BeechTalk - BT - TBM PT6A-64 engine approaching TBO (3300 hours) options

Username Protected

Username Protected wrote:

Has anyone overhauled a big block PT6 recently?

I see some flat rate prices for overhaul in the 600k range but I'm wondering what it actually costs. Just doing an HSI is an option as is going on the M.O.R.E program. The M.O.R.E program will require more frequent inspections and we still need to HSI it and overhaul the accessories. It's cheaper than an overhaul but also devalues the airplane.

Any advice?

Too bad they didn’t hang a Garrett on there. You’d have another 1700 hours to go, 2/3 the cost to OH and 20% less fuel burn. The fuel savings will pay the OH. :bang:

Username Protected

Username Protected wrote:

Too bad they didn’t hang a Garrett on there. You’d have another 1700 hours to go, 2/3 the cost to OH and 20% less fuel burn. The fuel savings will pay the OH. :bang:

There was an experimental PA46 with a TPE331 on it.

https://www.mmig46.org/com/news/2004_45.html

Never reached product status.

Mike C.

Username Protected

Username Protected wrote:

Has anyone overhauled a big block PT6 recently?

I see some flat rate prices for overhaul in the 600k range but I'm wondering what it actually costs. Just doing an HSI is an option as is going on the M.O.R.E program. The M.O.R.E program will require more frequent inspections and we still need to HSI it and overhaul the accessories. It's cheaper than an overhaul but also devalues the airplane.

Any advice?

Too bad they didn’t hang a Garrett on there. You’d have another 1700 hours to go, 2/3 the cost to OH and 20% less fuel burn. The fuel savings will pay the OH. :bang:

Username Protected

Chip, I was thinking the same thing. The PT6 reverse air flow really is ideal for a single engine application.

Username Protected

Username Protected wrote:

Chip, I was thinking the same thing. The PT6 reverse air flow really is ideal for a single engine application.

Except it takes a very complex intake reversing plenum with particle separator door/chute w/ice deflector mechanism. It seems easier to me to design a tail pipe with a dog leg that dumps out of the bottom.

Username Protected

Username Protected wrote:

Too bad they didn’t hang a Garrett on there. You’d have another 1700 hours to go, 2/3 the cost to OH and 20% less fuel burn. The fuel savings will pay the OH. :bang:

As much as Garretts are fine engines, -10s with the desired maintenance schedule/support can't make the ponies up high to make a TBM do what a TBM does.

Something like 1100 thermodynamic HP on -10s vs a PT6A-64s ~1580 hp. Or 66D's 1825 hp

331-14 could do the trick but suffers from unicorn issues

Username Protected

Username Protected wrote:

Chip, I was thinking the same thing. The PT6 reverse air flow really is ideal for a single engine application.

Except it takes a very complex intake reversing plenum with particle separator door/chute w/ice deflector mechanism. It seems easier to me to design a tail pipe with a dog leg that dumps out of the bottom.

Username Protected

TBM 960’s with fadec engines have 5000 hrs tbo now.