Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.
Reload this Page >

MT 5-blades now certified for Turbo Commanders

Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

MT 5-blades now certified for Turbo Commanders

Old 21st Mar 2017, 10:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
MT 5-blades now certified for Turbo Commanders

About $100K to install. Certainly worth it to look that good!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
MT_5_COMMANDER.jpg (123.4 KB, 140 views)
File Type: jpg
Front_angle.jpg (54.1 KB, 124 views)
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 20:19
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 50
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by AdamFrisch View Post
About $100K to install. Certainly worth it to look that good!
I guess it goes beyond look?

What are the expected gains?
atakacs is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 22:18
  #3 (permalink)  
7AC
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Out West
Posts: 124
Should be good fun if one failed to feather !
7AC is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 02:05
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
I guess it goes beyond look?

What are the expected gains?
Quieter, less vibration, better climb, mainly. Doesn't do much for top speed. Other benefit is to get away from Dowty or Hartzell props and their little fiefdom, costs and policies.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 02:24
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,231
How does the cost/hr compare for the three prop. suppliers?
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 10:01
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
Don't have the new prices, but the overhaul cycle is about 6-10 years on them (varies with engine and model). It's about $10K/side to do for both Dowty and Hartzell, if nothing's wrong. Replacing a blade is about $7K each. If a few blades need replacing it can get expensive pretty quick. The MT blades can be repaired if they're out of spec, and should in theory, not need replacing.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2017, 07:00
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,819
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.
stilton is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2017, 01:50
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
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.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2017, 06:53
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,819
Very interesting AF, thanks for the informative reply, what about reliability though.
People rave about how reliable the PT6 is, how does the Garrett engine compare ?
stilton is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2017, 18:36
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Very interesting AF, thanks for the informative reply, what about reliability though.
People rave about how reliable the PT6 is, how does the Garrett engine compare ?
Well, for one, it has 1800hr longer TBO, so that's a pretty good vote of confidence. In fact, if you're on a certain maintenance program, your engines can have 7000hr TBO. Now, in reality, I don't think the PT6 is any less reliable with it's 3600hr TBO, it's just that P&W have an interest in keeping the TBO there. It's what the market can bare. They're not interested in extending the TBO as long as not too many complain. And today, when they have virtual monopoly, it's very unlikely they will. I think both engines are equally as safe and reliable, but I do welcome the new GE H80 series in the Denali and some TPE developments also. P&W could certainly use the competition.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2017, 06:59
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,819
Very interesting, the Denali will be an interesting aircraft, curious to see how it
stacks up against the PC12 with the new GE engine, if they put their considerable
resources into developing a line of NG turboprops it will be a headache for PW.
stilton is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 21:04
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
Cessna is a little late to the game, and the H80 is an unknown for the general masses (although it's grandfather has been around since the 60's), but Cessna being Cessna with excellent sales and service, I'm sure they'll make it into a success. And it does fill a gap in their lineup. I personally wish there were a few more options in the twin TP world today, but the market has spoken. My long term end goal is to have a Piaggio P180 Avanti anyway, so the less they're valued by the market or the more people think they're odd and weird, the better for me as I get to benefit from the low prices!
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2017, 06:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,819
Yes the Avanti is one cool machine, faster than several light jets, bit noisy though.
stilton is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2017, 18:57
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 53
Posts: 2,329
Would probably only beaten by a Garrett powered Avanti. These Garretts can turn pilots in anti-noise/anti-aircraft protesters with their howling noise...
His dudeness is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 16:06
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 2
they had a garrett powered avanti in the cba-123 engines kept blowing up.
rigpiggy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.