BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2010, 22:01

Username Protected wrote:

Isn't that the benefit of being in one of the warranty programs like the MORE program, or am I missing something? How long is the P&W warranty program? Why would that not apply in this case?

Best,

Dave

I would like to hear from someone currently on the program. My understanding is the MORE program allows you to extend TBOs for a price and frequent ongoing inspections.

There are service contracts that will cover full parts and labor on turbines through TBO, however, it's a pay me now or pay me later situation. You pay by the flight hour and it's a BIG number. It does offer the ability to predict true costs so you don't have any surprises, however, you pay a premium for your flight time in the end unless you experience a surprise and the plan pays off.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2010, 22:34

Username Protected wrote:

The C90 is a lovely machine. A recent 6 year gear overhaul set me back $110,000.00 for a few actuators, seals, labour etc.

This is one reason the turbine Duke makes a little bit of sense. Incredible performance, less required maintenance , albeit in a much smaller cabin. Niche product to be sure, but still, if you're in this market, consideration should be given.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2010, 00:35

Username Protected wrote:

Yes, Jesse, you are correct about the MORE program, it is not a warranty, but it is an STC which when purchased and followed it allows you to operate a PT-6a to 8000 hours, up from the factory TBO of 3000 to 3600hrs depending on model. The frequency of inspections varies by inspection type, minor inspections occur at 100-150hr intervals, more involved inspections at 200-300hrs, and at 400 hrs a vib survey and borescope or possibly engine split(psudo hot section) inspection.

Do the 'MORE' folks have data that show the reliability of the engines during the 3600-8000hr interval ?

Is it possible (advisable) to put any of the SE turbines on the MORE program ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2010, 21:50

Username Protected wrote:

Yes, Jesse, you are correct about the MORE program, it is not a warranty, but it is an STC which when purchased and followed it allows you to operate a PT-6a to 8000 hours, up from the factory TBO of 3000 to 3600hrs depending on model. The frequency of inspections varies by inspection type, minor inspections occur at 100-150hr intervals, more involved inspections at 200-300hrs, and at 400 hrs a vib survey and borescope or possibly engine split(psudo hot section) inspection.

Do the 'MORE' folks have data that show the reliability of the engines during the 3600-8000hr interval ?

Is it possible (advisable) to put any of the SE turbines on the MORE program ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Dec 2010, 13:38

Username Protected wrote:

Jesse, you have articulated why I won't/can't buy a turboprop. I have friends who insist that I can fly a MU2 or a King Air for the same cost as a PBaron or other pressurized piston twin. I keep saying, "but what if an engine fails?" You probably (hopefully) will get on the ground with no airframe damage....but then you have to replace/repair the engine...and turbine engines get pricy really quick. $250K....about what I would figure to replace a PT6...

Just $250,000 maybe in 1981 dollars. The PT6A-42 on the KA200 will retail for $600,000 per engine or $1.2 million for the pair. Blackhawk might give you two remans for $798,000.
+ 15,000 to hang the pair extra.

No comparison to recips. My IO550B on the Bonanza was $31,000 in 2004 with $15,000 for Black Mac prop and baffles.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Dec 2010, 13:19

Headed to PDK today from PWA in a PC-12NG... Going to test a few out... :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2010, 13:31

Username Protected wrote:

Headed to PDK today from PWA in a PC-12NG... Going to test a few out... :thumbup:

I was in the one yesterday that you will fly today. She's pretty.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Dec 2010, 00:30

Great thread. I hanker after PC12, although I could neither afford nor be able to justify owning one. The cost of engine replacement was eye-opening to me. I knew turbines were expensive, but only considered that as part of the operating cost, not as a cost that might be incurred at any time.

I'd like to make a couple of points:

Twins have to meet specifications after losing power on one engine, and that's "unfair." Yes, but singles are required to stall at slower speeds because they are assumed more likely to make "off-airport landings." That requirement contributes to the great shortfield performance of the PC12. I imagine it also makes the PC12 easier to manage in the pattern.

In the twin v. single debate, no one mentions the view. The view is a large part of my pleasure in flying. Twin props tend to obstruct that view substantially - there are exceptions. On the otherhand, the height at which a turboprop operates might leave me wishing for a closer view.

Ashley

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2011, 15:56

Username Protected wrote:

I

I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue with you, and hats off for dealing with you're two events! That said, specifically to your example, the FCU on the PT-6 is not part of the engine. .

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2011, 16:18

Username Protected wrote:

To say that the fuel control unit is not part of the engine and that if it goes TU it is not an engine failure, is simply absurd!

Wow - feel the love!

I love when comments are taken somewhat out of context....hey man, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, and I certainly didn't use an invective to describe you or anything that you have said in this thread (or any other for that matter).

I hope you have a good day, and :cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2011, 19:44

So Stetson, how was your demo flight in the Pc12?

I was in PDK last week and coulnt believe the number of Pilatus there, then i saw that Epps is a dealer, should have went for a demo but then i wouldnt want to be tempted as the Baron does the job for now but its nice to be dreaming.

I love the TBM but then its hard to overlook the size, potty and hd gears and prop clearance of the Pilatus.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2011, 20:15

The only reason to buy a TBM over a PC12 is to save the million$ or so in acquisition cost. That's it. If you can afford a few million$, then an extra million$ is not a big enough deal.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Feb 2011, 08:14

Published Operating costs for:

Beech 36 $152.52/hr. $27,433.86/yr. $0.87/sm.
Beech 58 $301.93/hr. $133, 875.55/yr. $1.43/sm.
TBM 700 $445.41/hr. $78,667.32/yr. $1.77/sm.
P PC-12 $504.44/hr. $145,862.87/yr. $1.97/sm.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Feb 2011, 08:23

I'd say those are all waaaay low.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Feb 2011, 08:38

Username Protected wrote:

I'd say those are all waaaay low.

I agree, but they give a quick glance. Costs look to be calculated several years ago with Jet A @ $3.20/gl and Avgas @ $3.72. You can certainly argue at the accuracy of the specific costs, but it does support the arguement about the Beech 36 as significantly more economical than the choices in between, and the PC-12 as a really good bang for the money.