I can see, valid points all the way through... insurance, - read huge expense!! ... leasing yup, big expense... owned aircraft, still alot of valued dollars sitting around being eaten up in time if it aint being utilised... supply and demand on pilots is a huge factor... available training resources and the cost of training... running costs, higher if your pilot misjudges fuel flows, altitudes etc... all play a factor in the final outcome of who gets to drive at the pointy end of something more sexy than your average chieftain.

I am not fond of pistons by any stroke of the imagination, especially when some blocks have been round the traps a few times... but I got used to 207's then turbos, then turbines... much easier to handle, two critical phases, start up and shut down... and Ive seen some very expensive FOD damage more often than pilot damage to turbine engines...

If it were me who owned the aircraft... Id look for variety of successful experiences with a reasonable amount of time, a willing personality, and a team oriented attitude. Id have to take into account what the insurance company wanted as accidents happen... (eg lightning strikes, bird strikes, etc and a pilot flying under the insurers set minimums is taking one hell of a gamble with the potential damage value) and Ive never underestimated the value of an experienced hand... There will always be someone better than yourself, so why not take the opportunity and pick a few brain cells...

So the summary.... more systems, faster platform (in most cases), different considerations in flight planning, more things to think about from both flight and airlaw perspectives, but one hell of a lot easier to fly, less stress than being stuck in the crap (if its pressurised of course), less finiky than a turbo or a GTSO, and overall if the pilot is adequately trained in all the systems, with some time on the aircraft.... he / she should become alot more comfortable esp in a single pilot operation... different again for a multicrew situation where its not the aircraft which poses a problem, but potentially the other sitting in the seat beside you. Usually the other person is the other half of a very valuable team at the forefront of getting paying punters to the relevant locations safely.

Youve still got decisions to make, plan ahead, more passengers, usually larger companies, but nothing which cant be overcome. It all depends how much time and money go into the training budget.

A personal Conquest would be very nice, but Id spend a while at Flight Safety first.... I aint no hero...

Mount'in Man , Man, you've got the right attitude. Any time you want a job with me, you've got one. In complete agreement with you, I guess that is why I'm still around after more than half a lifetime.

mmmmm......I now see what solicited that reply...thanks Bik, small typo there.

GTSIO 520 (D)....to be precise..:O

The actual operation of a turbo-prop engine is simplicity in itself from start up to shut down ( particularly for free turbine engines , less so for Garrets with manual SPR ) and to say otherwise flies in the face of everyones experience with temperamental flat,round,geared and turbocharged piston engines that need constant babying throughout their lives in order to reach TBO.

Trouble is they cost a fortune to buy and insure and will always have a performance gain over the piston equivalant so the person operating it will need a store of experience in order to be productive for maximum hourly return whilst keeping it out of the weeds.

Note the experience is required to take advantage of the performance gain not because the powerplant is fragile .

airag
 

A very succinct post. :)

Bunglerat

I think airag hit the nail on the head. I would also like to add that in many a case, high performance turbo-props are used in contract work, i.e., oil company, government work, etc, and quite often the contract not only stipulates aircraft type to be used but also minimum crew requirements, i.e. hours and number of pilots. Most oil company work for example that I did, required two pilots even though the aircraft was certified for single pilot operations and the PIC required 3000hrs total, 1500hrs multi command and I think 100hrs command on type. There was some night command required but I can’t recall the exact hours. The second pilot or safety pilot required 1500hrs total, 500hrs multi command and 50hrs on type.
:)

My 2-cents worth
 

Yea , I can agree with most of the posts.

However nobody mentioned the great value of pilot's having flown a pressurised turbo-charged Piston twin -
i..e Cessna 340/414. 421 ; Beech 58P;
Rockwell 680FLP & the single-engined
Piper Malibu.
Ever heard of shock-cooling, fuel-vapourisation, fuel-blockages, 6-tank fuel management , 180 fpm single-engine climb , drift-down when on one overheating engine & Avgas shortages ?

Taught me a thing or 2 before going onto
JetA1 !!

flyboy2

Agree totally. Experience on these and other types would definitely help and be of an asset when transitioning to your first high performance turbo-prop or jet. It certainly was for me. The biggest hurdle that most will encounter though is company requirements, which are generally stipulated in contracts with clients and to a large extent insurance company requirements because of the higher hull replacement costs. Insurance companies like to taketh but not to payeth, especially when the sums of money involved are large.
:)