19 Apr 2024, 17:24 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 16:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/13 Posts: 1930 Post Likes: +1195 Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
|
|
My aerostar just lunched a valve this weekend.... I'm getitng weary of turbos, plugs, valves, mags, etc etc... Spending a significant portion of my flying attention on the EGT's CHT's etc....
The turbine guys talk about no maintance events between annuals.... The mission is 2 to 4 people 300 to 1000nm.
I think I'd prefer something TPE rather than PT6.... This is owner flown, so time based rather than calandar based big maintinence events would be prefered....
MU2, commander, Conquest, Merlin, Cheyenne, or King Air?
What would the minimum price of entry be for a fully sorted out debugged turboprop....
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 16:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/09/13 Posts: 244 Post Likes: +150 Location: KICT/KFFZ/KLAS
Aircraft: CE25B+/CE25C/DA40
|
|
Single or twin?
Sounds like a job for a meridian.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 17:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
$1 Mil give or take.
MU-2 will be the bargain in the bunch if you can deal with the stigma and SFAR.
If you are serious then go shop all the models you have listed and buy the best example you can afford.
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 17:19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 6310 Post Likes: +3805 Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think I'd prefer something TPE rather than PT6.... This is owner flown, so time based rather than calandar based big maintinence events would be prefered.... Seems unlikely you will get anything that doesn't have a calendar based component to its inspection regime anymore... MU2 has an annual component to its inspections. Basically for me, at about 100hrs/year, I have to do something annually. That said, some years are bigger than others (100hr/200hr/1 year is a "small" inspection, 600hr/3year is a "bigger" inspection, closer to the scope of an annual in the piston world). Quote: MU2, commander, Conquest, Merlin, Cheyenne, or King Air? Well, you know what I'm partial to. I think MU2 will be the least expensive of those options to own and operate. You will need to be OK with annual training required by SFAR, but basically in my experience it's not different than what insurance required me to do with the Cessna 340. So if you're insured, you're going to be doing annual recurrent in this class of airplane. Quote: What would the minimum price of entry be for a fully sorted out debugged turboprop.... I haven't followed the market, so I'm not entirely sure, but I would think something like this one would be pretty good. Avionics look OK (not superb, but OK), TPE331-10 conversion and low time engines (where the value really is on these). It's probably priced a hair high but make an offer and see what happens. Do some detailed research, you'll get to know what things to look for, what you want, what things are worth, etc.
_________________ -Jon C.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 17:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13066 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The mission is 2 to 4 people 300 to 1000nm.
Pilatus
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lowest cost reliable Turboprop? Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 17:35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6357 Post Likes: +5540 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Paul, you're thinking is good - TPE will be a lot cheaper than PT6. MU-2's used to be the bang for buck king, but after the SFAR and the safety improvements, I've seen the prices increase more on them than on Commanders, making Commanders probably a more economical choice these days. You can get into a lower end 690A for about $300K. It will have old avionics and higher time -5 engines, but it'll fly. It probably won't have the permanent spar for that price, so you'll have to inspect that every 36 months and do the gears every 5 years. Not a huge amount of money, but still an inconvenience.
Now, if you really want to save money, you basically need the plane I own. A 680V with the Century Dash 1 engine upgrade. These planes have no spar inspection, no mandatory gear overhauls or inspections, and no SB241, no expensive heated windscreens or anything like that to contend with. I think they're probably the cheapest twin turbines you can run anywhere, at least on paper. On par with an Aerostar. No speed demons, but not bad either, 240-250kts up high on 60gal/hr. Considering the 690A with -5's only does about 20-25kts more, it's not a bad deal.
I'd be willing to entertain selling mine down the road, if you're truly interested. Everything has been done to it. New panel, new interior going in now, new winglets, new radar, newly polished windscreens etc.
_________________ 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: 31 Oct 2017, 18:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6357 Post Likes: +5540 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You don't want that one. It's got the original -43A engines, 2000hr TBO, hydraulic pressurization and sloooooooooow. You need the Century converted models. They're rarely on market, but if I sold mine it wouldn't be much more than what he's asking. And that's with everything done to it and new panel etc.
_________________ 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: 31 Oct 2017, 18:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6357 Post Likes: +5540 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Shocker, Paul - we've all advocated for the airplane we own.... Ha, well, to prove I'm not completely one-eyed, I'd look into Merlins as well. I'm kind of a high or mid-wing guy myself, but they sure as hell have some impressive performance. 7.0psi cabin diff to start with, which makes them really comfy for long range travel. And 2600nm range - insane! BT member Erwin Klassen flies his Merlin IIIB from deep South America to the US with just a single stop.
_________________ 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: 31 Oct 2017, 18:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/18/13 Posts: 1152 Post Likes: +767
Aircraft: 737
|
|
MU2 Solitaire unless you’ve got a big family, then a Merlin IIIA-10.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|