You have to do "inspections", you don't have to do "overhauls", according to what I've been told. So hot section and/or gear box inspection is required, engine overhaul is not.

Seems to me that's a fine line of semantics since I'm not sure what makes on process an overhaul and the other an inspection. Or, to put it another way, why wouldn't the manufacturer call all engine work an "inspection".

Mike C.

Overhaul a PT-66D or -64 required in a TBM?

Part 91. Short answer no, but, a Big but.

1. There are cycle limits on some parts in the -66 which when done timely fall around 3500 hours in service, 4000 cycles. U make the choice.
2. Personally I wouldn't buy a TBM with over 3500 hours if it hadn't been overhauled, unless I could get a large enough discount on it to pay for a replacement -66 or if PW said overhaul at the current time would suffice, $$$.

All the above goes out the window if you have your own approved MX plan with the FSDO I guess. I don't qualify.

Only my opinion but PW doesn't leave lots of wiggle room to fudge, even part 91. For me and from what I gather most turbine owners feel the price to keep it maintained is OK and part of why we have one in the first place... Safety, power, great dispatch on and on.

I'll follow the manufacturers recommendations in this area and feel safe. Whether with my granddaughter, coworkers or just my lonesome flying along...

No, but you must comply with Hot Section Inspections. And if the inspection fails to pass, you must replace/repair as needed. Also, many of the parts inside the engine have cycle limits, and those too must be complied with.

For example (just making up numbers), if you have a 3500 TBO engine, and the turbine disk has a 3500 cycle life, and you average 1 hour per flight, then even if you skip overhaul you must replace the turbine disk at 3500 cycles which equates in this example to about 3500 hours.

OTOH, most of the Pratt wheels have cycle limits between 15,000-25,000. You can run several OH cycles without replacing them.

It's similar for the Garrett/Honeywell engines, I just don't know the numbers off the top of my head. I made up numbers to illustrate the concept. Sorry if I made someone think the cycle limit numbers in my previous post were anything realistic, they weren't.

Dave,

I'm also based at KPAE. I sent you a PM.

Mark

I'm building a new Evolution for $1.3m WITH de-ice. Where are you hearing $2m and no de-ice? They have several options.

Also, I was told that I will have a really hard time selling my TP Bonanza because it was a "white elephant" or whatever analogy people used. I sold it within 2 months and for more money than I bought it for.

That's not true at all. In fact I'm fairly certain the Evolution will cost less to operate than the bonanza.

I'm actually not getting insurance on my Evo. I spoke with the guy that engineered the plane and he said it's not worth it. According to him, if you buy insurance you will have paid for a gear up landing within 3 years. He recommended not getting the insurance and just paying for anything that comes along and I'd be money ahead. He's been doing this with is planes for the past 20 years and have never had an incident.

Just something to consider.

You are asking the other patients in the mental asylum.

What is it you WANT to do? Do that. What's your money for otherwise?

Fixing up the A36 is viable. It is probably just a spate of problems you can work through and get resolved. You know the plane, that is worth something.

Buying a turboprop is a lifestyle changer. Fast, pressurized, all weather, reliable. Typically more suited to the businessman than the retiree, though. An older TBM can be sold reasonably quickly and at a decent price. The potential capital loss on the Evolution will swamp all other expenses. Some turboprop twins are pretty economical, too.

If what you really want is TRAVEL, take the $1M you'd spend on the Evolution, plus what it would have cost per year and per hour, and charter a jet where you want to go. If all you do is 100 hours in an A36 (say 16,000 nm/year), your fixed costs are dominating the budget and chartering may end up being cheaper overall.

Rough calc: $2K/hour, 350 knots block for typical light jet charter. Cost for 16,000 nm (A36 replacement) is $90K. 10 years would be $900K.

Evolution would be $1M to buy, $30K/year fixed costs, $450/hour to fly, 250 knots block. Works out to $59K year operating for 16,000 nm. Over 10 years, assume you can sell the Evolution for $400K, you spent total of $1.19M.

TBM would be $1M to buy, $30K/year fixed costs, $550/hour to fly, 280 knots block. Works out to $62K year operating for 16,000 nm. Over 10 years, assume you can sell TBM for $700K, you spent total of $920K.

Key insight: Being experimental doesn't really get you out of the major expenses for being a turboprop such as major engine events (HSI and OH), fuel, insurance, and parts. When you fly a turboprop, the maintenance labor becomes a small percentage of the cost (turboprop takes less routine labor), so being experimental doesn't help that much.

Mike C.

With all due respect to you Gerry - he is telling you not to buy insurance because the insurance is outrageously expensive and he didn't want anything to sour the deal for you to buy his airplane. Yes you would be looking at $20k+ per year and yes in 3 years time you would have perhaps $60k+ in the bank (roughly) which COULD cover a gear-up but may not. We worked a gear-up on a comparable airplane that was over $100k all said and done.

What the Evo salesman is overlooking is liability. Which is why a good rule of thumb is to never take risk management advise from the guy who is trying to peddle you an aircraft AND makes his living on the sale of such (no disrespect at all meant to aircraft salesmen or saleswomen). Sure if you want to not cover the hull that is perfectly fine and you accept that risk. But I wouldn't advise going bare on liability especially if you plan to fly with anyone.

With all due respect to you Gerry - he is telling you not to buy insurance because the insurance is outrageously expensive and he didn't want anything to sour the deal for you to buy his airplane. Yes you would be looking at $20k+ per year and yes in 3 years time you would have perhaps $60k+ in the bank (roughly) which COULD cover a gear-up but may not. We worked a gear-up on a comparable airplane that was over $100k all said and done.

What the Evo salesman is overlooking is liability. Which is why a good rule of thumb is to never take risk management advise from the guy who is trying to peddle you an aircraft AND makes his living on the sale of such (no disrespect at all meant to aircraft salesmen or saleswomen). Sure if you want to not cover the hull that is perfectly fine and you accept that risk. But I wouldn't advise going bare on liability especially if you plan to fly with anyone.

Point well taken Gerry - obviously he has some bias towards the airplane which is to be expected. I would however consider the liability side of my comment - which is the most important point I was trying to make. Hull insurance and your retention level is a personal choice but liability is not when other folks are involved (passengers and those on the ground).

Point well taken Gerry - obviously he has some bias towards the airplane which is to be expected. I would however consider the liability side of my comment - which is the most important point I was trying to make. Hull insurance and your retention level is a personal choice but liability is not when other folks are involved (passengers and those on the ground).