28 Mar 2024, 09:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 01:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 09:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 10:15 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 13:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 13:58 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 Matt
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 16:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
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” . 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 |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|