C90 operating costs
Why a C90? Curious bystander and have considerable hours watching the operations of B200s from the right seat. Same basic engine design, more power, more seats, more payload, more range, more speed, excellent rough field ops, better cabin environment, better chance of getting one already modded with a cargo door. Why not a B200?
Interesting link Obi_Wan 2015. The guys flying for Norfolk kept prodigious logs on engine condition on every flight. With those cycle numbers and costs involved...it all makes sense now
Interesting link Obi_Wan 2015. The guys flying for Norfolk kept prodigious logs on engine condition on every flight. With those cycle numbers and costs involved...it all makes sense now
C90 is a fantastic aeroplane, but the B200 is the better one by a long way.
But old Kingairs are maintenance intensive, once over the 10,000 mark you will be needing deep pockets and good engineering support.
The Norfolk Kingair trend monitoring is nothing short of legendary, endorsed on the B2O0, then endorsed on the trend monitoring and don't deviate from SOPS.
The chief pilot and chief engineer must have been a fearsome combination!
But old Kingairs are maintenance intensive, once over the 10,000 mark you will be needing deep pockets and good engineering support.
The Norfolk Kingair trend monitoring is nothing short of legendary, endorsed on the B2O0, then endorsed on the trend monitoring and don't deviate from SOPS.
The chief pilot and chief engineer must have been a fearsome combination!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same vintage, much better performer and much cheaper to operate is a Turbo Commander 690A/B. C90 and 690 were introduced same year (1971), and the 690 was much more advanced. Made the C90 look like a dinosaur.
1. 690 will do 280kts vs 200-something for the C90.
2. The Garrett's burn 20-30% less fuel than the PT6's.
3. It will fly higher.
4. It will fly further.
5. Better cabin differential.
6. Engine overhauls are much cheaper and the 5400hr TBO is almost twice as much as the PT6's. Garrett's are bulletproof.
7. The 5 year gear overhaul on the Commander is about $15K. What's the mandatory gear overhaul on the C90? Probably 3-5x as much.
Do yourself a favor, look at a 690A or B model. They even cost less to acquire, so it's a no brainer.
1. 690 will do 280kts vs 200-something for the C90.
2. The Garrett's burn 20-30% less fuel than the PT6's.
3. It will fly higher.
4. It will fly further.
5. Better cabin differential.
6. Engine overhauls are much cheaper and the 5400hr TBO is almost twice as much as the PT6's. Garrett's are bulletproof.
7. The 5 year gear overhaul on the Commander is about $15K. What's the mandatory gear overhaul on the C90? Probably 3-5x as much.
Do yourself a favor, look at a 690A or B model. They even cost less to acquire, so it's a no brainer.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 17th Oct 2015 at 20:22.
Adam Frisch is right the 690 is a much better option over a C90
I have already discovered passengers prefer the Aero Commander over other types. The tall cabin is a very big plus.
The only real problem is the spar inspections and the 241 AD. But if you do your homework you can buy a 690 that has had a spar renewal and just about all 690's have now had 241 done.
If the spar hadn't been done just make sure you get one that is on the max 36 month inspection programme.
I have already discovered passengers prefer the Aero Commander over other types. The tall cabin is a very big plus.
The only real problem is the spar inspections and the 241 AD. But if you do your homework you can buy a 690 that has had a spar renewal and just about all 690's have now had 241 done.
If the spar hadn't been done just make sure you get one that is on the max 36 month inspection programme.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The blackhawk -135 upgrade brings a 90 to similar speeds as the Commander, not sure about cost though. From a passenger point of view the PT6 is generally quieter than a Garrett.
A Conquest will give you 300kt+ with -10's with a cabin differential of 6.3 (from memory).
A Conquest will give you 300kt+ with -10's with a cabin differential of 6.3 (from memory).
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.bjtonline.com/sites/defau...onquest_ii.pdf
Has a good little comparison of operating costs and performance of the 90, Conquest, Commander and MU2.
Has a good little comparison of operating costs and performance of the 90, Conquest, Commander and MU2.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that the PT6 captured the market. Today, there are no Garrett powered IR SETP's around, and few twins. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the Garretts. That's just how things evolved. Coke vs Pepsi.
At the time of their introduction the PT6's were a good deal economically. They are no longer.
P&W has, as their market share has increased, also jacked up their prices. An overhaul of a PT6 is today an eye watering affair and costs much more than a Garrett, although the Garrett has 1800hrs longer TBO. You can overhaul two engines on the Twin Commander, for the same price as one on the PC12. And get an extra 1800hr TBO. Not only that, the Commander will burn less fuel than the single in the PC12.
As for STC extension programs, they exist for Garretts as well. 7000hr is just an SB and a program, and up to 9000hr are done on the crop duster Trush planes I've heard.
At the time of their introduction the PT6's were a good deal economically. They are no longer.
P&W has, as their market share has increased, also jacked up their prices. An overhaul of a PT6 is today an eye watering affair and costs much more than a Garrett, although the Garrett has 1800hrs longer TBO. You can overhaul two engines on the Twin Commander, for the same price as one on the PC12. And get an extra 1800hr TBO. Not only that, the Commander will burn less fuel than the single in the PC12.
As for STC extension programs, they exist for Garretts as well. 7000hr is just an SB and a program, and up to 9000hr are done on the crop duster Trush planes I've heard.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 18th Oct 2015 at 15:00.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, if you want to stay King Air, but still have the economy of the Garrett's, look at the B100 model. It's the only one they made with those engines. They demand a greater premium, as the they have a small but dedicated following.
Moderator
I've known PT6 engines to reliably run trouble free to 14,000 hours plus on condition. Don't believe a Garret would get there.
Doubt whether they were ever anywhere near WJT
Waugh and Jo'ies ( Catapillar ) had it in Sydney and it was private in Qld
Have a nagging feeling there was another one but too long ago ( very early nineties ), can't recall, maybe a blue striped one
Waugh and Jo'ies ( Catapillar ) had it in Sydney and it was private in Qld
Have a nagging feeling there was another one but too long ago ( very early nineties ), can't recall, maybe a blue striped one
megle2 i think you're correct - I have been wracking my brain trying to recall it. I was at HP when it was sold, seem to recall the old fella who owned it had passed away and it was being sold by his son who was a QC. Before it could be imported into the US it needed the props overhauled because they were over on calendar time, and an expensive MSB on the bleed air system which hadn't been done because it was not an AD.
Seem to think it was about 1990. The QC was pleased to be rid of it.
I liked the looks of the F90. Apart from the T tail mentioned it also had dual main wheels like the 200.
VH-WJT was Waugh and Josephson, or was it Johnson? Waugh and Joeys - as described by megle2.
Seem to think it was about 1990. The QC was pleased to be rid of it.
I liked the looks of the F90. Apart from the T tail mentioned it also had dual main wheels like the 200.
VH-WJT was Waugh and Josephson, or was it Johnson? Waugh and Joeys - as described by megle2.
