banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 09:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 447 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 01:30 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5519
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:

They just quoted a King Air 300 interior for me for $55k... that’s cheap enough.

I don’t doubt $18k for Commander but I’m assuming that doesn’t include wood?


Correct, no wood. In fact, that was not including my refreshment center, which I was hoping to do myself as a woodworking project, but obviously have never gotten around to... ;)

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 01:36 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7248
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
It doesn’t have anything to do with age or how wealthy the customer is... this shop does big airplanes, I’ll promise you they weren’t sticking it to my boots and jeans client with a 17 year old PC12!!!

It cost more to paint a Pilatus than it does to paint a $3m King Air.

The Pilatus is more labor, a lot more. There’s a lot more parts and pieces to remove. Many of those parts are composite and have to be prepped properly. It’s more work to do paint and interior on the Pilatus so they charge more.

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 01:43 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7248
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Always remember there’s 4 paint jobs...

2 year... 5 year... 10 year... and 15 year...

All good shops are extremely competitive it just depends on how much quality you want to pay for. If you want a 15 year paint job, go to Elliott… But you’ll pay for it.

To be clear so that I don’t have a bunch people saying well my paint is 20 years old and looks fine, I’m talking about turbine aircraft and the paint needing very little attention when it’s 15 years old, assuming the aircraft has always been hangared.

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 09:41 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/05/11
Posts: 9552
Post Likes: +6409
Company: Power/mation
Location: Milwaukee, WI (KMKE)
Aircraft: 1963 Debonair B33
Adam,

Elsewhere here on BT a painter chimed in and gave Chip the info he just provided to you; pics and all.

Chip had asked the same question you did, "why are Pilati so expensive to paint?"

I would not have believed it either.

There are enough active Pilati that a shop could probably specialize in painting just that bird and wring out some efficiency.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 09:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
It doesn’t have anything to do with age or how wealthy the customer is... this shop does big airplanes, I’ll promise you they weren’t sticking it to my boots and jeans client with a 17 year old PC12!!!

It cost more to paint a Pilatus than it does to paint a $3m King Air.

The Pilatus is more labor, a lot more. There’s a lot more parts and pieces to remove. Many of those parts are composite and have to be prepped properly. It’s more work to do paint and interior on the Pilatus so they charge more.

Who cares what paint and interior cost? How often do you get that done? I'm sure I could get quotes all over the board. If I re-did mine I would go all out. The pictures you posted of that PC12 that had paint and interior were awesome. Very high $$ job. Paint it all white and do all grey interior and the price probably drops in half.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 10:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2126
Post Likes: +1606
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
The thought of stripping an airplane gives me the willies. All I can think about is all the caustic material that never comes out of the lap joints.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 13:55 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 2901
Post Likes: +966
Company: SkewTLogPro
Location: Tampa, FL (KVDF)
Aircraft: 1984 Bonanza A36TN
I took a shot at a spreadsheet to quantify the lowest cost turboprops. Here is a Googlesheet that compares a range of TPs from the Cheyenne I to the PC12. I have no idea if the assumptions are correct but I think they are in the ballpark.

The spreadsheet is editable so if you have better assumptions please enter them.

Based on the initial assumptions, it looks like the MU2 is the lowest cost TP at $3.28/nm using 100 hours per year. At 400 hours per year the TBM 850 is the lowest cost TP at $1.59/nm.

If you would like another TP added to this list, post the details and I will add the columns.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

_________________
Friends don't let friends fly commercial.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 13:58 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7248
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
The thought of stripping an airplane gives me the willies. All I can think about is all the caustic material that never comes out of the lap joints.


I am with you Mark, and another reason to use a quality shop. We passed on a Lear 40XR last year because of where the dealer had the paint done.

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 14:01 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14128
Post Likes: +9073
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Nice work Chad. Can you add the commander 690 and the meridian?

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Chad, nice spreadsheet, problem is it's not entirely accurate. My hull value is 3.2MM I think and I pay 1/3rd of your insurance. Hangar is higher though.

No chance the Cheyenne maintenance is less than a PC12.......no chance.

I still think for an evaluation of operating costs Conklin Decker is best. Now us cheap pilots can do it ourselves for less, ala myself and Mike C, but those folks make a living on running numbers.

Chip has this information in a fancy spreadsheet........so Chip, give us the hourly and per mile numbers at 200, 300 and 400 hours per year.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/29/13
Posts: 1089
Post Likes: +401
Location: KRMN
Aircraft: Baron 58P
Username Protected wrote:
Chip's already 4 glasses into a good Cabernet!!!!



You get 4 glasses out of good bottle :scratch:

:D

Matt


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:21 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 2901
Post Likes: +966
Company: SkewTLogPro
Location: Tampa, FL (KVDF)
Aircraft: 1984 Bonanza A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
Chad, nice spreadsheet, problem is it's not entirely accurate. My hull value is 3.2MM I think and I pay 1/3rd of your insurance. Hangar is higher though.

No chance the Cheyenne maintenance is less than a PC12.......no chance.


That is a great rate on insurance. I will change the rate for the PC12 to 0.33%. What do you think the MX on the Cheyenne should be?

_________________
Friends don't let friends fly commercial.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:22 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 2901
Post Likes: +966
Company: SkewTLogPro
Location: Tampa, FL (KVDF)
Aircraft: 1984 Bonanza A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
Nice work Chad. Can you add the commander 690 and the meridian?


Done. I've used some swag numbers so please update them with better assumptions.

_________________
Friends don't let friends fly commercial.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 16:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/12
Posts: 610
Post Likes: +279
Location: London
Aircraft: TC690A
Username Protected wrote:
For a low cost TP look at a Commander 840 with dash 5 engines, or for even less money go with a 690 with dash 5s.

Patrick bought a nice 690 with dual G600s, GTNs and a bunch of other nice upgrades, for a lot less than 500k.


I agree with most of what Steve says, I've been too busy to be reading BT much lately and just recently found this thread. I don't agree that I paid "a lot less than 500k", although I wish I had; guess it depends on how one defines “a lot” :D . Were it not for the unfortunate vandalism of my aircraft which I'm still getting fixed (the only upside of which might be a G600 TXi installation), it would seem to me that I might be the poster child for this initial query - Yes, you can fly a reliable, 260-270 knot turboprop for not a lot of money, and it doesn't have to have run out engines, an embarrassing paintjob, archaic avionics and a dubious maintenance history.
The TC flies shockingly well on one engine, climbing better than piston twins I've flown do on two.

I am jealous of the PC-12 interior but that's an aircraft which costs ~4x+ my purchase price and has higher all in running costs, from what I can tell (I could be wrong but I'm not looking to trade 1 engine for 2 and tie up so much more capital in an aircraft). For my family, everything that looks like a potential step up is a HUGE uptick in price - be it purchase price, running costs or both. I'm jealous of jets flying above weather I would find myself inside. I'm a bit jealous of Steve's plane with -10 engines (for that extra climb umph above FL20 and TAS in the high 20s) and that lovely new interior but, again, it's a different category of price. For me the upgrade used plane is something which costs 4-5x to purchase and probably at least 2x to run. I can't fit my family in a Mustang, Citation Jet or CJ1, so it's at least a CJ2 or similar. The PC-12 would be better for the family given the size of the cabin, the potty.... Both of those are a lot more dough. I don't see making the leap to TC with -10 engines, although it would make some sense...

If I had to trade down, I'd probably look at single pistons or buy a R44 and get my rotary certificate and give up on hauling the family around.

Turboprop operating costs are not piston cheap but the performance and reliability is in a completely different category. For my aircraft, engine failure prior to rotation on most of the runways I use means either plenty of stopping distance or rotating and continuing the takeoff (obviously dependent on when the failure occurs).

Yes, hangarage is expensive with big wings, but jet fuel is cheap(er) and, especially for me now operating out of Europe, it isn't something I have to worry about having be available in the near future, the way 100LL already is in certain EU countries and is likely to be soon in others. I've been pleasantly surprised by the parts availability and support for an out of production aircraft.

You need to be ready to write what are, by comparison to many piston twins and singles, pretty big checks if things go wrong. But it seems to me from everything I've read here and elsewhere that the small number of high performance, larger cabin, pressurized, turbocharged piston aircraft out there which have anything approaching turboprop performance require similar check writing capacity, certainly on the engine side, and with a much higher certainty of having to write that check. And, frankly given the amount of work and tinkering I see owners and their mechanics doing on the high performance twin, turbocharged, pressurized pistons, I'm just not sure I'm willing to deal with the time and energy that would require. I'm also not sure I'd feel safe carrying my family around in a aircraft I was expecting to lose an engine, because that just seems to happen with those birds, which can't keep flying on one very well when they are fully loaded (which it would be with my and my family and fuel for reasonable trip). I have a different standard of safety for flying with my family than I do for flying solo.

Having gone turbine, and found a reliable, low(ish) cost turboprop at, what seemed to me to be a shockingly good purchase price, I cannot imagine going back...


Last edited on 11 Nov 2017, 16:50, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 16:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 17507
Post Likes: +21008
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
If one is price sensitive, a partnership is a great way to split costs.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 447 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Marsh.jpg.