Originally Posted by
stilton
That's a great looking aircraft.
Out of curiosity why would a buyer choose a T Commander over, say a King Air / Conquest/ MU2 ?
I flew a 690 once, very nice.
The Garrett powered planes are just much more economical than the PT6's. Not only do they burn 20-30% less per hour for same HP, they cost about half to overhaul as well. Hot sections are a little more normally, but overall costs are much less even considering that. You're looking at $250K overhaul on a TPE331 for 5400hrs TBO. Most equivalent PT6's will be at least $350K+ for only 3600hr TBO. That's a huge difference. In fact, it's such a big difference, that I would be pretty confident in saying that you can run a Turbo Commander, MU-2 or a Conquest (with the Garretts), for less than a single engine TBM or PC12 with a PT6.
1. But specifically, the Conquests are good, but suffer from Cessna's hatred and unsupport in the form of parts and SID's. But they have great range and are RSVM capable if you don't mind the insecurity of that.
2. MU-2's are extremely well supported still, built really tough, but have the SFAR special training each year, which adds costs. It's about $5K/year. And also a little limited on range. And not RSVMable.
3. Turbo Commanders are also well supported, fast and have great range. Over 2000nm in most of the later models. Only the last 2 models are RSVMable.
None of the older King Air's can compete in performance or price. The later 350 models are very capable, but they come at jet prices with jet op costs. I known they are the gold standard for twin turboprop, but honestly, don't really understand why (except for the cabin size - that the King Air's win hands down). All of the above aircraft beat the crap out of King Air's in cost and performance. Aviation is conservative, it's hard to change perception or behavior.