What you will find is that beta mode reverse is more and more effective at higher speeds, so even with a few extra knots, they come out quickly once down and in beta.

Extra speed hurts if you float down the runway, but not so much in the decel once on the runway.

The one thing to watch out for is lack of beta mode if you land really fast. I don't know if your engine has the hydraulic prop governor reset, it probably does, which negates most of that effect. If you lack the hydraulic PG reset, then you can ask for beta and not get it until the prop drops below flight idle blade angle. So there can be this scary moment when you are asking for beta an don't get it, then it comes on suddenly, and hopefully symmetrically. You get to test if your flight idle blade angles and flight idle fuel flow match!


You betcha.

The airplane can take you from runway to airspace violation in seconds if you aren't careful.

Flying around a Turbo Commander VFR in southern UK airspace is a misfit of plane to purpose. The Europe/UK concept of IFR is strange, so you often end up airborne, in class G, with no clearance, trying to connect with ATC. It doesn't seem like there is a runway to runway concept for IFR in that part of the world. That seems strange and dangerous to me.

Mike C.

Out of some of the airports, like Oxford Kidlington, where there have meaningful jet traffic, dedicated radar coverage and instrument approaches, there is effectively runway to runway IFR. I've been using it for several flights between Oxford and Cannes, with only a few minutes outside controlled airspace. Unfortunately, the instrument departure procedure routing takes you to the North initially for your climb, and then only routes you South once you are above the various approach corridors for Heathrow. So, I think most turboprop type guys will set off south VFR (skipping the northbound climbing leg) and pick up IFR along the way, once they are south of the Class A airspace associated with the Heathrow approaches (and the other various airliner airports). I'd probably be shaving 10 minutes off my flight and may start doing it. For non-towered airports or non-controller staffed airports (Information, not Tower...) there can be some level of coordination, from my understanding, where you get allowed to enter the controlled airspace pretty quickly once you change from the airport flight information service officer over to what is the local approach/departure radar controller. It does leave you missing the straightforwardness of the typical US ATC environment (which France is quite similar to). Although the US has some pretty messy areas, too, which are similar - with the SFRA, areas around Chicago...
I was only bopping around VFR because it was such a short hop and I added in a bit of sightseeing (the Isle of Wight), which was too stressful to enjoy because of my fear of busting airspace. Just FYI the G airspace in the UK is ground up to 2500 - 6500 feet, in the areas I was flying, so I wasn't doing 500 feet AGL maneuvering (or whatever keeps you in the G in the US these days)...

Why is there so much price disparity between -5 and -10 powered 690s ? Is it just performance or is there more? 260 kts will fit my mission just fine and I understand the -5 still gives very respectable engine out climb. Seems like the same money buys a high engine time -10 or low engine time -5. Will ops cost for the -10 make up the difference?

Two reasons:

-10 is more performance. Maintains power to higher altitudes.

-10 is cheaper to maintain. -10 is 2500 HSI, 5000 OH, and some can be extended to 3500 HSI and 7000 OH. The -10 goes through hot section much better, maybe $35K/side. The EGT system lasts MUCH longer than the ITT system.

The -5 is 1800 HSI, 3600 GB/HSI, 5400 OH. The HSI is usually expensive, you often replace the ITT harness and one or two wheels, figure $80K/side. The GB is another $20K or so.

Long term, the -10 is quite a bit cheaper to operate per mile. Saves hours (faster), saves fuel (slightly more efficient), saves down time (less engine events), saves engine cost (cheaper HSI, longer intervals).

Mike C.

The TBO and the -10 conversion are two different animals. You can have a -5 with a 5000 hr TBO or a 5400 TBO.

The big difference is the -10 airplane is over 300 kts... oddly the -10 conversions are typically faster than the factory -10 airplanes.

Two reasons:

-10 is more performance. Maintains power to higher latitudes.


Mike C.

This is what I didn't know how to quantify.

What qualifies going to 7000 TBO? Is it a high utilization issue?

I believe that is incorrect.

I suggest you contact a TPE engine shop before you, or your customers, rely on what you wrote.

Mike C.

Well sort of.

You really need to talk to a TPE expert, but as I understand it, Honeywell published a 7000 hour schedule which had, as on its requirements, fairly high utilization (40 hours/month?). This also had requirements to have certain revision parts in the engine, namely the burner can.

But operators are getting approval to use 7000 hours based on this SB even though they don't meet the usage.

I suggest you find a TPE expert to really give you the low down on this.

I will send in my engine paperwork to someone I know at Standard Aero and they say they can determine my 7000 hour TBO eligibility. It doesn't matter to me yet as the decision point comes at 2500 hours and I am 1000 hours away.

Mike C.

And higher longitudes as well.

The -10 engine is really good. :-)

Mike C.

I believe that is incorrect.

I suggest you contact a TPE engine shop before you, or your customers, rely on what you wrote.

Mike C.

Just to clarify, -5's are going to be 5,400 not 5,000 hrs. Actually, it's 3,600 with an extension to 5,400. The -5 is a good engine and the hots can be low cost, or not, just not always predictable.

You have misinterpreted the statement by selecting it out of context.

"Under the programme, operators can select from two conversion options. One, known as overhaul and convert, is recommended if the engine is close to its 5,400h overhaul interval. The other, the continued time upgrade, can be done at any time between overhauls, although most who choose this route usually elect to do so at 3,600h - the time of the second hot section inspection between overhauls.
...
For either type of upgrade, a choice of two maintenance options is available.
...
Operators can stay with the original maintenance schedule for the TPE331-3, -5, -6 and -8 engines," Carmickle says. "This allows a TBO [time between overhauls] of 5,400 flight hours, with an initial hot section inspection at 1,800h and a second hot section plus gearbox inspection at 3,600h." He notes that the more popular choice is the less costly second maintenance option, which offers a TBO of 5,000h. This requires only one hot section inspection at 2,500h, with a gearbox inspection at 5,000h."

The statement means the -10 conversion CAN be run under the OLD -5 maintenance plan, not that the -5 can be run under the new -10 maintenance plan.

Nobody I know uses the old plan for the -10.

Mike C.

I have not seen one under $65K in recent times. What is the lowest one you have seen in the last 5 years?

The first stage turbine wheel and the ITT harness are almost always replaced at every HSI.

My advice to -5 owners is plan, per side, $80K for HSI, $100K for GB/HSI (triggers various SBs when you open the gearbox) and be happy if you are under. That's $180K to reach OH at 5400 hours.

My advice to -10 owners is plan $40K per side. Do it only once to 5000/7000 hours.

Mike C.

You have misinterpreted the statement by selecting it out of context.

"Under the programme, operators can select from two conversion options. One, known as overhaul and convert, is recommended if the engine is close to its 5,400h overhaul interval. The other, the continued time upgrade, can be done at any time between overhauls, although most who choose this route usually elect to do so at 3,600h - the time of the second hot section inspection between overhauls.
...
For either type of upgrade, a choice of two maintenance options is available.
...
Operators can stay with the original maintenance schedule for the TPE331-3, -5, -6 and -8 engines," Carmickle says. "This allows a TBO [time between overhauls] of 5,400 flight hours, with an initial hot section inspection at 1,800h and a second hot section plus gearbox inspection at 3,600h." He notes that the more popular choice is the less costly second maintenance option, which offers a TBO of 5,000h. This requires only one hot section inspection at 2,500h, with a gearbox inspection at 5,000h."

The statement means the -10 conversion CAN be run under the OLD -5 maintenance plan, not that the -5 can be run under the new -10 maintenance plan.

Nobody I know uses the old plan for the -10.

Mike C.