Yes, there's a lot of sticker shock these days!

We see buyers over paying for aircraft that are close to engine events because they are ignorant of the actual cost.

Here’s another data point.

While working as a designer for a business jet/turboprop/APU manufacturer (ok, Garrett), I would be faced with the liability questions routinely. A friend worked in the product liability group and told me the following:

Any time anything happened to an airplane, from the most trivial to catastrophic, the company would be named in a lawsuit. The gamut ranged from ramp rashes to fatal crashes.

90-95% of these lawsuits could be dismissed within a short time by demonstrating the engine had no causal contribution to the incident/accident

Of the remaining lawsuits 80-85% would be dismissed by discovery

The small percentage left would be settled with a financial agreement

Very few lawsuits ever reached a courtroom

However, the cost of answering these lawsuits (attorneys, engineering reviews, quality records gathered, etc) averaged $50,000/incident (mid 1980s dollars) and Garrett was seeing close to a thousand filings a year

You do the math

Mostly true. Pratt, GE, Lycoming, and Allison were significantly subsidized by the US Government for various military programs and leveraged their military cores into commercial applications. For example, PW J75 > JT8, Lycoming T55 > LF502, GE TF34 > CF34.

Williams was a special case, having already internally funded development of the FJ44 when the DoD scooped it up for the cruise missile (I was working on a project in college with the cross-section and performance manual when it suddenly was classified - requiring me to return all the documentation in my possession - and leaving my project in ruins )

Garrett developed the TPE331 and TFE731 families internally, but got some return via tax dollars on the OV-10 and C-21A programs.

Being new to the PT6 world, this is an eye opening thread. I believe(d) that most of the value in my 44 year old, new to me twin turboprop is in the engines. 55 fight hours in and they seem to be doing well. They are just a few hours over 500 hours since overhaul. I suppose time will tell.

Yes, it was first run. So far we are not seeing many late model PC-12's ran past TBO.

Here’s another data point.

While working as a designer for a business jet/turboprop/APU manufacturer (ok, Garrett), I would be faced with the liability questions routinely. A friend worked in the product liability group and told me the following:

Any time anything happened to an airplane, from the most trivial to catastrophic, the company would be named in a lawsuit. The gamut ranged from ramp rashes to fatal crashes.

90-95% of these lawsuits could be dismissed within a short time by demonstrating the engine had no causal contribution to the incident/accident

Of the remaining lawsuits 80-85% would be dismissed by discovery

The small percentage left would be settled with a financial agreement

Very few lawsuits ever reached a courtroom

However, the cost of answering these lawsuits (attorneys, engineering reviews, quality records gathered, etc) averaged $50,000/incident (mid 1980s dollars) and Garrett was seeing close to a thousand filings a year

You do the math

I read that the JT8D (737 & 727 engine) was derived from the J52 (used on the A-4 and A-6):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J52

I looked up some older numbers from 2004.

A PT6-135 hot section ran between $17k, best case, and $45k, worst case. An overhaul was $150k, and a brand-new engine was $276k.

You get your clients to spend a lot of money using fear.

Buy more expensive airplanes, put them on expensive programs, use expensive shops.

I remain convinced all the extra money you spend on "preserving" value isn't dollar for dollar. You'll be lucky to get 50 cents on every dollar back doing this.

It is easy to spend a lot of money in aviation, it is a lot harder to get a lot of value in aviation.

The engine shop makes a lot of difference and it isn't just labor rates. It is mostly about flexibility in addressing things. An independent shop may allow you not to have to do some expensive SB, whereas a DOF will force it, for example. A DOF won't let you use blade regrowth options, or used parts, or anything else like that.

What DOF really means is "we lack flexibility because we do it the way Pratt wants us to". Pratt has marketed it as a feature, but it really is all about taking options away from the customer and forcing an expensive overhaul.

Mike C.

A lot of these authorized Service Center and certified repair station places are like that. Only new parts from the manufacturer. They don’t want to use PMA parts or serviceable parts or let you defer anything. I had a prop shop one time telling me they couldn’t balance my prop because it was seven years old, even though it had been re-sealed once in its lifetime and it was operated part 91. He said his FAA guy thinks it’s unairworthy. I said have him put it writing and send it over. One of my clients had his airplane annualled by a beechcraft Service Center out in Nevada, and he did 2 air turn backs, once with smoke in the cockpit. It seems they couldn’t understand how to diagnose or replace a seized AC idler pulley.

You get your clients to spend a lot of money using fear.

Buy more expensive airplanes, put them on expensive programs, use expensive shops.

I remain convinced all the extra money you spend on "preserving" value isn't dollar for dollar. You'll be lucky to get 50 cents on every dollar back doing this.

It is easy to spend a lot of money in aviation, it is a lot harder to get a lot of value in aviation.

The engine shop makes a lot of difference and it isn't just labor rates. It is mostly about flexibility in addressing things. An independent shop may allow you not to have to do some expensive SB, whereas a DOF will force it, for example. A DOF won't let you use blade regrowth options, or used parts, or anything else like that.

What DOF really means is "we lack flexibility because we do it the way Pratt wants us to". Pratt has marketed it as a feature, but it really is all about taking options away from the customer and forcing an expensive overhaul.

Mike C.

And, my example was a -67 Pratt… where would you suggest the owner (seller) take it?

It really boils down to “I save money by skipping manufacturer recommended maintenance.”

That’s it. That’s the whole secret of cheap jets.

Is it smart? Check back in 20 years for the answer!

You get your clients to spend a lot of money using fear.

Buy more expensive airplanes, put them on expensive programs, use expensive shops.

I remain convinced all the extra money you spend on "preserving" value isn't dollar for dollar. You'll be lucky to get 50 cents on every dollar back doing this.

It is easy to spend a lot of money in aviation, it is a lot harder to get a lot of value in aviation.

The engine shop makes a lot of difference and it isn't just labor rates. It is mostly about flexibility in addressing things. An independent shop may allow you not to have to do some expensive SB, whereas a DOF will force it, for example. A DOF won't let you use blade regrowth options, or used parts, or anything else like that.

What DOF really means is "we lack flexibility because we do it the way Pratt wants us to". Pratt has marketed it as a feature, but it really is all about taking options away from the customer and forcing an expensive overhaul.

Mike C.

The more money the client spends on the shop, programs, etc, the more the blame falls on the shop, program, etc and not the consultant when things don't go right.

It doesn't take a lot of insight to simply recommend the expensive path. To find a more economical path requires more care and knowledge.

Mike C.