+1 on that Michael! The engine is rarely the problem.

Bruce I was quoting per engine. So we are in agreement there. I was also quoting the current 1.1 MM single -67 engine overhaul cost Chip spoke of.

Chip everyone knows Pratt can report profits as it sees fit. The fact remains that they are 100% above inflation adjusted pricing of 20 years ago. They also are attempting to be the only overhaul source. Yeah, that’s Greed pure and simple.

MORE proves that these engines are overhauled too soon for the most part. I’ll grant Bruce’s caveat as to operational environment.

Just because everyone does it (which is wrong by the way Chip) doesn’t mean it’s correct. As to Michael’s post I agree… the level of talent doing these overhauls has gone way down so I’m not sure a newly overhauled engine isn’t all it’s cracked up to be nowadays.

But Chip, go ahead! Tell your customers to spend more! You’re not paying the bill, right?

Overhauling first run Pt-6 engines at 3600 hrs is one Bruce. Then charging them 1.2 million per engine.
In 2004 that was 240k adjusted for inflation that’s 475k. Double or more? Pure Greed

At least at Garrett goes to 5400 hrs

I'm not aware that Williams requires data uploads for FJ44 engines on program. Where did you get that from? That is not listed in the TAP contract under owner responsibilities.

Also, they still enroll engines which have been off program for 1000s of hours, even up to the last hour before the off program overhaul time. The only thing they require is a corrosion borescope check to do so, not even any data download. How does the metal know to last longer suddenly when you send in a check?

Lastly, some engines, like the FJ44-2A, don't have FADEC data to download at all. Same TBO rules apply, TBO gets extended on program.

There is no meaningful difference in care for on or off program engines, yet there is a difference in TBO. This is a blatant business decision, not engineering.

Mike C.

Bruce I was quoting per engine. So we are in agreement there. I was also quoting the current 1.1 MM single -67 engine overhaul cost Chip spoke of.

Chip everyone knows Pratt can report profits as it sees fit. The fact remains that they are 100% above inflation adjusted pricing of 20 years ago. They also are attempting to be the only overhaul source. Yeah, that’s Greed pure and simple.

MORE proves that these engines are overhauled too soon for the most part. I’ll grant Bruce’s caveat as to operational environment.

Just because everyone does it (which is wrong by the way Chip) doesn’t mean it’s correct. As to Michael’s post I agree… the level of talent doing these overhauls has gone way down so I’m not sure a newly overhauled engine isn’t all it’s cracked up to be nowadays.

But Chip, go ahead! Tell your customers to spend more! You’re not paying the bill, right?

I'm not aware that Williams requires data uploads for FJ44 engines on program. Where did you get that from? That is not listed in the TAP contract under owner responsibilities.

Also, they still enroll engines which have been off program for 1000s of hours, even up to the last hour before the off program overhaul time. The only thing they require is a corrosion borescope check to do so, not even any data download. How does the metal know to last longer suddenly when you send in a check?

Lastly, some engines, like the FJ44-2A, don't have FADEC data to download at all. Same TBO rules apply, TBO gets extended on program.

There is no meaningful difference in care for on or off program engines, yet there is a difference in TBO. This is a blatant business decision, not engineering.

Mike C.

MORE doesn't prove that at all. MORE says if you do an inspection of the smaller Pratt engines every 400 hours and repair as needed, you can run them to 8000 hours.

MORE applied for an STC on -60A engines and it was denied.

It is important to note that the components of those engines are similar and have the same basic metallurgy, but the larger engines operate at much higher temperatures, pressures and stress.

Do I believe you can get 8000 hours from a -21,-28,-135,-41/42... sure.

Do I believe you can do the same with -60, -66, -67 not sure. Not enough facts in evidence, but logic says no.

I am not suggesting the airplane can be flown to 7200 hours with no overhaul... but 5000 seems extremely conservative and well within limits given that TWO HOTS would be done in the interim.

The difference between 5000 and 7200 hours comes down to operational methods and the environment.

30 minute hops vs 2 hour legs?
Florida/Bahamas vs Phoenix/Vegas?
That's the difference.

I am Part 91 and at 1300 past TBO on Dallas overhauls. -28s. No issues so far. Most legs 3 hrs in the winter and 1-1.5 hrs summer. A few 5.5 hr trips when solo. about 25 landings in SW FL a season but the airplane does not sit there. Turn right around and leave. The rest is inland Northeast PA and trips around the Northeast and plains mainly.

But I am the only one that has flown the airplane for 12 years 2300hrs and the engines are in a E90 so derated to 550 hp on takeoff.

All accessories have been overhauled and Hots done on schedule. Both engines are the same the came with the airplane when new. The next thing I am beginning to be concerned about is the age of the ignitor boxes.

Power I think is down a little at high altitude to book figures. I think I am down 5 knots compared to my notes when we bought the airplane. I still get full torque on near sea level takeoffs hot days without ITT concerns. I am not at high altitude airports to know what it looks like there. Trips out west have all been in the winter. Engine oil samples have been ok.

But overhaul is looming. Either overhaul or upgrade to Blackhawk 135s. Plan is to run to the next hot section inspections and borescope early to make a decision. At my current rate that is about 2 years out.

I'd like to move up to a B200 or something faster but it's a big step in cost. So is an engine upgrade or overhauls. We have gotten a lot of use from an airplane that was purchased for around $500K and about the same put in for MX and upgrades over the years. But it is still a LOT of money to make any of the choices...

If you want to feel violated, send your Williams engine in for a repair or hot section, and not be on their program. At that point, you’re what they call a “Commercial Account” and it’s not pretty.


Robert T

I just did this. My plane went into annual at 3550 hours last year. HSI wasn’t due for another 200 hours. However I wanted to do the HSI and have it inspected before I went over the magical 3600. HSI done and now moving forward.

Let’s not forget that NetJets did not overhaul any of their JT15Ds until 11,200 hours…just hots!

This is a strong thread with broad shoulders. This thread can do double duty. It can be a place for people to read/write about P&W overhauls, while at the time providing a venue for Mike to again (and again and again) expound upon Chip’s business, opinions, and again state that he is deceptive.

This is a strong thread with broad shoulders. This thread can do double duty. It can be a place for people to read/write about P&W overhauls, while at the time providing a venue for Mike to again (and again and again) expound upon Chip’s business, opinions, and again state that he is deceptive.