Wow, I just had an excellent conversation with Mark Hangen, but maybe an expensive conversation too. He said a lot of good things about the Commander and might have pointed me towards the 840 instead of the 690. I also talked to Jim at Eagle. Here are a few things I learned:

840 has option for long range fuel 494 gals - 1200 mile range
5 year items props & gear about 15K each
150 hour inspections - base is $6500 but figure 35K each time if it has been well maintained
Older 690B's generally cost another 10K at each 150hour inspection
690B's may require a spar inspection every 36 mo - 15K
Insurance figure 15K first year
Fuel burn 600 first hour and 500 thereafter

840's are hard to find and cost 900 to 1.1

I'll plug this all into a spreadsheet and report back!

John,

If you want it and can afford it, you should do it! As Jason would say, "You only live once."

I was curious how is the spar inspection done on commanders? Does one have to drill out all the rivets on the wing skin to actually examine the spar? I also know some other AD and SB on the airframe involving I believe engine mounts.

Are there any expensive airframe inspections, ad, sb on the mits?

I have a friend in Boulder who has owned a 690 for a number of years. He has complained to me about spending over 60k on AD/inspection related issues on more than one occasion.

He told me to plan an all in flying budget of 100k to 150k per year if I owned one. His is pretty old though (mid 70s I think) and I have no idea how sorted it was when he purchased. I have a feeling a lot of planes on the market have had inspections performed he has had to eat.

He actually lost an engine on it climbing out of Denver last year. Complete non-event. I don't remember the number, but I do remember being surprised at how low the engine repair cost was.

He flies it all over the US and doesn't seem to have much down time. It is significantly higher performance than a Pilatus NG I have a few hours in. Lightly loaded it literally climbs like a rocket. Very fun plane to fly IMO, especially around CO. The view from the cockpit is awesome. Something about the eyebrow windows and the two big turbine spinners on either side of you make it feel like a real airplane. Starting the engines with switches on the ceiling is pretty fun too.

It seems like if you can get the AD/inspection thing sorted, it is a very hard plane to beat. Given the efficiency of the garretts, I wonder if they still made it, how well it would sell vs the Pilatus/TBM. Kind of in between the two in cabin size but two engines plus really good performance.

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know why no one has ever made a production single with a Garrett out front?

Kestrel is planning to use the Garrett.

The direct drive engines are not as easily mounted in the fuselage at a PT6. It's an issue of intake/exhaust geometry but I don't remember the details.

Well so far, so good on the spreadsheet. I'm waiting on an insurance quote and next ill research financing.

I asked jim and mark about exposure to depreciation - both feel that a 20% downside was a fair number for worst case over three years (not counting engine time accumulation). I can live with that, I surely live with a much bigger % with the baron (although i have way less money exposed)

A little detail on the spreadsheet results:

I calculated my fixed costs each month (hangar, insurance, interest, 5 yr items) and my variable costs (fuel, 150hr inspection, ongoing maint & engines) and then looked at cost/nm over a range of miles flown each month then I used the very similar math for the baron. At the lower end (3000/nm/mo) the baron was $2.40/nm & commander was $4.24/nm. this is the low-end of my miles projection and also the worst case. I left out training and subscriptions because they are both pretty close on either airplane. At 5000/nm/mo the baron was 2.24 and commander was $3.60.

Its not that I can't afford it but I am having a little trouble swallowing $4.24/nm. My "back of the napkin" assumptions were closer to the 5000/nm/mo numbers.

Next, I present this to my business partners and see what they think.

Just for fun, I plugged my old V35TC into my spreadsheet. @3000NM/mo it was $1.42/nm

To be fair, I owned the V tail and the baron outright and I projected financing 50% of the commander purchase & upgrade price (500K). I built the interest (~2500/mo) into the monthly fixed cost of the commander. Probably not a pure way to do this but this is how I look at it.

Funny, with each step-up, the cost/nm doubles.

John,

My shop in Scottsdale works on the Commanders and overhauls the engines. They always have at least 5 or 6 in the hangar every tine I am there. These guys are the experts on the Garrett engines. I toured their engine facility and they have fifty engines to overhaul. If you need any information I will put you in touch with the right people.

Russ

What is the cost for ongoing inspections and AD compliance on the commander vs the Mits ?
What are the calendar based items ?
What are the items tied to hours ?

John,

Hopefully someone who know mores can confirm and/or correct.

Garrett engines are designed to be worked on when dismounted from airframe. The AC and MU2 are designed to be able to remove the engine in about 10 minutes with quick release connections. Mounting is supposed to be a touch slower at 15 minutes. So when someone says they always take the engines off and says that is a negative; that is actually by design.

Tim

I am not an a and p but do know from other posts on here that Tim is correct in that it is fast to remove and replace engines on the mits. I do not know about the commander. I am aware in general it is easier to r and r an engine on a turboprop than a piston. Maybe some a and p could tell us.

I also have heard, no direct experience at all, that mits are well designed from a repair perspective and are fairly well thought out in terms of repairing things.

My present airplane is horrible to work on and is very cramped to do much of anything. To remove the back two cylinders one must remove the engine. Everything is just cramped. Many mechanics don't like aerostars because of this. I have worked with a and p on annual and on other items and the Aerostar can be miserable for some jobs. Others jobs it is not a big deal.

I would like to get into a turboprop one day if I am fortunate enough to ever have the money. I thinks the mits seems to provide the best speed and capability for the cost but I have never flown one. I have about 100 hours in a 690 and it flew very in nicely and performed well. The spar issues and other airframe sb and ad do concern me. As far as I know no spar or serious airframe issues on the mits.

What do people who repair and own these airplanes think?

Well, I pretty much told you above my perspective, but as an owner I appreciate that the Mits is pretty easy to work on, prices are not ridiculous when compared to peer aircraft (it's still aviation, sigh!), and it just keeps running. Yes, engines can be removed in significantly less than an hour. Engine nacelles are nice and exposed and easy to get at. Most systems are fairly easy to get at.

This year I went between 100 hr/annual inspections without any unscheduled maintenance except I lost one starter-generator in flight. It turned out that when the engines were overhauled only a couple hundred hours ago they did not do the s-g's. They s-g's were therefore quite high time. So I swapped those (did much of it myself under supervision of a local A&P, first one took about 4 hours, second one took half that due to my own learning curve).

Only onerous AD is that the 4 blade props have an AD which requires an inspection every 5 calendar years, and the scope of the inspection is invasive enough that it is close to being an overhaul. An AMOC has been being approved that extends it to 7 calendar years for lower time operators.

No significant airframe ADs.

The thing is built like a tank. That is its strength (good for maintenance and ownership experience) and weakness (it is a bit heavy for its size and so requires power and airspeed to perform). It is quite capable. I have liked it so far.

Much of the airplane's problems were solved by the SFAR (SFAR 108) mandated training.

How is it flying an MU2 out of KSQL. That runway seemed small in piston singles and I have to think fitting into the traffic flow would be tough in something as fast as an MU2? I remember Larry Ellison used to keep a Citation there b/c it was so close to Oracle HQ and that thing ate up a lot of the runway on departure.