Is the "Heavy" Piston Twin dead

[Guptar]

For as long as I can remember the heavy piston twin has been the aerial UTE of not just Oz but just about every part of the world. The Chieftain, C402, C404, Queenairs. Theres surely more types that I have forgotten. These can be found doing pax charters, hauling freight at night, bank runs and a myriad of other unglamourous duties.

Now we have a new breed, the C208 Caravan, TBM850, Kodiak, the Turbine Airvan, the new Kestrel turbo prop. All single engine turbines.

The new SE turbine aircraft are fantastic machines, they have performance that would have been unthinkable when the Chieftain and Cessna twins were designed, not to mention the Buck rogers avionics like the Garmin G1000.

But there is still one problem, turbine engines are still incedibly expensive to overhaul, and the cost goes way up if you do many short sectors as turbines also have a cycle limit. the overhaul cost of a PT6 or TPE engine is simply eye watering.....something like 250K, and thats a starting point.

So are the big pistons dead as a concept. Theres lots of new 350Hp engines around from Continental and Lycoming, both have FADEC which dont seem to have the reliability problems of the Chieftains J2BD engine. The Lycoming ie2 series engines looks promising but they seem to have gone quiet. RED aircraft engines is working on a 300Hp V6 diesel and a 500Hp V12 diesel( which looks suspciously like a take off of the Audi 6ltr V12 diesel as found in the Q7).

I'd like to see what could be done. Now an interesting aircraft would be a stretched Kestrel to seat 10, powered by 2 V12 diesels. Sounds perfect for a family SUV.

[PLovett]

I hope not as I have to fly a C404 on Tuesday. :ok:

[Tinstaafl]

Hardly call a PA31 or its ilk a 'heavy' piston twin. However I don't think they're dead. I fly a PA31 in charter in the US, and many other operators use pistons too.

The economics aren't always there for the turbines. Capital outlay, engine overhauls & insurance can be killer. Not so much engine overhauls if they're amortised properly over the TBO, but have one go tits up partway through the period and that throws a large financial spanner in the works.

Single engine turbines aren't always permitted to do what a twin can do: Fly overwater with fewer restrictions. It's a hell of a lot more feasable to operate a piston twin to the Bahamas than a C208 with passengers.

[Sunfish]

Guptar, my Christmas gift to you is the following URL where you can read about all the traps and tears to be expereinced by anyone who thinks of adapting an automotive engine for aviation. As a general rule, it is a waste of time and money.

Aircraft Engine Conversions by EPI Inc. (http://www.epi-eng.com/aircraft_engine_conversions/conversions_contents.htm)

Turbines are expensive because all of their hot section components are made out of the most god-awfully expensive, ornery and just plain difficult materials to cut, shape, form and join on the face of this planet.

Then of course you want some of those components like the cases wafer thin to save weight and trying to form or weld them is an exercise in frustration because of the potential for distortion.

The discs are made of the closest thing we have to unobtanium that is similarly difficult to do anything with, as are the blades.

Then of course you have the bearings, etc. and you want the whole thing to run in a gas stream Two hundred degrees hotter than the melting point of most of the metals at ridiculous RPM's.

The gears on a PT6 are American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA) class One, and their are bugger all companies that can make them. Been to P&W Canada, P&W Hartford, GE Lynn (military) and Cincinnatti (civil) you would be amazed at the tears and sweat that goes into any turbine engine.

[VH-XXX]

I'd like to see what could be done. Now an interesting aircraft would be a stretched Kestrel to seat 10, powered by 2 V12 diesels. Sounds perfect for a family SUV.

That wouldn't go well in Victoria at the moment as we have a statewide diesel shortage! and you though it was the Avgas that at was going to run out!

[Jabawocky]

Theres lots of new 350Hp engines around from Continental and Lycoming, both have FADEC which dont seem to have the reliability problems of the Chieftains J2BD engine. The Lycoming ie2 series engines looks promising but they seem to have gone quiet.

What is wrong with the J2BD's?

Their only problem was the POH's and the way pilots were taught to operate them. Add to that LAME's who may not have been diligent at setting them up properly.

It beats me how so many of them do so well when you see how they are treated.:uhoh:

FADEC on piston aero engines...... Nice idea but you can only improve the BSFC of an engine so far, and you can do it without FADEC. If varying fuel grade is your concern in big HP turbo's these FADEC's are not going to help there either. A good JPI/Auracle or similar and a pilot with knowledge = reliable power plant.

[Guptar]

Very interesting article bout the Orenda V8, when it came out I was hopeful about the engine but my fears were realised, it simply weighed too much.

But it does appear the cabin class piston twin is dead. Yes there are plenty of old airframes out there, but they are getting older and older. Even the Lock and Key Chieftains from Mike Jones Aiircraft while beautiful, are still at least 25 years old.

At present, you simply cant buy a new cabin class piston twin.

Interesting article on aerodiesels

http://bmepinc.com/AEHS%20presentation%202012%2005%2008.pdf

[VH-XXX]

Even the Lock and Key Chieftains from Mike Jones Aiircraft while beautiful, are still at least 25 years old

What is meant by lock and key Guptar?

[Trent 972]

Why Not Consider: A Lock & Key RENOVATED NAVAJO (http://www.mikejonesaircraftsales.com/lk-considering.htm) and possibly get more utility for your money?

[Tinstaafl]

I operate a Mike Jones' 'Lock & Key' Navajo. It's really nice - and has better equipment in it than a Beechjet I fly. You pay a premium for them though. You're paying for someone's work to have something that's ready to go as soon as you sign on the dotted. None of this 'buy an airframe, send it out to have the interior, avionics & paint done. Oh, and add various STCs while it's being done' carry on.

You could have the same result without going to Mike Jones, but you'd have to do the legwork & organisation and wait for it to be done.

At the time this one was done Mike Jones didn't include an EDM so I had the owner put one in after I took over managing it. The EDM has been worth every penny and easily paid for itself in fuel savings, decision making that avoided a stranded aircraft+pax when I had an injector line break, and maintenance time for troubleshooting the occasional issue.

This one has only about 2,500 hours on it. Might be a couple of hundred more (don't have its paperwork with me) but it's well under 3,000.

[Guptar]

Bill Brogden seems to think this is the most promising of the aerodiesels.

http://bmepinc.com/AEHS%20presentation%202012%2005%2008.pdf


There was a flurry of press releases a couple of years ago about Lycomings iE2 series but it seems to have gone quiet lately.

http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events/pdfs/iE2_Engine.pdf

Aero-TV: The Future And Lycoming's IE2 - 'Everything We Know How to Do' - YouTube

[Trojan1981]

The aviation industry doesn't set the trends, insurance and risk does.

'Heavy' piston twins are already being squeezed out from the top down. The operating economics do not matter to customers as much as many operators think; as they will pay for what they require (ie. twin turbine multi-crew is a common insurance/audit requirement).

The low margin customers will charter piston-twins for as long as they can get away with it, but I think you will see a trend toward multi-client charters on larger turbine aircraft in the long term.

The BARS and OGP (among others) requirements will see the end of the piston twin in the majority of non-subsidised charter operations in this region. As will client's growing desire to simplify charter routes by removing stops and aircraft changes (ie flying short international sectors direct from mine-site aerodromes in turboprops).

[Old Akro]

Piston twins are now not worth much more than engine value. Its getting very hard to find good low time "working" twins (eg PA31). Many corporates are now mandating turbines.

The Charter market will always prefer twins for the image of the second engine. King Airs are currently taking over from Chieftans. The freight market will move to single turbines (eg Caravan). Tourist operators will use what makes sense to them (C210, C206 Airvan, etc). The piston twin will become the domain of dinosaurs like me who like the speed & security of a twin for IFR and use the aeroplane for business a little. Twins with good support (Seneca , Baron, Aerostar) will have a good future. The others (especially SID requirement Cessna's) will fade away. You can see this happening with C310 prices now. Chieftan parts are getting hard to get & expensive now and the source of good low time ones (for fleet rejuvenation) has all but dried up.



But I could be wrong.

[Guptar]

Turbine for commercial ops, charter etc is fine, but there is a no choice for the private owner who has a different set of requirements. The private GA sector grew on aircraft that could haul the wife and 4 kids plus all their gear, surfboards, bikes etc, perhaps even the family dog. Most of these owners flew very short sectors, often as short as half an hr.

The Baron, Seneca and Aerostar, all great aircraft are too small.

The C208, PC12/King Air etc while fantastic aircraft, lots of start cycles on the engine will make it horrifically expensive.

Not to mention the bank runners who can do 4 hrs a day but with up to 20 hops.

Its seems a whole sector of the industry is being ignored.

[Ixixly]

Being a bit of a newbie myself especially when it comes to the financial side of Aviation I have a few questions.

Most of you have mentioned how Turbine powered aircraft like the C208, Pac750 etc... aren't as economical for shorter hops because of the engine cycles, when you talk about Engine Cycles i'm assuming you're referring to the Startup/Shutdowns. Could this short fall not be easily solved by the use of multi-crew/ground crew which then removes the need to shut down?? I understand these crew would be an extra cost of course but certainly there would be ways to absorb these costs either by either contracting people to do the work only on the days you need them or at no extra cost for companies with existing ground facilities.

How does the use of leased engines by companies who specialise in overhauls reduce the costs?? I'm referring to buying the Airframe but leasing the engine which is then simply swapped out for another engine that is delivered, ready to go with the other engine then being sent away to the leasing company for overhaul who can do the job cheaper in their own facilities with their own staff?

Also a lot of companies these days seem to be coming around to the reliability of newer Single Engine Turbine Aircraft as opposed to older Twin Pistons which is reflected by some mining companies now allowing their staff to transfer on them so would this not also make them a more viable option?

[27/09]

Its seems a whole sector of the industry is being ignored.

Or not big enough to attract attention. The other thing is, are they willing to pay the price of developing new aircraft?

I guess there is always the possibility that the likes of the Chieftain might go the way of the Cub and Piper sell off the rights to someone else to resume manufacture of the PA31.

[lilflyboy262...2]

Thats how we ran them in Botswana Ixixly. We were doing anywhere between 15-20 hops a day.

We would pull onto a concrete pad and feather. Put a barrier between the prop and the cabin then roll a set of stairs up to the cargo door and let the passengers out. The air stairs on the right hand side were a bit hard to use because the exhaust is on that side and it gets a little warm.

Turn around times were also great. Could unload 12 pax, then load another 12 pax, brief them, takeoff checks and be airborne in 4 minutes.

Caravan makes a lot more economic sense with the amount of money they make in between overhauls if they are operated to capacity.
A 1hr flight and you can haul 3000lbs. Try that in a piston twin.

[nomorecatering]

Here's an interesting insight into owning a turbine engine. Flying magazine contributor Dick Karl owns a Piper Cheyenne, recently had to do a hot section inspection on one engine, turns out some guide vanes were burned through. That ment that the next stage turbine blades had to be replace.

58 X $265.00 = $15,300....for parts alone, not labour for the HSI. He doesnt mention if any other work needed to be done.

Eye watering.

Edit, page 2 has a list of work.

Turbine blades $15,300

Vane ring $7,900

IR duct $3,714

Parts Total $37,531 + Labour $8,370 for a grand total of .......

$45,901........and this was for an angine that was working fine, just that it came up for a sceduled HSI.

Maintenance of An Older Airplane | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/maintenance-older-machines)

[Unusual-Attitude]

'Hot' turn arounds are used quite often to save cycles in various turbines, ( Van's/PAC's's's etc for meat bombing and even RPT). No problem as long as the SLF is kept from the spinny point end.

Ixixly, yes its heat cycles that do the damage, although thats not exclusive to turbines...pistons dont do so well starting and stopping 10 times a day. GTSIO-520 engines spring to mind...

[Tinstaafl]

Ixixly,

Having ground crew to shepherd the pax means...you must have ground crew in place. I fly charter and corporate flights that, at the moment, can go anywhere withiin the US and can be on little to no notice. Soon that will include the whole of the Caribbean. I used to do similar in Australia. It's not practicable to employ someone at every airfield in the US just in case we should stop by. If we carry someone then that's at least one fewer pax, less baggage &/or shorter range.

'Power by the Hour' & similar schemes doesn't necessarily reduce the hourly operating cost, except for nasty surprises. You're effectively paying for someone else to take the risk and they want their profit margin on top of that cost. Insurance is never free or cheap, just cheaper than a calamity you can't afford to risk.

Many jurisdictions prohibit or severely restrict single engine ops compared to multi. Try doing flights overwater, or at night, or IFR in various countries and the op. is only practicable in a twin. Shetland, for example, is an area where a PAC750XL would be great - short(!) strips, short hops, limited number of sectors per day - but the overwater nature, and need to resort to IFR when the weather closes in, makes it not possible under . In the US, single engine is OK for IFR charter but then you have weather & overwater limitations that don't apply to twins.

[43Inches]

Two things are killing light aircraft in general at the moment. One is cost of acquisition and two is cost of operation.

I have heard from those interested in a new PA31 that when they inquired at Piper they received a response along the lines that they would gladly reactivate the line if they could drum up say 20 orders or so for the aircraft. That is 20 orders at the current price which would be estimated at $2-$3 mil a unit.

Once you purchase your Chieftain you then need to make money off it or at least justify the cost of investment for private use. The aircraft will cost not much less than the 30 y/o ones to operate.

If you were to opt for new more efficient engines and weight saving composites the initial price will soon double offsetting any gain in operating cost. This will be due to the cost of the new technology and the recertification process needed, spread over the small orders that will benefit from these options.

Overall it is not just the light aircraft market that is struggling for new equipment. Beech is in chapter 11, they are struggling to keep their head above water even though they are pretty much the only small twin turboprop producer with the king-air. No commuter/regional turbo-props smaller than the ATR-42 are being produced for the western market. The ATR-42 is even struggling for sales, most operators going for the larger ATR-72. The first level at which you see some sales success in recent years is the 70 seat turboprop market. There is a huge void in the new aircraft market between the light to medium single trainers/private market and the 70 seat regional. So far the impact has been large on small communities which have lost air services as these aircraft are retired from useful service. The operators themselves can not afford the costs associated with newer aircraft purchase and the communities can not afford the increased fares without huge subsidies.

I think it will still be a while before the public and regulators will accept single engine passenger operations on a large scale, especially for RPT and corporate charters. People would rather drive or get on a bus/train.

[Old Akro]

nomorecatering - replaced pots in a piston engine lately? May not be a whole lot under Dick Karl's turbine experience - and you get less hours out of them!

[Ixixly]

lilflyboy, pretty much the operation I had in mind there, thats how I always figured they'd be best run. Too bad I won't be heading over afterall, managed to find a job elsewhere, little less flying but guaranteed before I came over and in a slightly nicer location!

Tinstaafl, in Aus and NZ at least the Caravan is now accepted as a S/E IFR Aircraft, you have to run it according to certain rules that are a little more stringent than your usual Twin Engine IFR but thats more about getting procedures/systems and SOPs in place at the beginning. Also would it not be practical and wise in the case of crew to start including an FO on the caravans who are then able to do the loading and unloading of the pax at destinations away from where ground facilities are available? You gain the added benefit of extra safety which covers a range of insurance and contract requirements and having a crew member in training who is ready to take over as captain when the fleet expands or other members move on could be considered a prudent investment.

Can anyone tell me if the 58 blades on the Cheyenne mentioned by nomorecatering is one engine or both of the engines? and out of curiosity does anyone know the typical life span of them?

[Tinstaafl]

Ixixly, I'm aware of the SET that Oz allows - I worked there before & after it was introduced. Those limits for SET still don't apply to twins. It's been a while since I was in Oz, but what are the overwater requirements now? And minimum Wx. conditions compared to a multi operation?

Carrying a non-required crewmember is still one fewer pax or equivalent in bags or fuel. On international flight eg to & from the Bahamas I have to shutdown anyway to go through the customs & immigrations carry-on.

[Ixixly]

Not 100% certain about the overwater requirements in Oz now for SET IFR, not there myself either and when I wasn't didn't give it a lot of thought as it wasn't something I was involved in. But i'm not sure it would be a major issue as there isn't a great deal of overwater to be done in Oz, but from what I remember you have to remain within gliding distance under CAR258 but the AIP allows you to conduct overwater outside gliding distance but no more than 25nm from a suitable landing area as long as all passengers wear a lifejacket (not sure if this means actually around their neck or having one in its pocket around a persons waist is permitted) and pretty sure life raft required as well.

And that is a good point about being able to carry less pax and/or cargo. I'm only really thinking about Domestic operations, but once again a good point to consider.

[Ultralights]

i always thought a "heavy Piston twin" was something along the lines of, i dont know a DC3 maybe. :E

[Nulli Secundus]

Piston twins are dead.........?

Not according to Tecnam

Check out the Tecnam P2012 Traveller. Its specifically designed to replace ageing PA31'a etc. I believe ball park price $1.8-2.0M. Very practical machine and mogas/ avgas approved.

Launch customer is Cape Air of Nantucket............. 67 x C402's.

Still no guarantees at this stage it will make the production line, but the interest and market demand has been identified.

[Mach E Avelli]

At 2 million bucks a pop, they won't be selling too many into Australia. An operator wishing to move with the times and stay competitive in the corporate sector could source two decent used King Airs for not much more money than that.
The piston era is all but over. Not just the problems of ageing airframes, but none of the old cabin class piston twins meet today's engine- inoperative performance requirements. Most corporate customers want this and there are now enough turbo prop operators in the market for them to get it.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Piston twins are dead.........?

Not according to Tecnam

Ahhh Tecnam. Because Partenavia wasn't scary enough :uhoh:

[AdamFrisch]

Tecnam will sell loads of them, I predict. There are tons of small Carribbean, Asian, African operators making do with old BN2's that would welcome a replacement.

[pithblot]

"Darwin approach, Hotel Mike Alpha, Cessna 404, Heavy....."

[Trojan1981]

i always thought a "heavy Piston twin" was something along the lines of, i dont know a DC3 maybe.

Or the mighty Caribou ;)

[27/09]

At 2 million bucks a pop, they won't be selling too many into Australia. An operator wishing to move with the times and stay competitive in the corporate sector could source two decent used King Airs for not much more money than that.

But what is it going to cost to keep those King Airs operational. The King Air still uses systems that came from the Queen Air age. Also unless you know exactly what you're buying, second hand turbo props can be a bit spendy, especially to start with.

At least with a new aircraft you have some surety on what you're getting, unless it has unproven technology.

[Mach E Avelli]

Aussie operators have generally been averse to buying new, so seem to accept that with a used turbo-prop they will have a few initial maintenance issues. Half a million or more bucks of savings on a used King Air or similar buys a lot of maintenance. Also, a canny buyer can often get power by the hour to insure against premature engine overhauls. Is this available with piston engines?
Unless they have re-invented the laws of physics I don't see how the proposed
twin will have acceptable engine-out performance. 10 punters, fixed gear and 350HP? Maybe OK in Europe but here in the summer?

[MCKES]

My opinion - tecnam thing will be dead before it starts. 700hp running avgas. 2m initial price. 160kts. I'm not sure of too many reputable operators who would be willing to spend money on or operate something such as this. Cost per nm and per seat nm is a big factor.

As Mach said the performance on one with 1300kg on board with 350hp left will be marginal based only on what we have seen in the past. Pure speculation...

[CharlieCharlie78]

PLovett - How did yout C404 go this morning? Was it Dead? Thank christ mine wasnt!!!!! haha ;);););):O:O:O;);););)

[Ixixly]

Dear PLovett and CharlieCharlie, due to your provocation of the Gods, gremlins have been dispatched and will be there in short order....

[PLovett]

Lovely flight thank you and it was very much alive. Nice sunny day, just a little bit of cloud to make it interesting without biting buttonholes in the seat having to do an approach or anything nasty like that. In all honesty, the C404 runs rings around any of its competitors in the piston engined class. :ok:

[Up-into-the-air]

Provided you don't have tI pay for the engine overhaul or geared probs

[Horatio Leafblower]

Provided you don't have to pay for the engine overhaul or geared probs

...What problems are they? :confused:

If you have professional and competent engineers and pilots the Titan is an awesome aircraft and the GTSIO is an awesome engine. As said above, it ****s all over the competition :ok:

[Oracle1]

I have a lot of experience maintaining Tecnams. They are typical Italian engineering, flimsy, overpriced and the spare parts chain is hopeless. I wouldn't take one as a gift. The laws of physics wont change, if you want to climb smartly on one engine you will need a turbine. A second hand quality (american) piston twin that will take a beating is getting cheaper every day, take a look at the market.

[CharlieCharlie78]

Cant beat a Titan!!! Blows the Chieftian out of the sky!

Geared Problems????? Try retraining your pilots. Good engine management and they purrr along!

PLovett, where were you? I just chased the Bangers in!:ugh:

[CharlieCharlie78]

I dont see why Cessna wont put Titans back on the production line. I know the C208 is just as good performance wise, but they dont make any more Piston Twins!

[PLovett]

where were you?

Running around the eastern end of Bass Strait. Glorious weather (for a change - had hail last week); blue seas & skies, nothing too difficult to deal with by way of crosswinds, everything working as it should, and those GTIO-520s just purring away at 1700 RPM. Even the passengers played fair and didn't bring everything including the kitchen sink. A gentleman's twin.

I hate to think what a modern one would cost today and Cessna don't have a great track record at keeping older aircraft in production when they threaten sales of their more modern ones. For example, the demise of the C441 once the Citation started rolling down the line.

[Horatio Leafblower]

...Where the hell is YBCN? Flight Aware can't tell me and I couldn't be bothered getting off my arse or missing any Tim Minchin on ABC 2.

[Ixixly]

Apparently YBCN is Blanchetown, somewhere in SA, think near the Murray... I seem to remember it being near where my family used to go for stays at the Murray River...wherever that is!!

[PLovett]

HH

Probably you meant YCBN which is Cape Barren Island.

[CharlieCharlie78]

Not with Airlines of Tasmania are you? Or Sharp?

I understand if you dont want to say!

[Blank]

C404 running rings around its competitors? Get your bum into a lyc-IO-720 400 horse twin turbo 680 grand commander! That'll blow your hair back and a few kgs heavier too. ( in the heavy piston twin department )

[Metro man]

Because of economics, piston twins will go the way of the B707 and the flight engineer. Upgrading thirty year old junk can only go on for so long, modern airspace requires sophisticated equipment to operate safely in it, eventually the cost of modifying a 1970s aircraft to accept 2000s technology becomes prohibitive. Try fitting TCAS, GPWS and RNAV into an aircraft designed before these things were even dreamed of.

The new generation of pilots coming through will need TV screens and sophisticated autopilots, don't expect them to be able to hand fly an NDB approach on round dials any better than we could fix our position using a sextant.

Eventually the insurance companies and regulatory authorities will accept single engine risk vs the severity of a mis handled engine failure accident in a multi. At one time long haul airliners had four engines, now with increased engine power and vastly improved reliability twins are the norm.

There will still be some piston twins for niche market work.

[lilflyboy262...2]

A Caravan, if operated correctly, will make you money.

In regards to weather in IFR for them, here in Canada, they are operated the same as a twin.

I think its within gliding distance of land, 25 NM must have life jackets, and 50NM a life raft for the regs here.

Carry more than a navajo, same speed as a navajo, break down less than a navajo, and have less moving parts than a navajo.
The profit made between overhauls is much larger than on a navajo.

I know that in the time that I have spent in them, I have never had one go mechanical on me.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

602.62 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off or a landing on water in an aircraft or operate an aircraft over water beyond a point where the aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board.

(2) No person shall operate a land aeroplane, gyroplane, helicopter or airship at more than 50 nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver is carried for each person on board.

602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.

But I digress, because we're talking about Australia (or NZ) and Chieftains are a quarter of the cost and legal to operate for pax charter without needing ASEPTA approvals.

Just waiting for the wing to fall of a Nigerian PA-31 and the worldwide fleet to be grounded until a SIDs program goes in. You'll hear some screaming then...

[43Inches]

Just waiting for the wing to fall of a Nigerian PA-31 and the worldwide fleet to be grounded until a SIDs program goes in. You'll hear some screaming then...

The PA31 already has a limited spar and airframe life dependant on model. Depending on various mods/inspection to the spar over the life of the aircraft the PA31 is basically retired from commercial service between 20-26 thousand hours. If you compare this to larger aircraft which usually have service lives of 50-100 thousand hours its only a very small number.

The CASA retirement schedule assumes all other non assessed/time limited airframe components will last at least 2 spar lives so the airframe is limited to this in general without further evidence.

The PA31-350 has a spar life rated at 13000hrs, this gives it a CASA retirement limit of 26000hrs.

[RatsoreA]

The PA31-350 has a spar life rated at 13000hrs, this gives it a CASA retirement limit of 26000hrs.

I wonder if anyone has done the maths on how long it will be based on the above, before all the PA-31's in Australia are permenantly put out to pasture?

Then replacement will be the only option, but with what?

And seeing as the last one rolled out of Piper's doors around '84, I would wager about 75% currently in service would have been made well before that, and therefore probably won't see out the next 5-10 years?

[43Inches]

And seeing as the last one rolled out of Piper's doors around '84, I would wager about 75% currently in service would have been made well before that, and therefore probably won't see out the next 5-10 years?

A nice thought, however Piper managed to squeeze out over 4000 PA31, most of which did not immediately start life as commuter workhorses. Some even until recently have only accrued around 200 hours a year average putting them around 6-10 thousand hours.

If you add the other light twins, there was around 10,000 aircraft produced in the 8-12 seat piston market in the 20 years 1965 to 1985. This does not include the 6 seat and under class. The only aircraft that comes close to replacing these machines on cost is the Caravan and Cessna has only managed around 2000 sales since 1984.

[RatsoreA]

Piper managed to squeeze out over 4000 PA31, most of which did not immediately start life as commuter workhorses.

That's true, but maybe it's my perverse interest in maths that I want to look at it a little closer -

PA-31's on the register according to CASA - 183.

I'm sure there are a few good, low time ones out there (I certainly haven't seen them, but statistically at least, they must be there!!) and I have flown roughly 7.7% of these (14). Only one of them have been below 10,000hrs. 2 years ago 2 of them were approaching 20000. That is by no means a huge statistical sampling, but it is a little telling.

I think the thing that will ultimately ground them is that they will just get too expensive to repair/re-engine.

Oh, and 35 404's on the register and 33 Caravans.

Using your 4000 (it's a nice round number!) PA-31's built, roughly 4.5% of the total ever built have found thier way downunder.

If past trends predict future trends, the small number of possible replacement aircraft that may or may not be in the pipline (like the Tecnam 2012? But specifically that one) that will actually be built, will probably not be built on the same scale as they were in '65-'85. So we might reasonably expect to see 10-20 of these mythical creatures over a twenty year span to replace roughly 250-odd airframes!

I don't know how this will all pan out in the future, but as someone pointed out earlier there will be a pretty big hole in the well trodden ladder of pilot progession in the coming years.

[navajoe]

Some of you blokes predicting the imminent demise of the piston twin aught to get real. The only thing that will see the end of these aircraft is the availability of avgas, there is nothing that comes close for the
dollar.
My navajo turned 40 this year, just over 12k hours and nearly as good airframe wise as when it came off the production line. Nil accident damage ( since in Oz anyway ) nil corrosion (i've looked ) the engines properly operated are almost bulletproof ( most going full life and beyond, put away $100 an hour and there's your new engines ) did the spar at 11k, do it again at 22k, at 33k its scrap metal, I don't care I won't be around to see that. Paint and interior in '09 and still 9/10. It's got a good GPS and a good A/P thats all I need.
So fellas what more could you want..............:ok:

[Jabawocky]

The only thing that will see the end of these aircraft is the availability of avgas

That will not be a problem shortly. And I expect the availability will be better not worse.

What is more the big turbo engines will do much better, and all engines will be cleaner and less costly to maintain as a result.

A better performing UL avgas is the answer and is almost here.

So, smile, be happy and love your Navvie a lot longer :ok:

[RatsoreA]

Navajoe, don't get me wrong, I don't want them to go! I really enjoy any hour I spend up the front of the PA-31, but a lot of them aren't as nice as yours sounds!

And there will always be a few ticking over (tiger moth?)!

Jaba, why do you say the avgas situation will get better? It's pretty much $3 a liter in some of the more far places around oz? I've been reading up a lot on the future of avgas, and haven't seen much good news!?

[Tinstaafl]

1980 model PA31-325 I operate has <3000 hours. It's a very nice machine with all the modern toys, nice interior, various STCs incl. the Panther bits & pieces.

Admittedly this is Part 135 in the US (equiv. to charter in Oz) but there are still many of it kind like this here.

[Jabawocky]

Rats,

Tell me about it, we paid $660 for 200L drum recently.

100LL as we know it is not going to get any better, so don't expect that product to be here for long after UL avgas comes along.

There have been a few try over the years, the oil companies readily admit they have failed, but a really smart, quiet chap from a small town in Oklahoma has solved it. All the flight testing is done, the FAArequirements are satisfied, and at present the reports and paperwork are being done. This is like a single man type certifying a new airliner in workload terms. The guy is a genius, and clearly nuts:}

The stuff is good, I have had the honor of dipping my finger in the jar, so to speak, I know what it is made of (no don't ask:O) and the good thing is it is easy to produce can be made in any decent refinery, and has no compatibility issues with other fuels. That means it can go into car fuel in any amount, so a messed up batch is not HAZMAT waste, it just makes awesome mogas.

Better still you can have 9999L of avgas, tip in one litre of G100UL and you now have non-conforming hazmat Avgas, but what you also have is conforming G100UL. It still meets spec. So. In any blend in your tank or the bowser tank it matters not.

Better vapor pressure and much higher octane, better than the old purple stuff, so anyone with high performance blown engines who have to run low blower on avgas will think all their Christmas wishes have come at once.

So it may not be massively cheaper, but the ability to produce it and sell it to other markets not just aviation and other factors means it should be cheaper, if not certainly more readily available.

This will not be next week, but it is not far away I hope. I will be over there in March and I hope by then George will have some more stuff to share. He deserves a knighthood for his work on this.

[Up-into-the-air]

And the injectors work!!

[27/09]

Jaba,

It sounds like one of those "It's too good to be true stories" almost snake oil.

I really hope what you say will come to fruition, BUT how come a "nobody" (for want of a better description) has been able to do what all the might of the oil companies hasn't been able to do?

Can you point us to any online info on this product. All I could find was reference to "Swift" which hails from Indiana

[triton140]

Here:

General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (http://www.gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php)

[27/09]

Thanks,

An interesting read. Looks like bureaucracy is alive and well slowing things down.

Oh and George isn't quite a nobody either.

[nomorecatering]

There is also Swift fuel...mad from biomas.

As far as oil running out, who cares. We can make fuel from algea.

Home - The Next Generation of Aviation Fuels | Swift Fuels (http://swiftfuels.com/)

The only problem with Gammi fuel is its heavier, so if u blend it, what sg do you use.

Next Big Bio-Fuel - ALGAE - YouTube

[Jabawocky]

Oh and George isn't quite a nobody either.

No he is not, he is about the smartest bloke I know.

Swift Fuel I fear will not get up. I could be wrong, but it just does not add up.

An interesting read. Looks like bureaucracy is alive and well slowing things down.


hahahaha ohhh yeah. And some of the petty politics that went on in the last couple of years would make you furious.

I really hope what you say will come to fruition, BUT how come a "nobody" (for want of a better description) has been able to do what all the might of the oil companies hasn't been able to do?

By the way I was not trying to hide the identity of anyone, rather keeping the "pushing GAMI" to a minimum, it seems to upset some folk, they think you have a vested interest all of a sudden :rolleyes: I wish I did let me say quietly!

To explain in simple terms, why the big oil have not done this before, when they had spent millions of dollars trying, was they went about it the wrong way. I was fortunate or privileged enough to spend a fair bit of quality time with George one Sunday afternoon in his office and he produced a piece of paper, which I was surprised he let me read. I had a look on my face of ...."no way, you are kidding me, its that easy!!!"

He then asked so what is your next question, to which I said how come nobody in the big oil has done this before? He just smiled and said, that was his question of the top fuel scientists at a couple of the oil companies. The oil company responses were, well we just did not look in the right place, they were basically head down bum up looking in the wrong corner of the envelope.

Simple as that.

George's approach was to develop a solution with a clean sheet of paper, then write a specification around that solution. And one that included no issues with change over.

Like I said..... smartest bloke I know. And I know some pretty smart folk. Makes me feel like an amoeba in the ocean of intelligence :sad:

As for running out of oil....... nope, that is not a problem. And he gave me a guided tour of some of that too. The Arabs used to be the oil well of the world. Not now.

Bottom line here is.... Fuel is not the excuse for the death of any sector of GA, or should not be in the next year or so.

[Ixixly]

A question for you Jabawocky, keeping in mind i'm still a junior and not savvy with these sorts of things, so excuse me if this seems like a silly question. If George is having such problems with the FAA waylaying him, why not try with another group? like JAA or EASA or someone like that...? Would it be possible to bring it to ICAO if the FAA are found to be unduly dragging out the process due to other interested parties (Read BP and Shell) using their influence to sustain their profits at the expense of all Avgas users??

[the_rookie]

Hopefully there is still a few PA31's floating around when I'm able to fly them. Beautiful aircraft. Shame to see them out of service

[nomorecatering]

So far we have seen a HSI on a PT-6 for a Cheyenne can run about 50K Does anyone know what a fukk overhaull would cost and say the cost of a new PT6

A new TIO-540 brank spankers runs about 95K and an overhaul about 50ish.

Yes we know a turbine is the go for commercial ops, but the discussion here is about a PVT aircraft.

[Subversive1]

Has anyone been out to Bankstown lately? The former Wingaway fleet are being replaced, at least in part, by PACs. Some of the piston twins are even being chopped up for scrap. Unless production and sales of a new piston type kick off in the next couple of years, piston twins will be all but out of commercial charter by 2020.

[rutan around]

Jabba,no need to be shy about GAMI on this thread. I'd be a bit hesitant about mentioning it on the " USA outlaws carbon tax " thread. You might upset Sprocket Check, Flying Binghi and other members of the Flat Earth Society who seem to frequent that one.
Adding to Ixixly's idea-- Why not CASA? For once they could come up smelling of roses and be applauded not just in Australia but in the whole aviation world for being the first approve G100 UL. I'd bet there are more than a few car rev heads who would also welcome a new unleaded fuel with in excess of 100 octane.
This weeks New Scientist has an interesting article on carbon neutral fuel. Another article that would interest fuelophiles is about new discoveries by Aust. scientists on how photosynthesis might be copied to very cheaply split water into oxygen and hydrogen.

Scientists unlock nature's hydrogen secrets - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/scientists-unlock-natures-hydrogen-secrets/4364072)
Cheers RA

[Jabawocky]

To answer it simply, the testing done is one thing, the paperwork is another. As much as it takes time could you honestly believe it would be quicker here or in Europe? I doubt it.

As you would know from looking at what they do, GAMI and TAT are very familiar with the process of having FAA approvals done. What is more they are an FAA approved engine test cell provider.

If anyone has any idea on how to wade through the process it is them.

It is now just the process. The road blockers were caught out at their silly games and their boss, well from what I was told she was not impressed. Problem solved.:ok:

[Ozgrade3]

The TBM-850, Meridian, PC12, King Air, C208, kestrel, PAC750 and others are all magnificent aircraft. They have [performance and avionics that even 20 years ago would have been the relm of fantasy, but they are the Mercedes and Cadilacs of the sky.

What we need is the Toyota. These were the Chieftains, 404's and Qeenairs. They dont have to be really really fast, or ultra long range. Just something to move the family 100-250nm with the kids, dog and surboards...maybe even the mother in law.

Sure a Kingair 250 would be lurverly. But only if I win Lotto. Pistons are what normal people will be able to afford. I can see the day when there are hundreds of Citation Mustangs and Meridians for sale with run out engines when the realise just how much a turbine engine costs to overhaul.

A Piper Matrix is bloody nice but it isnt big enough. There is nothing available between that and the PC12.

[Jabawocky]

OK here is a bit more for the motor heads out there.

G100UL typically exceeds the min spec for avgas by quite a bit, MON99.5. As this test sheet shows over MON101.

So have a look at the comments at the bottom highlighted. That should put a smile on a big turbo radial owner, things that like a lot more boost than 100LL will permit :ok:

And for the folk who need a (R+M)/2 number that is a bit better than average check this outhttp://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/G100UL2020R20plus20M20over2022020at20105pt206.jpg

Now compared to the BP 98 Ultimate that many racers etc have easy access to which has a RON=98 and MON=86 you can see why the avgas was popular. And the (R+M)/2 is 91 compared to over 105.

So yes the petrol heads will love this stuff and it will be a legal UL fuel to use. Of course you need an engine to be built accordingly to take advantage of it.

OK back to topic.....Piston twins assuming fuel is not an issue. An Aerostar :ok::} ..... now where is our mate UTR. He seems quiet.

[that guy]

Maybe this could be an option? :\

402 Turbine - The Falcon Flies (http://www.saflyermag.co.za/index.php/about/archive-article-list/197-402-turbine-the-falcon-flies.html)

or this? :yuk:

Serious questions loom over GM-17 Viper project | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2007-02-01/serious-questions-loom-over-gm-17-viper-project)

Where would I put my paxs' typical unrealistic amount of bags?? :confused:

[Octane]

Jabba,

Can you please post the missing power curves for the ASTM D909 Supercharge rating of your friends fuel?

Thanks

Octane

[PhillC]

What about STCs to replace TIO-540s with TD450s? Continental 300HP diesels.

Continental: Diesel Line Expanding, STC's Planned (http://www.avweb.com/news/airventure/EAAAirVenture2012_Diesel_Continental_STC_207047-1.html)

Other articles indicate these engines should be in production by 2015-2017

W W W . D I E S E L A I R . C O M -- The Diesel Air Newsletter -- Home (http://www.dieselair.com/2012/11/what-continental-motors-is-working-on.html)

For lower time PA31-350 airframes (well any with less than say 24,000 TT), this could be an interesting JetA1 burning option, replacing the evil leaded 100LL, and remaining a significantly cheaper option in maintenance terms than going the turboprop route.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

PAC750 = great wall. Can't even fly IFR....

It's as low-budget/utility as they come but the price of the donk and the fact that it's new still give it the massive price tag.

A new piston twin that fell into the category that private owners might more be able to afford is going to cost the same or more - see Seneca V prices...

[Horatio Leafblower]

For lower time PA31-350 airframes (well any with less than say 24,000 TT)

I'd suggest that 24,000 TTAF doesn't leave ****loads of airframe time to recoup the cost of conversion :hmm:

[Jabawocky]

and some probably have that many hours despite what the books say :hmm:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

New Seneca 5 - with standard dual Garmin G600 avionics suite....
USD935,000.

Sorta makes one look at a 'used' Baron for around USD500 or so....

But then what, when they run out?

Cheers

[27/09]

Quote:
PAC750
= great wall. Can't even fly IFR....

Must pass that tid bit on to some chaps I know that operate it IFR.

[Horatio Leafblower]

How do they go IFR CHTR with pax on board... as opposed to BK-MND-PMQ? :suspect:

[PLovett]

Aren't they only used on the freight/bank runs?

[Trojan1981]

Nope, they are doing medical transfers too.

[Tinstaafl]

Are the ambulance runs classed as Aerial Work? That steps around the Charter requirements.

[Trojan1981]

Yes, I believe all medical work is still classed as airwork.

This was a large proportion of the light twin work which has now gone to the PACs.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Why not? WA RFDS PC12's (or at least a couple of them) have KLN90B's.:}

[Stationair8]

Some of the C404's bought into the country were retrofitted with lightweight Ansair seating and could uplift 12 passengers on RPT, prior to the two pilot ruling introduced in the early 80's.

[PLovett]

T'was recently looking through the PoH for one of the C404s that I fly and noticed the layout diagrams for 12 seats. Can only think that legs must have been optional for the pax. :uhoh:

[43Inches]

Piper T-1050 project,

Take a Chieftain, stretch it 11ft 6in, strap on two turbines and there you go.

4200kg MTOW, 1400kg payload (freighter allowed an additional 300-400kg), 15 seats. 3% increased field performance from the T-1040 (a turbine Chieftain), 400nm range with full load.

All this for $300,000 USD around 1983.

Unfortunately Piper never got the orders to start production and certification. A small number of T-1040s were built. Piper intended that the 1050 modification could be applied to the 1040 once the certification process had completed.

[43Inches]

Some turboprop options for the PA31 series.

Piper T-1040
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/1/4/3/0809341.jpg
Not really a Chieftain or a Cheyenne, sort of a half way aircraft. Imagine it 11ft longer and you have the T-1050.


EMB/NE-821 Caraja Conversion
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/4/6/3/0284364.jpg
The basic PA31-350 (EMB 820) converted to a turbine with PT-6-27 engines.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Have heard that the FAA won't issue N reg to any of the Embraers. Any truth?

[DBTW]

I have heard that MakeItHappenCaptain. My interpretation is that FAA are very unlikely to recognise/register any licence build GA types. Some folk I know had big trouble trying with a Philippino assembled BN2T and never got it on the N reg.

[43Inches]

Have heard that the FAA won't issue N reg to any of the Embraers. Any truth?

From the FAA TCDS:

NOTE 5 Any aircraft with a letter prefix on the serial number is not eligible for airworthiness certification in the
United States. Example: AR31-XXXXXXXX.

NOTE 6 The following serial numbers are not eligible for airworthiness certification in the United States:
PA-31, PA-31-300, and PA-31-325:
31-7400991, 31-7512002, 31-7512026, 31-7812011, 31-7812053, 31-7812070, 31-7812080,
31-7812101, 31-7812116, 31-7812122, 31-8012045, 31-8012056, 31-8012067, 31-8012071, 31-8012083,
31-8012089, 31-8012101, 31-8012102, 31-8112037, 31-8112044, 31-8112052, 31-8112061, 31-8112072,
31-8112073, 31-8112077, 31-8212023, 31-8212024, 31-8212028, 31-8212029, 31-8212034, 31-8212036,
31-8312002, and 31-8312007.
PA-31-350:
31-7405218, 31-7405238, 31-7405485, 31-7405490, 31-7552043, 31-7552073, 31-7552076,
31-7652099, 31-7652144, 31-7852014, 31-7852042, 31-7852081, 31-7852110, 31-7852123, 31-7852133,
31-7852169, 31-7952067, 31-7952140, 31-7952184, 31-7952231, 31-8052009, 31-8052083, 31-8052145,
31-8052217, 31-8052218, 31-8052219, 31-8152067, 31-8152068, 31-8152122, 31-8152123, 31-8152144,
31-8152145, 31-8152201, 31-8152202, 31-8152203, 31-8252024, 31-8252037, 31-8252046, 31-8252058,
31-8252070, 31-8252071, 31-8252084, 31-8252085, 31-8352002, 31-8352003, and 31-8352036.

If you search some of those serials they are aircraft located in various Sth American Countries. The EMB-820c, Embraer/NIEVA built Navajo do not have certification for the USA and are not covered by the PA31 TCDS. Some of the serials may have been produced in the US for the Sth American market with similar restrictions. PA31 produced/assembled in argentina are known as PA-A-31 with similar issues as the EMB-820.

[Guptar]

Interesting to stumble on a 10 year old thread and see if the confident predictions came true.

Tecnam seem to be doing quite will with the 2012, even introducing a STOL version with GTSIO engine. Who would have thought that one would be back in production.

60 deliveries so far I believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tltslx3Fkp8&t=626s

[septuganarian]

Some turboprop options for the PA31 series.

Piper T-1040
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/1/4/3/0809341.jpg
Not really a Chieftain or a Cheyenne, sort of a half way aircraft. Imagine it 11ft longer and you have the T-1050.


EMB/NE-821 Caraja Conversion
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/4/6/3/0284364.jpg
The basic PA31-350 (EMB 820) converted to a turbine with PT-6-27 engines.
Went along on a demo flight in one of those when in Mackay during Aus demo tour. The ideal way into turbo ops without the complexities if pressurisation etc. Perfect for low alt tourist work. Demonstrated to a Whitsundays area charter/scenic operator.

[Kulwin Park]

10 years on, much has changed! The Beechcraft Denali single turbine is making an entry, PC12 is popular, the twin pistons are slow fading away

[evilducky]

Interesting to stumble on a 10 year old thread and see if the confident predictions came true.

Tecnam seem to be doing quite will with the 2012, even introducing a STOL version with GTSIO engine. Who would have thought that one would be back in production.

60 deliveries so far I believe.


There’s a Tecnam P2012 demonstrator now in Aus doing the rounds. No buyers yet from all accounts.

Unfortunately it’s all in the numbers - capital costs are on a par with a new C208 EX, but the P2012 is slower, burns more fuel, burns a more expensive fuel, has a smaller cabin, same BEW as a 208 EX but 430kg lower MTOW. Pretty sturdy resale market for the 208 but hardly so for the 2012.

[Global Aviator]

I see the C209EW has a significant number of LOI’s.

This should really give the old ‘heavy twin’ a run. Competitively priced, the new upgraded engine with the redundancy powered electric option is really proving popular to the woke generation.

I’m surprised it’s taken this long.

[43Inches]

Large piston twins just don't have the demand. 20 years ago a piper rep said they would make PA31s again if there was a market for at least 100+. They get drips and drabs of interest but the used market trumps new prices and by the time the used planes run out might be years and new technology will use a new design or the use for them is jus uneconomical. After all this is a market for working aircraft, not private use.

If you really want something like a Navajo for private use you are better off buying an old one and restoring it. It will be cheaper than a new one.

[megle2]

Global, 209 LOI’s are fine but try getting them to lock in a delivery date

[Stationair8]

A man has not lived, until he has experienced a cool early morning departure sitting between two GTSIO-520’s.

[Lead Balloon]

Global, 209 LOI’s are fine but try getting them to lock in a delivery dateThere’s a short delay while ICAO finalises the SARP for GADDS. The 209EW will be fitted with GADDS-compatible avionics.

[Alice Kiwican]

A man has not lived, until he has experienced a cool early morning departure sitting between two GTSIO-520’s.

Agreed!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Ahh yes but have you flown it?

Ground hugging bastard.

Set up in cruise attitude and power and the fuselage vibrates like a Bunnings garden shed in a cyclone.

The Ailerons are so heavy there is a Tecnam-Pilots only Fitness App and an instagram page showing off the Bicep/Tricep benefits of Tecnam flying.

Loved the interior. Loved the Cockpit. ******* terrible aeroplane to fly.

[evilducky]

Ahh yes but have you flown it?

Ground hugging bastard.

Set up in cruise attitude and power and the fuselage vibrates like a Bunnings garden shed in a cyclone.

The Ailerons are so heavy there is a Tecnam-Pilots only Fitness App and an instagram page showing off the Bicep/Tricep benefits of Tecnam flying.

Loved the interior. Loved the Cockpit. ******* terrible aeroplane to fly.

+1 on the above.

[Eaglerocker]

the Piston twin is clearly on the way out in favour of SE turbine. The real question is when will the airlines drop the requirments for 500 multi etc..

[Capt Fathom]

The real question is when will the airlines drop the requirments for 500 multi etc..

When there is no one left with 500 hrs multi.

GA in Australia will continue to decline as the piston fleets reach the end of their economical life. They won’t all be replaced by turbines because of the cost.

Airlines will have to go to cadet programs as they do in Europe where there is a limited GA pool.

[Squawk7700]

I saw on Facebook that be first Cirrus Vision jet is about to be approved for charter. LCR was the rego and it was on Sunrise for the Angel Flight prize draw.

[Pinky the pilot]

The Ailerons are so heavy there is a Tecnam-Pilots only Fitness App and an instagram page showing off the Bicep/Tricep benefits of Tecnam flying.

What? You mean just like a 'Bongo Van??' aka 'Brumm Brumms.

[PiperCameron]

GA in Australia will continue to decline as the piston fleets reach the end of their economical life. They won’t all be replaced by turbines because of the cost.

You're right about the turbines, but I reckon GA will be round for as long as overseas students (esp. from India and China) continue to come over to train in year-old Cessnas and re-engined Seminoles and various other twin trainers. There are a surprising number of Aero Commanders still working commercially. For at least as long as Lyconental continue to make parts and engines there'll be someone here wanting to rebuild them. At the rate it's going we'll be the last country in the world where you can still buy 100LL ...and we'll have the most antique GA fleet also.

[Checkboard]

G100UL - GAMI's 100 octane unleaded fuel might keep piston engines going for a long time.

https://gami.com/g100ul/news.php

[43Inches]

There's over 100,000 piston AVGAS powered aircraft in the US. So while 100LL might be on the phase out list by 2030 it will be replaced by something, or just keep being produced. And yes G100UL is on the cards. The real problem is the cost of the fuels, the higher it gets relative to AVTUR the more AVTUR powerplants will be chosen.

[PiperCameron]

There's over 100,000 piston AVGAS powered aircraft in the US. So while 100LL might be on the phase out list by 2030 it will be replaced by something, or just keep being produced. And yes G100UL is on the cards. The real problem is the cost of the fuels, the higher it gets relative to AVTUR the more AVTUR powerplants will be chosen.

Not really.. the price of fuel goes up and down daily with supply and demand, whereas the type of fuel used (and what you have to buy regardless) is dictated by (a) the technology best suited to the mission, (b) the infrastructure in place and (c) the cost of maintenance over the long term. That's why there are far more petrol cars than diesel on the roads, but not that many petrol trucks. AVTUR is cheaper than 100LL because it's consumed in significantly higher quantities by turbine engines that are extremely expensive to maintain.

The issue I see with G100UL is that the technology (and the STCs) is owned by GAMI. Unless they make their tech free for everyone else to make (or, I suppose, Innospec decides to stop making TEL), here in Oz, G100UL is never going to be cheaper than 100LL.

[Lead Balloon]

Assuming 100LL isn’t ‘banned’…

The prospect of 100LL being ‘banned’ in various states in the USA was among the factors that prompted GAMI to pursue its own alternative.

[PiperCameron]

Assuming 100LL isn’t ‘banned’…

The prospect of 100LL being ‘banned’ in various states in the USA was among the factors that prompted GAMI to pursue its own alternative.

Though it isn't likely to be 'banned' over here because (a) the 'Big 4' oil companies (one in particular) kinda enjoy the monopoly they have right now and (b) GA industry in this country is too small for anyone in power to notice (or care) that we're still using it! Aviation White Paper, anyone??

They're not that noble.. GAMI were prompted to pursue its own alternative because they saw an opportunity (if it worked) to make some serious money.

If Innospec USA stop making TEL for whatever reason then, yeah, GAMI can just wander in and take over whenever they like. So it's politics, not technology or cost or anything else that's the real issue (in the USA as well as here).

[43Inches]

Not really.. the price of fuel goes up and down daily with supply and demand, whereas the type of fuel used (and what you have to buy regardless) is dictated by (a) the technology best suited to the mission, (b) the infrastructure in place and (c) the cost of maintenance over the long term. That's why there are far more petrol cars than diesel on the roads, but not that many petrol trucks. AVTUR is cheaper than 100LL because it's consumed in significantly higher quantities by turbine engines that are extremely expensive to maintain.

The issue I see with G100UL is that the technology (and the STCs) is owned by GAMI. Unless they make their tech free for everyone else to make (or, I suppose, Innospec decides to stop making TEL), here in Oz, G100UL is never going to be cheaper than 100LL.

The base price of fuel/oil goes up and down with the market, the cost of refining and wholesaling a particular product will be multiplied by that cost. AVGAS is now a rare fuel product, made for dwindling demand, so it will continue to rise in % vs the cost of AVTUR. There is also the facility, transport and storage costs associated with delivery of a product that has a limited life span, ie used by date. So the cost of AVGAS away from refineries will also increase significantly as use declines, making less pump facilities viable at less ports. Where as AVTUR usage still remains fairly strong for regional airlines, aeromed and other turbine powered private use aircraft.

Refineries will not drop the price of AVGAS to spur demand, they are purely providing it as a service and income, the less it pays the bills the less AVGAS will be available, not cheaper.

In short AVGAS will continue to increase in price relative to AVTUR as time goes by and you might find the only ones selling it outside of major cities will be the satellite ports with large flying schools. That is if they don't switch to diesel AVTUR powered trainers.

The only way an AVGAS replacement will be cheaper than AVTUR is if there is some huge change in the way it is refined, dropping lead is a start, but that might make refining a longer more expensive process making in more expensive again. It's probably better to let the fuel type die and make everything AVTUR or Car fuel based, or electric or whatever, rather than keep a separate fuel technology going. But it's a long way off as the US will not be dropping AVGAS powered aircraft anytime soon.

[Corvallis]

Tecnam p2012 is a heavy piston twin . Selling quite well.

[PiperCameron]

The only way an AVGAS replacement will be cheaper than AVTUR is if there is some huge change in the way it is refined, dropping lead is a start, but that might make refining a longer more expensive process making in more expensive again.

It's not the refining cost, it's the testing & paperwork cost - after all this is aviation we're talking about here. Car fuel is, let's just say, a little less stringent. :E

By definition, AVGAS* without TEL isn't AVGAS, hence the significant cost-and-time hassles GAMI had to go through to generate STCs for every engine type their customers want to run their G100UL (G = GAMI) on - even through it's (supposedly) a drop-in replacement. That means that, at airports in the states where only G100UL is available, if you haven't obtained (paid for) an STC in advance you can't, legally, refuel your aircraft there.


*For standard AVGAS, start at ASTM D910-21 Standard Specification for Leaded Aviation Gasolines
The gasoline shall adhere to octane rating requirements specified for individual grades, as follows: lean mixture knock value (motor octane number and aviation lean rating); rich mixture knock value (octane and performance number); tetraethyl lead content; color; and dye content (blue, yellow, red, and orange). Conversely, the gasoline shall meet the following requirements specified for all grades: density; distillation (initial and final boiling points, fuel evaporated, evaporated temperatures); recovery, residue, and loss volume; vapor pressure; freezing point; sulfur content; net heat of combustion; copper strip corrosion; oxidation stability (potential gum and lead precipitate); volume change during water reaction; and electrical conductivity.

[Lead Balloon]

Though it isn't likely to be 'banned' over here because (a) the 'Big 4' oil companies (one in particular) kinda enjoy the monopoly they have right now and (b) GA industry in this country is too small for anyone in power to notice (or care) that we're still using it! Aviation White Paper, anyone??

They're not that noble.. GAMI were prompted to pursue its own alternative because they saw an opportunity (if it worked) to make some serious money.

If Innospec USA stop making TEL for whatever reason then, yeah, GAMI can just wander in and take over whenever they like. So it's politics, not technology or cost or anything else that's the real issue (in the USA as well as here).I often read your posts as actually making my point.

I agree, it's politics that will determine whether LL Avgas will continue to be available in Australia (and the USA). There are plenty of environmentalists in Australia who have the ear of people who have a big and occasionally decisive chunk of votes in various parliaments around the place. It is precisely because the "GA industry" in Australia is so small that it easy to sacrifice without causing too much political damage. And LL Avgas is rounding errors on the oil companies' petty cash float.

I didn't suggest GAMI were in it as a charity. George Braly is a very, very smart man and I hope he gets very, very rich off G1000UL. That's as it should be in capitalist countries.

[PiperCameron]

I often read your posts as actually making my point.

Just passing out a bit more ammo.. so I'll take that as a compliment, LB :)

I didn't suggest GAMI were in it as a charity. George Braly is a very, very smart man and I hope he gets very, very rich off G1000UL. That's as it should be in capitalist countries.

Given he's been working on it for over a decade knowing that at no time was it a guaranteed success.. and then actually succeeding in getting the FAA to approve STCs for nearly every GA aircraft still flying?!? Wow! Yes, indeed!

[tossbag]

Working on it for 10 years, and probably 9 years of that was burecratic bull****.

[43Inches]

AVGAS refinement is really not that more controlled than car fuel. Different dye, TEL additive, tested at regular stages. However the big difference is its a limited run specialty fuel. So it's more expensive. High perfromance car users used to sneak some from aircraft bowsers as there was less tax making it cheaper than specialty racing fuels that were more expensive for the same reason. There used to be enough demand for several refineries in Australia, now only the one refinery provides AVGAS. Funny for ages they still had green and blue fuel, which were both the same product with different dyes for retail purposes, the green dye fuel having stuffed up in 2001 which created problems for brass parts in fuel lines and carbys. They conned a lot that the green fuel was still 100/130, but was just BP/Mobils version of 100LL. It was even worse when it was coming from the same refinery in different colours.

[evilducky]

Tecnam p2012 is a heavy piston twin . Selling quite well.

Is it selling quite well though? Don't think the Australian distributor has booked any sales yet, and I know of two operators that had a look at the P2012 and promptly bought a Caravan EX instead.

[Pinky the pilot]

Slight Thread drift

High perfromance car users used to sneak some from aircraft bowsers as there was less tax making it cheaper than specialty racing fuels that were more expensive for the same reason.

I used to drive a 1974 Toyota Celica which had a worked Twin Cam Engine. (Almost Full Race specs) Back in the late 90's Avgas 100LL was cheaper than Unleaded Fuel and the engine pinged like hell on straight Unleaded, so ran the Car solely on 100LL. Car performed very well!!

Then had to switch to Premium Unleaded (98 RON) when I could no longer source the Avgas and didn't really notice any decrease in performance.

[rigpiggy]

...What problems are they? :confused:

If you have professional and competent engineers and pilots the Titan is an awesome aircraft and the GTSIO is an awesome engine. As said above, it ****s all over the competition :ok:

I was training captain at a survey company. Engine management was my number one priority, you wouldn't believe how many(experienced)guys would pull the engine to idle for.a.descent. Needless to say beating s improved morale(mine anyways)

[Aerodynamicer]

This one is an interesting time capsule.

quote from RatsoreA December 2012 "and 35 404's on the register and 33 Caravans. "

Now there are still 33 titans but the Caravan population is 146 !

[Global Aviator]

This one is an interesting time capsule.

quote from RatsoreA December 2012 "and 35 404's on the register and 33 Caravans. "

Now there are still 33 titans but the Caravan population is 146 !

If they were still building Titans then it would be a better comparison!

Is the F406 still being built? Now that was a beast, basically a PT6 Titan.

The big turbine singles certainly gaining popularity but as the thread is twins with less new options out there what really is the choice?