08 Nov 2025, 16:47 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 25 Jan 2021, 21:55 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/22/10 Posts: 1349 Post Likes: +3224 Location: Port Moresby and sometimes Brisbane
Aircraft: A36 Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: "The easy, golden rule of GA plane costs:
1$ or €/hp/hr. "
That's crazy accurate. In the USA maybe - doesn't work in Australia 
_________________ Chuck Perry A36 VH-EZU B737-800NG Redcliffe QLd, Australia
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 25 Jan 2021, 22:06 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20734 Post Likes: +26203 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In the USA maybe - doesn't work in Australia :thumbup: What is the exchange rate? Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 25 Jan 2021, 22:22 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/22/10 Posts: 1349 Post Likes: +3224 Location: Port Moresby and sometimes Brisbane
Aircraft: A36 Bonanza
|
|
1USD=AUD1.29. Even then it doesn't work - just on fuel alone. We pay about AUD2.20 per LITRE where you guys pay what US$4-5/USG? A$2.20x3.785= A$8.32/USG Having said that if I do the math - 300hp x A$1.29 an IO550 powered Bonanza like mine apparently costs A$387/hr. Wish I hadn't done that 
_________________ Chuck Perry A36 VH-EZU B737-800NG Redcliffe QLd, Australia
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 25 Jan 2021, 23:59 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11050 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: They are making great strides, and they may have had a restricted DOF approval 3 years ago but they weren't (to my knowledge) a DOF shop back then.
So, I am NOT doing my clients a disservice. I am giving them the complete picture so that they can make a good decision having ALL of the information.
Making great strides. Are you getting a kickback too? Epps does and so do most of the maintenance facilities. If you are advising a client to have a maintenance facility handle the HSI or overhaul, you're making a mistake. Plain and simple. That method adds so many more gotchas to the equation it's not even comparable. Nope, they were a DOF shop back then. I wanted to make sure that Pratt honored any warranty components. I will state that Covington does a better job than the shops you state. Just that simple. I did my homework. I spoke to at least 6 folks that did overhauls, HSI, mostly in the AG space. Craig C enlightened me as to what exactly a hot section and what is entailed. Not a lot of moving parts here, quite simple actually, all things considered. Just need the proper tooling and well taught mechanics. I even spoke with Paul Jones at length. He agreed that people without my methods and thought process are exactly why he has a job. He oversees what those fine facilities are doing and why. He's basically your calling 'bullshit' meter on the ground when they start taking things apart. You telling me that the quality of the folks in Dallas Airmotive are better than Convington? Simply not true. Are they charging more? You betcha!!!! Here's what I would like everyone on the boards to know. Who owns Standard and Dallas? Who owns Covington? The ownership and leadership is critical in ANY business. I know, I used to run em, and I've sold them to people who do run them. Chip, I like you man, but don't tell me that a Standard and Dallas are holding themselves to the same standard as Covington. Ain't possible mate, and it ain't even close. I did not need a Paul Jones on the ground when I went to Covington in Tunica Mississippi. You can see I feel strongly about this. As a guy selling into the owner flown market it behooves you to do the same. I will state this clearly, if you send someone to Dallas through a maintenance facility, you are doing them a serious disservice.
I’m not getting a kickback, I’m also not recommending they use a maintenance facility or that they don’t do exactly what you did and fly their airplane to Tunica, I give our clients the info, they decide.
I didn’t recommend Dallas Airmotive, I recommended Standard Aero. Ask Neema about his airplane and having Standard do the borescopes right after someone else had done them.
I also didn’t say Dallas did better work than Covington, I said they’re all using the same parts and none of them can get by with doing crappy work. Dallas does have the best name recognition, they just do... doesn’t mean I like them better than Covington and it doesn’t mean it is my opinion, it is a fact and anyone in the industry including the guys at Covington will tell you that.
Look through Controller listings or at spec sheets, you’ll see “Overhaul by Dallas” or “Overhaul by Pratt”
Personally I prefer working with Standard to Dallas or Pratt, I like Prime and I like Covington. I hope one day we’ll see ads that say “Overhauled by Covington” but Dallas and Standard, which was Vector before (PT6) have long histories. I’m pretty sure Dallas Airmotive has been one of Pratt’s OEM authorized repair centers for PT6’s longer than I have been alive. I would assume they were the first DDOF.
So to be clear, I said there’s a resale issue with using a non DOF shop for overhauls, since Covington is a DOF shop, that eliminates that issue. But, it could still be a factor to consider, that is all, overhauls by Pratt, Dallas or StandardAero... no concern. Covington or Prime, possible concern (perception not quality) any other shop... definitely a concern.
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 00:02 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/16/09 Posts: 7307 Post Likes: +2173 Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: BE-TBD
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 1USD=AUD1.29.
Even then it doesn't work - just on fuel alone. We pay about AUD2.20 per LITRE where you guys pay what US$4-5/USG?
A$2.20x3.785= A$8.32/USG: we pay more like $3/USG, as little as $2 recently. All bets off if you’re at the likes of Aspen
_________________ AI generated post. Any misrepresentation, inaccuracies or omissions not attributable to member.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 00:07 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11050 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Chip, how much “fat” would you consider there to be in the name-brand turbine engine business? Good question, I don’t really know, I do know that once they have your engine in pieces you’re at their mercy, which is why we recommend hiring someone. My focus is the new and used aircraft market and aircraft resale value, so that’s always where I’m going to come from on an issue like this, I’m certainly not an engine expert, so I don’t know how much padding actually goes on. I do know the market perception of these companies, and I also know more than I’m willing to say on here.
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 00:32 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11050 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: as of today the experienced PT6 powered turboprop buyer still looks at Covington as less than the other shops. I'm not saying their work is lower quality....To say that one shop's overhauls are better than another's is just silly....So, I am NOT doing my clients a disservice. I am giving them the complete picture so that they can make a good decision having ALL of the information. What you're describing is an opportunity to take advantage of other brokers' misguided prejudice to pick up an equally good airplane for a discount. I presume that's what you're telling your clients? Quote: Covington is the new kid on the block and it will take awhile for them to build the reputation that a Dallas Airmotive or Standard Aero has. Let's give them a few years and see how the market responds. So if your client is planning to keep the plane for a few years, you're saying by then the prejudice may well have disappeared and they may get full price reselling the plane they bought at a discount. I'll bet your clients are happy to hear that.
It’s important to note that a lot of those brokers have been doing this a long time and they’ve been burned. Their number one criteria is DDOF overhauls, I looked, Covington has been for ten years, that’s longer than I thought, I also suspect there might be more to the story. They are still building their reputation in the corporate world, they were known until recently, as an AG company. They’ve won Penman over, but I’m guessing they still have some work to do to convince Mark Smith, Todd Jackson or Greg Gilliend.
The reality is that this hasn’t been an issue for us to address yet because we haven’t found an airplane with Covington overhauls on it. That’s partially because most of the PT6 airplanes we acquire are King Airs, many of them late model, and if they’ve been overhauled at all, it is typically Pratt, Dallas or Standard. That’s the norm, people are careful about stepping outside the norm.
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 01:03 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20734 Post Likes: +26203 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: That’s the norm, people are careful about stepping outside the norm. I'm starting to discount this mystique assigned to premium turbine overhaul shops. I sense it may be a marketing construct more than a practical one. The parts are the same. Wheels, blades, stators, shrouds, liners, impellers, etc. So that's not the value proposition for a premium shop. So it must be somehow in the care with which they are assembled. But realistically, there's a very prescribe procedures of how to do this. Assembly sequence, balancing, torques, clearances, etc. There is really not much left to the discretion of the assembler so I don't know where this supposed premium craftsmanship comes into play. With the right tools and following the right procedure, the outcome should be a fine working engine whether it is employee #157 at a big premium overhaul shop or Joe Main Guy at a small shop. Part of this is that I've research airplanes with engines overhauled from various shops, PWC, Dallas, and smaller ones. There is no obvious correlation between the shop and the results as far as I can tell. A pair of PWC overhauled JT5D-5A engines with 800 SMOH both had burner can issues requiring hot section repair (discovered on a borescope prebuy). Another pair on their 4th overhaul and 3000 SMOH from a small shop had never had an unscheduled event (borescope also, looked very nice). And so forth. Obviously my sample size of about 30 engines or so isn't very statistical. The overhaul shop seemed to be the least sensitive factor in engine service history. How the engine was used and who used it was FAR more important. I'm sure the proper upstanding brokers, owners, and engine shop guys who value the premium shop will dutifully defend their value, but for me, if a shop can HSI or OH my engine according to the book and do it right, I don't see much value in paying substantially more for a name in the log books. It should be noted that many of the smaller shops are started by and/or hire folks that came from the premium shops. If the sales pitch is "the guy" doing the work, then what is the difference if its is the same guy? Another thing that I found refreshing about the small shops is they would give you a straight answer to some basic questions. The premium shops didn't get back to me or took days, and their answers were often not very useful. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 01:23 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20734 Post Likes: +26203 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My thought for the HSI was you might have a set of blades that are just within tolerances, just barely. As an owner, I don't want an overhaul shop using criteria they impose beyond what the manual says. If the part meets tolerance, it meets tolerance. If it doesn't, it doesn't. The tolerance was set with margins determined by engineering requirements. It will work if it is within spec. The criteria accounts for the wear that will occur during the next HSI/OH cycle. It should not be subjective and thus influenced by possible revenue motivations of the shop. Imagine if this was a piston engine: "Your crankshaft journals are within spec, but only by 3 thou, so we decided you needed a new one." If selecting a premium shop means they can spend your money like that, I definitely would prefer something else. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 01:39 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 06/28/09 Posts: 14423 Post Likes: +9555 Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As an owner, I don't want an overhaul shop using criteria they impose beyond what the manual says.
As an owner I'd want to be consulted and consider it. To borrow your piston analogy, Continental says anything over 30/80 psi is a serviceable jug. One owner might say "good enough for me", another might say "top em all" and another might land somewhere in the middle. A trusted shop will make recommendations based on experience. I don't have enough info to know if the reported 6k vs 30k is comparing apples to apples.
_________________ http://calipilot.com atp/cfii
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 01:46 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/22/10 Posts: 1349 Post Likes: +3224 Location: Port Moresby and sometimes Brisbane
Aircraft: A36 Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 1USD=AUD1.29.
Even then it doesn't work - just on fuel alone. We pay about AUD2.20 per LITRE where you guys pay what US$4-5/USG?
A$2.20x3.785= A$8.32/USG: we pay more like $3/USG, as little as $2 recently. All bets off if you’re at the likes of Aspen
Wow. A$8.32/USG is cheap in Australia - go out into the remote areas and its a LOT more. No wonder you guys can afford to run things like Dukes. In Australia a Duke would run about A$330+/hr just on avgas.
The avgas prices you're quoting is what we were paying 30+ years ago in this part of the world - when I owned my C185. In those halcyon days it was said (reliable sources) that the fuel tax we payed covered 100% of the cost of GA use of the system - then they bought in 'user pays' and all of a sudden we had to pay for charts, landing fees etc.
You boys and girls are lucky indeed- protect what you have.
_________________ Chuck Perry A36 VH-EZU B737-800NG Redcliffe QLd, Australia
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 02:47 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 03/09/13 Posts: 929 Post Likes: +472 Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: C525,C25A,C25C,CL604
|
|
Username Protected wrote: [Wow. A$8.32/USG is cheap in Australia - go out into the remote areas and its a LOT more. No wonder you guys can afford to run things like Dukes. In Australia a Duke would run about A$330+/hr just on avgas. Yep the days of filling up EZU out of RED with the gang to BNA for a $100 burger are long gone. Andrew
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 26 Jan 2021, 04:13 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6652 Post Likes: +5963 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Aerostar Superstar 2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It seem like it would be a gold mine. What am I missing? The original design data to know how the part was made. The engineering effort to replicate the design. The testing to verify the design works properly. The documentation to get the FAA to approve the design. The manufacturing know how to make the part. The quality control system to monitor and track making the part. The FAA PMA approval of your manufacturing and quality system. The distribution system to deliver the part. The marketing department to sell the part. The liability insurance to stay in business if the part fails. And finally, the capital to put all that together and hope you succeed before you go bankrupt. So, not much, really, go for it. Mike C.
But they go through all of this for multiple other very critical parts, why not engines? You'd have to show you can meet or improve upon design criteria for all those things for MORE, too.
_________________ Without love, where would you be now?
|
|
| 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 2007-2025
|
|
|
|