Turbines/Pistons in GA

[Lodown]

The thread on the Condobolin accident developed into a GA piston/turbine discussion, which wasn't the direction most appropriate to the original intent of the thread, hence a new topic...

There were statements made by Bushy that airlines are earning huge profits because the regs favour them and somehow piston engine aircraft are getting dealt a bad hand and unfairly picked on. I would be keen to hear more. Does that mean the airlines should be required to fork out subsidies to the piston engine operators who can't make a profit? You don't see some sort of connection between those profits and turbine engines?

A strong argument could be made that aviation innovation has almost been concentrated in the turbine field. Why? Because that is where the market is moving. Business, regulators, etc., realise that the future of aviation is in turbines. Piston engines have not been getting the funding because the market for them is drying up. "A campaign to get rid of piston engined aircraft"? If that is another term for what you could call market forces and equipment redundancy, then I guess you're right. But you're making it out that there is a conspiracy where none exists.

I agree, there is little incentive to buy a new piston engine aircraft, but it would be a HUGE mistake to subsidise that side of the industry. If I had the market, inclination and money, I'd be buying turbine and steering clear of the piston engine market for anything but a fun ultralight or small private aircraft too. The market for piston engine aircraft is declining, not from regulation or sinister campaigns, but solely from a market demand standpoint. It's not that one type is safer than the other, although figures may point to turbines being safer, it's just that turbines and what you can do with them, are more reliable, predictable and the numbers are easy to crunch, all of which is great from a business and operational viewpoint.

40 or so years ago, if memory serves me correct, the smallest Australian commuter aircraft with a turbine was the F-27 (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) and country towns were lucky to get one service per week, government funded or not. Turbine engine aircraft and particularly improved cars and highways are relegating piston engine charter and private ops to the dark ages. Is that bad? It is for the piston engine afficianadoes, but that's Change. Hanging onto the piston engine aircraft argument is like toting a typewriter around.

The one (and it could be said ONLY) advantage that old piston engine aircraft have is in their acquisition costs. Why is that? Because the market is giving a very strong message that few people want them anymore. Is it any wonder piston engine aircraft operators are having trouble making a buck? The market is giving them strong indications (short of hitting them over the head with a hammer) of declining demand for piston engine ops and they aren't listening! Go figure!

There's still a place and a market for old piston engine aircraft, but with each accident, it just gets smaller. A market can't be changed and grown by rehashing old equipment. When one market is tapped out, a new one must be found. From a personal view, I would love to see the regs changed as they relate to RPT flights. By accommodating somewhat regular charter flights into aerodromes without them being classified as RPT would be a way to boost some additional competition into the industry and foster new markets.

Any comments?

[JetABro]

Great topic.
Maybe the point of the piston engines being a major contributor to air pollution could be another nail in their coffin. Why do governments and authorities still allow such highly leaded fuels to be used?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I think the biggest problem is lack of available alternatives to a PA-31. I had always thought that the people who made the N22/24 would have seen the error of their ways and re-jig the tailplane for more strength or a t-tail assy. Then re-engine with a de-rated PT6 with say 450 to 550shp a side. Better SE performance, STOL and weight carrying ability.

The question remains though. Even if there was a viable alternative aircraft, there doesn't appear to be enough viable operators with long term prospects to even budget for such an aircraft.

Further to the above posts, maybe regulations should be changed to allow a version of an airtaxi service between regionals and capitals. The present regs prohibit the advertising of individual seats on a flight. If that were changed maybe there could be some entrepreneurial types who would invest in VLJs to tap into the market.

[BackdoorBandit]

What is required to replace the Chieftain/Titan role is an a/c with the following attributes:-

Single turbine engine
10 seat
Retractable
Unpressurised
200+ Kts

Only then will there be a cost effective viable replacement.

[404 Titan]

Dr Oakenfold

The last time I looked the PC12 was pressurised.

[nasa]

I’ve been around in this game in various guises for many a long year. I have a theory that Australia is generally 10 - 15 years behind the rest of the world in GA development. We are a large geography with a minimal population and the resources to fund the equipment we should be using are just not there, yet the distance still has to be covered, and until someone comes up with a better solution, air travel is the only way.

If you cast your mind back to the ‘70s and look at what aircraft we were using to do Charter/RPT/Freight. Compare what the Yanks were using. Move into the ‘80s and again compare us to the Yanks. Look into the ‘90s and again compare. We are generally taking over the Yanks hand me downs. MU2s, Metros, SAABs/EMB120s, CRJs, we always follow what is happening overseas, but always 10 – 15years down the track.

The financial institutions of Australia will rape you blind with their credit card/home loans. The profits they are making on these loans and the various charges applied to every day banking, are at the least indecent yet to have them fund an aviation venture is like trying to find a politician telling the truth. It just aint going to happen.

We have a government (don’t care which side of the political fence) that will slug taxes on airline tickets, take tax from aviation fuel sales, GST on anything aviation and not put the equivalent or a portion thereof back into the industry from whence it came, yet still expect to have the peoples of remote Australia serviced to full fill their promises. GA in a commercial form is and will move into turbine/fan in the coming 5 years. The Islanders/402s/B58s/PA31s/310s etc of today are and will be a distant memory and we will then be arguing about the best/youngest/oldest/modified turbine/fan. I’m seeing the transition now, with more and more turbines coming into the country, but what I’m facing now is the battle to convince people to spend that extra dollar and buy something that is low time NOW with all the bells and whistles, so that after 5/10 years, the aircraft will THEN be high time.

Financial institutions need to pull their collective fingers out and employ people that are experienced in aviation and have a first hand knowledge of what and how much it takes to run an operation. I’m not talking about a REX or an operation of that size, but the small GA commercial operator. Then and only then will we see a full coverage of Turbines/Fans and the quality/technology of the aircraft we should be using.

I have come to learn that there are two types of people that wish to buy an aircraft. There are those that need to, and those that want to. The guy that needs to will, in the greater percentage of cases, always look to buy just enough to get the job done, and is usually financed just enough to buy something to get the job done. The financial institutions don’t have the slightest idea what they are getting into, or what the pitfalls of buying a 15,000 hour King Air B200 with 2500 hours run off the engines and just enough cycles left on the rotating components to get the buyer to the next Hot Section. The guy that wants to will always buy whatever they want to, regardless of whether or not its what they should be buying, and generally the financial institutions are falling over themselves to get the guy to borrow money from them.

Will there be casualties along the way, yes there will. But we will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, feel sorry for ourselves and then start all over again.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Second Place is First Place for Losers"

[PLovett]

Very interesting thread. Have to agree with most of what has been said above. I believe that in the next 5 years there is going to be a fundamental change in GA with most of what we are operating today being too expensive to maintain any longer.

There are, however, some effects from this that will change the aviation scene at nearly all levels. With the gradual decline of piston engine charter there will be either a replacement of those types with turbine (or possibly diesel) powered aircraft (with a commensurate increase in cost) or the communities now being serviced with piston powered aircraft will cease to have aviation services.

The VLJs referred to by OZBUSDRIVER are really the B58/C310 replacements but you would be a fool to operate them over the same sector lengths. They really open up whole new markets, people who would never have previously thought about using charter but went business class. The manufacturers are advertising operating costs better than turbines (probably excluding capital costs) for much better performance.

Another consequence is that airlines will need to rethink their current entry requirments because the opportunity to get those sort of hours is going to be limited. Perhaps there will be a growth in cadet entry not like the current cadet schemes but more like Singapore Airlines where the airline trains its own from ab initio to RHS.

If that were to happen then the number of training schools would be rationalised. How many could afford to train up to and including jet experience?

Its going to be a brave new world out there in a few years time. The changes are going to be coming thick and fast and given the traditional reluctance to change in Australia the screams will be heard loud and clear.

[gaunty]

PLovett :ok:

And you can be pretty sure it's unlikely to be the present incumbents. They have been deluding themselves on revenue rates and imagined capital profits against residuals for the last 20 years or so. They will have a fleet of superannuated and worthless clunkers, probably a heap of creditors and really lucky to still have the arse in their trousers.

Having the wherewithal to invest in the modern business you describe will be just wild drerams.

Good riddance I say, then we will get some rationality back into the system.

nasa you know I disagree with you on the finance thing.
Of course they will only give you credit card/home loans type financing on old clunkers, the same way that there is always that guaranteed last resort refused finance before loans from dodgy bros.
There is no end of money available for quality aircraft and quality borrowers at low single digit rates. They are only interested in aviation as a business and that it is run the same as any other business. Pilot dreams and the fantasies that I see served up as what they imagine is a business plan dont qualify as collaterall. One such spent 15 pages explaining how by buying 10 year old copies they could undercut the market blah blah blah.
Just what a financier who has several billions in aviation finance wants to hear and whose stated policy has a maximum age of 10 years paid to zero in 3 for their loans.

Citations going out at mid to high $2000 when mid to high $4000 for starters by any real world calculation is the real answer.
Basically everything out there at the moment from piston twins through turboprops to jets is going out at half price or less.
And the other day I had an operator look me square in the eye and tell me that is all that the market will bear. :rolleyes: :{

[redsnail]

I thought I would never see another one after I left Oz.

Found in Marrakech a few days ago.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d143/reddo1/C207inMarrakech.jpg

[gaunty]

Now there's a muscular looking money spinner if ever I saw one. Looks in fine fettle too.:ok:

Total 788 built and I sold the last new one into this area, mid eighties.

[Howard Hughes]

Total 788 built and I sold the last new one into this area, mid eighties.
And I bet it's still flying too!!;)

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[haughtney1]

Ewwwww damn stretchy 207:p

[nasa]

gaunty I fear you may misinterpret my comparison with the credit card/home loans comment. I was being somewhat flippant with wording in that I was referring to the financial institutions being more interested in handing out home loans and credit cards than looking at serious business proposals. I back this statement up with some absolute hum dingers from so called finance experts….Let’s try, “sorry, but our portfolio of aircraft is full at the moment and we feel that we would be exposing ourselves to possible losses by financing another aircraft” or how ‘bout, “no we don’t do aviation. We’re concerned that our asset might fly away”….These comments can be contributed directly to one of Australia’s “Big Four”…..Then of course there is the bank that took 6 weeks to settle on a sale, citing paperwork problems….Give me a break!!!....They just don’t know what they are doing………

Have a look HERE (http://www.aircraftbanking.com/) and show me one of these in Australia. Or show me where I can find INFORMATION (http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/staticcontent.jsp?which=services/finance/loan) like this in Australia…..We are in a catch 22 situation…..We can’t demand THESE TYPES (http://www.charterhub.com/listings/forcharter/list.asp?GUID=12821AC25E004FD4952A6A11B4490B33) of rates if we don’t have the aircraft to start with. We don’t have the aircraft because it is impossible to finance an aircraft, at reasonable rates and/or conditions, in Australia…..I fall back on my previous statement, that being that financial institutions need to employ people that know what they are doing when it comes to aircraft. Not refer all loan applications to Adelaide or wherever for some bean counter with next to little or no knowledge of an aircraft and/or operation…..I’ve seen and heard the good old fall back, but why should financial institutions be obligated to finance.....My reply is, because it is incumbent upon you to do so, but with the assistance of those that know what they are doing.................

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Second Place is First Place for Losers"

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Another change that would encourage new aircraft purchases....

Tax write offs.

The current 10% per year is not enough to warrant a look at a new aircraft.

A 20% depreciation rate for aircraft under 5 years and the regular 10% for older aircraft could encourage some investment in newer gear.

[Horatio Leafblower]

A little birdy dropped THIS (http://www.sconeaeroclub.com.au/testing/TBM700C2 ASETPA Approval.pdf) in my Email today -

Might make things more interesting in the light corporate world - finally a world-class Navajo replacement with 21st century specs and it's LEGAL.

Hooray!:}

[bushy]

Can I buy one for $400,000, or do we need about $6,000,000?

[Bevan666]

Can I buy one for $400,000, or do we need about $6,000,000?

Check
ASO Online (http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=95916&return_url=/i.aso3/search.jspyyyyyiaso3sid=1xxxxxtypeid=3xxxxxsearchid=7394145x xxxxregionid=-1xxxxxtypeid=3xxxxxmmgid=3xxxxxmodelgroup=falsexxxxxsearchid =7394145xxxxxregionid=-1)

An australian reg TBM700 is for sale for $1.5m USD.

Now where is my cheque book...

[Black Maria]

Horatio Leafblower

Might make things more interesting in the light corporate world - finally a world-class Navajo replacement with 21st century specs and it's LEGAL

The TBM700 is a very nice aircraft indeed, but it doesn't have the seating capacity to take on a Navajo unfortunately.

That role, IMO, is left to the Cessna 208B. It may not be a glamerous as the other single engine turbines and it certainly is not as fast, nor does it get to any great altitude, but it has 13 seats for passengers to sit in.

It IS the present replacement for the Navajo. It is only only a few knots slower, has a total uplift in the vicinity of 1.5 tonnes (payload and fuel) and will go into any place the PA31 will, and then a great deal more.

IMO it is a nicer aircraft to fly than the Navajo and more comfortable for the pax as well.

In Cairns alone there are 6 operating in RPT, Charter, Police and Private Operations, with rumours of others to join the airfield.

Regards

[Horatio Leafblower]

Maria,

I only base my comment on the 3 years I spent flying chieftains - we were either chock-a-block or, more often, carrying only 3 or 4 pax.

If it was an internal corporate flight it was, 95% of the time, with only 2 or 3 passengers. If you look at the accidents which spawned this thread, they too only carried 2 pax each.

Corporate Av is all about TIME - just check out the emphasis of the recent advertorials in Aus Aviation and US Flying. I aint an expert but in my experience that is about the size of the market and if you want to do it with a turbine, go the TBM! It's a big step up to the PC-12 and if you are going further than 200nm the Van loses its appeal...

regards

[CoodaShooda]

Will the price of a TBM 700 drop now that the TBM 850's (almost) here?

[bushy]

Bevan666
I recon the depreciation already on this machine would be about 4800 per fly8ng hour!

[Black Maria]

Horatio

If you were looking for a replacement for something like the C90 etc for the light business or Corporate Market, you may very well be right with the TBM 700, but I see that this post is about Turbines/Pistons in the General Aviaton World.

As such I don't see the TBM 700 as the replacement aircraft of choice for a company that operates Navajos, Chieftains and other cabin class twins.

I do, however, see that the C208B as the aircraft to fulfill that role.

and if you are going further than 200nm the Van loses its appeal

But I suggest that many may very well prefer 200nm in the Van than 200nm in a Pa31, C402 or 404.

Regards