped with 474 gallons. Those models have a completely different wing, that is larger and has better fuel capacity.

The 690 hold 389 gallons which is quite a bit in a Garrett powered plane. You can also add an additional 100 gallon by installing slipper tank on the wings of a 690.

You can have the G600 canted when you have it installed. Makes for a really nice installation. That is how mine is done.

Not sure you can see in the photo of my panel but the top of the G600 is recessed about an inch. Make viewing the G600 perfect.

Sorry for the repeat of the photos if you have already seen them.

They can all be RSVMed in theory, but only the 900 and 1000 models are easily done so due to 6.7psi diff.

Thanks Scott & James for C425 information.

Thanks Steeve for the AC90/AC84 information, I've read all your posts since last week, included all your pictures
Luggage area looks huge ! enough for few box of red wine
Steeve, is it a problem to not have the luggage compartment not pressurized, if you put your personnal stuff like shampoo and any liquid (wine ) with high rate of climb & descent, any shampoo or cream will pop up in the back, no ?
If not heated, I'll never put my laptop in this kind a compartment.

Potty, look like the same kind as a King Air, which is great for ladies.

Michael, I've seen invoice for overhaulded PT6A-67B, in Europe, for +600k$ ... I think you can easily do 2x PAT6A-41 for this price.
JSSI charge you 190$/hour (based on 1 hour per cycle) for a PT6A-67B, PT6A-135 139$/hour, PT6A-112 113$/hr. Those big power engines cost more to overhauled them, which is normal.

For the C441, I understand it's like the King Air 200 competitor, and that the C441 is not made for short runways, only Turbo Commander basically.

Hangar in Europe is not a big deal outside big cities, for a C425/C441/AC90 you 'll pay 500$/month (no services provided).
Look like very expensive to put an aircraft in a hangar in SF Bay !

RVSM (thanks Adam ), understood C441 or AC900/AC1000
Does it really make a lot of difference on fuel from FL280 to FL310 ? if you need to spend 400k$ to be approved RVSM, it's a lot of fuel.

441 is approved to FL350. RVSM is ~180K. This gets you the 29K Weststar STC, Genesys 2100 AP and dual G600's. Fuel savings at 350 vs 280 is roughly 100#'s/hr. We rarely fly that high but many operators do. I like having the weather avoidance capability of FL350 more than fuel savings, not to say I don't mind saving a few$.
We get 300KTAS+ all day above 22K, 280+ above 14K.
Here's our flight back from California last Saturday. FL330 was nice and below would have been IMC and bumpy for most of the trip. 1800NM with a nice tail wind. Landed with 1000#'s or 1+ hour of fuel:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KAPC/KPTK

I wouldn't do grass strips, but I know dirt and gravel runways are used routinely in Alaska and Australia. Must be careful with FOD of course.

441 is approved to FL350. RVSM is ~180K. This gets you the 29K Weststar STC, Genesys 2100 AP and dual G600's. Fuel savings at 350 vs 280 is roughly 100#'s/hr. We rarely fly that high but many operators do. I like having the weather avoidance capability of FL350 more than fuel savings, not to say I don't mind saving a few$.
We get 300KTAS+ all day above 22K, 280+ above 14K.
Here's our flight back from California last Saturday. FL330 was nice and below would have been IMC and bumpy for most of the trip. 1800NM with a nice tail wind. Landed with 1000#'s or 1+ hour of fuel:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KAPC/KPTK

I wouldn't do grass strips, but I know dirt and gravel runways are used routinely in Alaska and Australia. Must be careful with FOD of course.

My luggage is not pressurized or heated, I've transported wine without problems, so far... I did have a bottle an FBO gave me and which i stashed in the trash/ice bin inside the plane in the console behind the copilot seat and then cleverly forgot about while the plane was in Arizona for some work. Through multiple summer desert heat and cooling cycles, the cork managed to work it's way out and release the contents of the cheap red wine into the trash bucket - which, thankfully, contained the mess.

The potty has some curtains you can pull around but it isn't really what I would consider private - it will be fine for emergency use with kids and family on the plane. I have 3 children, 2 under the age of 4, so bodily functions are always going on in various public settings. Privacy is a luxury we seem to have temporarily given up on attempting to achieve, even at home, in our own bathroom ... From what I've been reading on issues with full flushing pottys (potties?) on small jets, with corrosion and other problems, I'm not sure there is a good toilet on a small plane - although I'm sure that passengers would prefer the PC12 setup over what we have.

My G600 install is fully clearly visible with no problems from the pilots' positions. It may look lower than it is because, in order to get a good picture you need to photograph from above (and the control column is high). I'm 6'1'' and am not finding it too low.

Not to get too deeply into tax stuff on a public forum but - My aircraft is just visiting France at the moment, which is fully legal not an issue if you only visit for a brief period and you are not resident in the EU. I'm taking it out of the EU soon and then importing it to the EU/UK as part of a household move, which is VAT exempt and fully legal if you document it correctly, have truly been living overseas, are moving back to the UK, and you bought it and used it outside of the EU/UK for a long enough time prior to bringing it into the EU, which I did. I've brought a car into the UK the same way in the past and it is, in fact, the same form which you also use for boats and planes - you just cross out license plate (number plate) and replace it with aircraft registration. I seem to recall a limitation of a year or similar on reselling the plane within the EU, without incurring VAT on that transaction, but after that waiting period, the car/boat/plane are fully saleable as VAT-paid within the EU.

Understood now, in order to take a good panel picture, it looks "low" but it's not, thanks.


I see. To be used for Emergency then.
C441 is better for that. AC1000 is different, it's in the back right ? ... and less luggage space then ?


That's sad they didn't manage a better system.


Myself also, not resident in Europe, but French custom give me hard time for 7 hours (!) trying to get some $$$ VAT from me but i win at the end
My next "baby" will go via Denmark, I'll pay 35k€ VAT and they give you the European VAT form stamped.

My view of the G600 doesn't seem to be obscured or difficult to read. It's not quite a heads up display, I guess, but nothing I've found to be an issue. Not sure if the actual view is something you can get a sense for from this picture, maybe?