PA31-350 Vs Reims F406
Thread Starter
PA31-350 Vs Reims F406
After a discussion today with C340 ownere who is looking to get something bigger, like Chieftain, the topic of a Reims F406 caravan 11 came up.
Any one care to comment on the F406, for use as a private aircraft for family duties.
Cost of running turbines v's pistons.
Performance comparisons.
Start cycle considerations on a turbine engine as the aircraft will do lots of short trips, alog with the odd long one. I was always of the belief that turbines were not good for pvt ops for this reason.
Are other bits on a turbine aircraft more expensive than a piston aircraft...because they are on a turbine aircraft. have heared bits that sel fr$500 on a piston, the same bit on a turbine a/c is 5 times more expensive...True/false?
Overal operating cost comparison for say 100 hrs per year.
he's lookign at ourchasing a Chieftain and having a ground up restoration, or mabe going for a F406. Interetstingly the F406 appears to be back in production so hats a bonus in itself.
Any one care to comment on the F406, for use as a private aircraft for family duties.
Cost of running turbines v's pistons.
Performance comparisons.
Start cycle considerations on a turbine engine as the aircraft will do lots of short trips, alog with the odd long one. I was always of the belief that turbines were not good for pvt ops for this reason.
Are other bits on a turbine aircraft more expensive than a piston aircraft...because they are on a turbine aircraft. have heared bits that sel fr$500 on a piston, the same bit on a turbine a/c is 5 times more expensive...True/false?
Overal operating cost comparison for say 100 hrs per year.
he's lookign at ourchasing a Chieftain and having a ground up restoration, or mabe going for a F406. Interetstingly the F406 appears to be back in production so hats a bonus in itself.
The difference in purchase price is quite significant, last time I was looking at a F406 for our company it was slightly above 1 million US for a descent one.
Overall the ç06 is a much better aircraft for commercial ops, far more reliable and climbs like a homesick angel on one donkey which tends to kill people as well.
It is significantly faster, has about a 1500kg payload, bullet proof engines if handled normally, good field performance and a much wider cabin with more luggage space (even more with a pod)
Running costs I cant help you with (execept fuel flow is 500lbs/hr total) but I don't think it would be suitable to park the aircraft for most of the yr, maybe he can lease it to a company to operate and he uses it when he needs it.
Hope this helps
Overall the ç06 is a much better aircraft for commercial ops, far more reliable and climbs like a homesick angel on one donkey which tends to kill people as well.
It is significantly faster, has about a 1500kg payload, bullet proof engines if handled normally, good field performance and a much wider cabin with more luggage space (even more with a pod)
Running costs I cant help you with (execept fuel flow is 500lbs/hr total) but I don't think it would be suitable to park the aircraft for most of the yr, maybe he can lease it to a company to operate and he uses it when he needs it.
Hope this helps
A ground up restoration of a Chieftain coul;d be a very expensive exercise. At at the end of it all, you still have an unreliable pair of engines running on fuel which is increasingly hard to find in some areas.
A turbine engine overhaul may cost more, but a PT6 should go full life unless mistreated or you are plain unlucky. Garretts are also OK in the right hands. The same can't be said for blown piston engines of any make.
F406 is the way to go.
A turbine engine overhaul may cost more, but a PT6 should go full life unless mistreated or you are plain unlucky. Garretts are also OK in the right hands. The same can't be said for blown piston engines of any make.
F406 is the way to go.
Someone said to me once, turbine a/c need to be flown everyday where as piston a/c are not so critical. While most a/c like to be flown regularly, turbine a/c dislike sitting in a hangar for a few months much more.
True/false?
True/false?
Have they considered a smaller single, like a Meridan, TBM? I wouldn't have thought 406s were much newer than a 31...
Not that Ive ever owned a plane
Yet...
Arrr
Not that Ive ever owned a plane
Yet...
Arrr
What about the Cessna C425 ConquestI/Corsair, like the RFDS operated out of Kalgoorlie.
Better fuel consumption up in the Flight Levels and good TAS of 260 kts.
The Reims C406 certainly looks a good performer.
Better fuel consumption up in the Flight Levels and good TAS of 260 kts.
The Reims C406 certainly looks a good performer.
Moderator
Guptar.
You've failed to provide the critical factors:
Tail Wheel
P.S. If I had lashings of brass and were stoopid enough to - again - buy a personal aircraft (been there, done that!), I would not consider either the Chieftain or 406. I would not look beyond a low time C208.
You've failed to provide the critical factors:
- How much money does your friend have?
- How much of that is he prepared to lose?
Tail Wheel
P.S. If I had lashings of brass and were stoopid enough to - again - buy a personal aircraft (been there, done that!), I would not consider either the Chieftain or 406. I would not look beyond a low time C208.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huge step from a small piston twin to any turbine. The cost of a hot section replacement alone due to over temping, (can & does happen)would be the cost of most light pitson twins full stop !
There's no comparison for performance, reliablity & comfort due to higher crz levels but that also goes for the costs as well.
Go for a trubine, there's no question about that fact if you have a choice, but make sure you have the money, the training & the back-up too, well back it all up 'cause when they break so just might the bank account !
TW is correct, although he is 'steering' from the rear remember !
CW
There's no comparison for performance, reliablity & comfort due to higher crz levels but that also goes for the costs as well.
Go for a trubine, there's no question about that fact if you have a choice, but make sure you have the money, the training & the back-up too, well back it all up 'cause when they break so just might the bank account !
TW is correct, although he is 'steering' from the rear remember !
CW
Grandpa Aerotart
Another factor with turbines is annual utilization vs hot section inspections/engine TBOs.
It might say 3000 or 5000 hr TBO on the tin but in the fine print is 'or 10 years whichever occurs first'...so if you're flying less than 300-500 hrs annually you will get hammered into the ground like a tent peg on DOCs...either in money out of your pocket to overhaul said engines or in reduced resale value...either way, you pay.
If he wants bigger tell him to buy the lowest time C414/421 he can find with the best gadgets and newest engines/props (with gamis and engine monitors). That way he'll get more bang for near as damn it the same $.
For purely private operations pistons and avgas still out perform turbines by a significant margin on any measure....that is why they still build them.
Unless of course $ is not a consideration.
It might say 3000 or 5000 hr TBO on the tin but in the fine print is 'or 10 years whichever occurs first'...so if you're flying less than 300-500 hrs annually you will get hammered into the ground like a tent peg on DOCs...either in money out of your pocket to overhaul said engines or in reduced resale value...either way, you pay.
If he wants bigger tell him to buy the lowest time C414/421 he can find with the best gadgets and newest engines/props (with gamis and engine monitors). That way he'll get more bang for near as damn it the same $.
For purely private operations pistons and avgas still out perform turbines by a significant margin on any measure....that is why they still build them.
Unless of course $ is not a consideration.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost??
And if you want a pressurised turboprop you can expect to pay about $2500 a week to have it sit at the aerodrome. Operating costs will be on top of that.
For 100 hours a year, it would be smart to hire instead, as the hours are not there to absorb the fixed costs.
For 100 hours a year, it would be smart to hire instead, as the hours are not there to absorb the fixed costs.
Moderator
If it flies or floats, rent don't buy. (Yeah, I know, I missed one category... 
)
Chuck, I thought some piston engines also have a time limited life around 10 years? Of course, a recip engine overhaul is much less than around US$350,000 for a PT6 at 3,500 hours base line TBO!
)Chuck, I thought some piston engines also have a time limited life around 10 years? Of course, a recip engine overhaul is much less than around US$350,000 for a PT6 at 3,500 hours base line TBO!
Also take into consideration the Piper Cheyenne or the Kingair C90.
The Cheyenne got a pretty good report in this months Business and Commercial Aviation.
A nice little MU-2?
The Cheyenne got a pretty good report in this months Business and Commercial Aviation.
A nice little MU-2?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly the PA 42, ( I think that's it). Nice machine, way too expensive compared to a piston light twin. The best thing they ever did to then tired old PA31 airframe.
Gee 'stationair8' an MU-2? oh boy now there's a whole can of expensive worms!
F
Gee 'stationair8' an MU-2? oh boy now there's a whole can of expensive worms!
F
