Can anyone tell me what the recurring SID inspections are for a 425? Hourly or calendar? About how much cost?

I recently read that the boots have to come off every ten years. True? I also spoke with David(?) at Yingling who told me horror stories of tail disassembly every so many years. Then a broker I know told me what he said was hogwash and was standard fair for Yingling since they're in the business of Conquest SID inspections.

I'm looking for a little clarification.

Also, a 441, King Air or Turbo Commander won't fit in my hangar. And please, I'm not interested in an MU-2.

Interested to hear what factors have you looking beyond your 414...

Sure...ummmm...

1. I loved my Baron's IO-550's - they ran turbine smooth LOP. These TSIO-520's do not.

2. When the airplane is loaded, at takeoff and climb, it feels underpowered. Of course this is why it's so efficient (relatively speaking) in cruise, like a Malibu.

3. I don't have much faith in these engines. I am concerned I'll someday have a catastrophic engine failure. Yes, I train for this regularly, but I consider myself an average pilot and would not like to have myself proven as a super-pilot. I have a bunch of employees and six young daughters (yes, 6) who rely on me.

4. My airplane is at RAM right now due to a cracked case.

5. I want a Conquest.

For reference I have a RAM VII conversion with winglets and hubcaps. It's about as good as it gets for a piston twin.

I would approach what Yingling says with some skepticism. A few years ago they did a pre-purchase inspection on a 425 and squawked a bunch of things as airworthiness items when they were airworthy and serviceable. It took some strong conversations with them to have them revise their report and admit they just felt the items were worn and would need replacement soon. I would get second opinions on Yingling recommendations.

Can't help you on the SIDS as they came out as I was selling my 425.

Btw, loved the 425.

Btw, I'm very curious on the same topic. I think the 425 is a great bang for the buck with all the advantages of the 421 cabin with turbine reliability. The main factor against is the SIDs inspections which I too am far from understanding the specifics. It seemed to me when I last looked that you're looking at 300AMU of inspections over 10yrs but I have no real data to back that up. So I'm anxious to hear the reality as well. If it is what I think, $3K / mo for inspections is a substantial consideration.

Call Joe Carr, Weststar Aviation in Grand Junction,CO.
They are Conquest experts.

John - As an additional suggestion to the above advice, I would talk to Juan Oviedo at DFWAM - he can provide good guidance. He maintains several 425s and I have a friend who absolutely loves his. They are very nice turboprops and provide great value. As far as I know the SIDs are not mandatory for Part 91.



Thank You!!!

Nuff said.

Personally, I try to find a larger hangar and go for the 441. it is probably the best personal turboprop there is. 300 knots, long range, etc. Just 5 more ft of wingspan...

Mike C.

OP was asking specifically about 425. Since there's roughly $1M in price delta between 441 and 425 how bout we honor OPs question and address the SIDs specific to 425?

Part 91 still has to comply with 91.409(f), and that is what makes the SIDs mandatory due to (3), the manufacturers program, being the default.

There is no escape clause for part 91.

However, another option is getting your own plan in place and approved by your FSDO. There is something of a cottage industry to do this, and this place is one of the bigger players in that:

http://www.baconaviation.com/

They have a program for the 425, I don't know the particulars.

When I asked about a Citation program (which may cost more than a 425, don't know), the answer was this:

"The program costs are as follows:
$5,000.00 Retainer due up front (one time fee)
$7,500.00 Approval fee due upon FAA approval (one time fee)
$1,250.00 Mandatory annual program review & trend monitoring (billed annually)"

I don't really understand the "annual fee" thing, seems made up to generate revenue and not really pertinent to the program.

In my view, SIDs are an illegal assumption of power by a manufacturer to impose ADs without FAA oversight. They exist in a nether world where the power the manufacturer has can't be what they got due to federal regulations (and the FAA counsel so opined), but an airplane can be turned from being airworthy one moment to being unairworthy the next simply by changing owners. This is stupid and insane.

Mike C.

I looked at their website. Seems like a logical source for info. I'll give'em a call. Thanks.

I flew ser.#5 back in 1983-4. Really enjoyed it. Lottery time it would be my choice.

Mike, I came across a 425 for sale that was on this plan, so I looked into it further. The particulars are deserving of their own thread, much of which I have forgotten. The jist of it for me was that I will avoid these airplanes simply due to resale value.

+1. Well said.

That would require both widening my door and lengthening my hangar. Doable, but a lot of trouble.