Yes I know. But the original comment you were quoting did not specify TBM.

Yes I know. But the original comment you were quoting did not specify TBM.

That's about it.

The general rule of thumb is 1,000 ft for every 10 nm, though I find I often go a bit higher than that. So a 200 nm flight is maybe in the mid 20s. Time spent climbing to FL350 is not worth it. If you have a headwind, that puts you more in the higher wind, and if you have a tailwind, you will need to come down before reaching cruise. So either way, not worth FL350.

This was a test flight, not a "real" flight, so the objective appears to be to get to FL350 and return. They spent only 11 minutes at FL350.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N695 ... /KAPF/KAPF

Mike C.

Yes, mine are family. 9 is min. Parents, 6 kids and nanny. Currently three travel on commercial. The logistics are a serious pain. Co-ordinating private travel and commercial travel as one unit is not easy.

The reason the Turbo Commander Jetprops are still very sought after is simple - they will go further (2000nm), faster (300kts), higher (FL350) on the same fuel (58gal/hr) and cost a lot less to operate than a PC12. Or most other SETPs. Sure, if one wants new I have no argument, but you'll pay more and get there later (or at all, if the one quits).

What does rvsm cost to add to a turbo commander?

Don't forget maintaining it. Your static/altimeter checks will also get a lot more expensive.

If true then why don't they start building them again? I ask this all the time but nobody ever answers.

Why do clean sheet designs keep coming online when the designs of yesteryear are supposedly better? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier for a company to buy the rights to the Commander and build them again with G1000's etc?

They are too expensive to build now with modern economics.

The market is limited, satisfying the owner flown market won't work at the prices they would have to sell at, and the corporate market wants jets.


There are no new clean sheet twin pressurized turboprops. There are no new clean sheet SETPs either (Kestral and Textron yet to reach market). Meanwhile, multiple twin jets get announced every year.


No, the labor component to building them is too high for modern economics.

For the cost of building a 690, you can build a twin jet and make more money in a higher demand market, so that is what companies do. Even Pilatus is going there.


Book mark this one so the next time you ask, you can read it again.

Mike C.

Isn't the design work already done on the Commander and MU2? It would cost more to bring them back than it does a clean sheet jet?

You say "the market is limited" yet it's turboprops dominating Flightaware by a long shot. Apparently the demand is there.

Yes, it would due to the high labor hours for manufacture. To change that requires a redesign, which is also too costly.

The MU2 could not be built for less than $10M list price today. No market for it at that price when you can get a jet for that money that does the job.


The supply is there.

The large used market for turboprops dampens thoughts of introducing a new one.

Mike C.

What are the inspection requirements on the Turbine Commanders?

The 441 and/or one of the Commanders keep coming to the top of my "next airplane" list - I want the seating & cargo capacity of a 421 but 300ish knots and 1500 mile range. No, I'm not seriously shopping... The 421 does the trick for now.

Robert

The labor hours to manufacture a TP are different than a jet?

Once again, Pilatus sells every plane they make and mine has gone up in value since I bought it.

It's the first time you've ever answered the question.