BeechTalk - BT - Pratt reaches ONE BILLION hours in service!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2024, 20:19

Username Protected wrote:

Not if it’s a million engines each running for 1000 hours. That’s a million low time engines. I would expect them to have an excellent record. Their number is meaningless.

Actually, another angle on this is WHICH PT6 are we talking about? There are pretty significant differences between the small ones and the big ones.

I'd be interested in a breakdown of those billion hours and failure rates by engine series.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2024, 22:03

They may not have a billion hours, but I wonder how the Garrett TPE 331's stack up...other than making rampers go deaf.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2024, 22:54

Quote:

Here's what caused my last (and hopefully last) in-flight engine failure. It was a PT6-28, and IIRC this shaft coupled between the fuel controller and pump...before the splines stripped.

Are talking about that red plastic drive shaft between the pump and the FCU? I thought if that failed the FCU goes to max fuel (runaway torque). Is that what happened?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2024, 23:37

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

Here's what caused my last (and hopefully last) in-flight engine failure. It was a PT6-28, and IIRC this shaft coupled between the fuel controller and pump...before the splines stripped.

Are talking about that red plastic drive shaft between the pump and the FCU? I thought if that failed the FCU goes to max fuel (runaway torque). Is that what happened?

In this incident, the engine just quickly spooled down, as if i had pulled the fuel shut off. The mechanics presented me with that shaft as a souvenir.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Apr 2024, 01:36

Username Protected wrote:

How is their billion hour number normalized? How many engines are represented by that? If a billion engines each flew flawlessly for one hour, does that count? A billion hours is about 114,000 years. Their number is marketing hype. It's meaningless by itself.

I’ll finish this thread later, but just wanted you to know that you are a fart in the space suit at the moment :lol:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Apr 2024, 07:46

I think that’s a complement. :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Apr 2024, 11:03

Username Protected wrote:

I think that’s a complement. :scratch:

It is

Apologies for the lack of loving sincerity :bow:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Apr 2024, 11:15

I’m so lost.

:whiteflag:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2025, 18:25

Just had one today. We suspect FCU failure.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2025, 15:55

At Cessna, we went through engine failure and removal rates when working on military proposals and also had a captive fleet of T-47's. We found significant differences in engine failure and removal rates between our data and PWC data. There were two major reasons for the differences. The first one is that PWC can only report data that they know about, which is not all of it. The second one is that they only report data that "counts," per their criteria.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Apr 2025, 16:11

Username Protected wrote:

Not if it’s a million engines each running for 1000 hours. That’s a million low time engines. I would expect them to have an excellent record. Their number is meaningless.

Really? You're smarter than your posts on this thread are showing. Prove me wrong.......

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Apr 2025, 16:28

What plane has a key board?

I can't be sure from the picture but it looks like a Steinway380.