I'm highly skeptical that Cape Air makes more money with piston engines than if they went turbine. In the airline industry, the greatly reduced maintenance and reliability of the turbine pays for itself, for example 9000 hour TBOs, no plugs, mags, exhaust to maintain, not to mention airlines can buy fuel at ridiculously low prices (think about $1/gallon for Jet-A).

The cheapest operators of twin Cessnas used to be Grand Canyon sight seeing tours. They have all basically switched to Beech 99s, Twin Otters, etc, all turbine.

If a piston engine was going to be cheaper to operate, low altitude scenic work would be the best place, and yet they are turbine, and mostly PT6 even.

Also, with the main airlines ditching turboprops for RJs, there are a TON of disused twin turboprops sitting out there that can be bought for a song. Whatever this planes costs, I can buy a fleet of Jetstreams or Metros for less per copy and they can do much more.

They pay a multiple that exceeds the turbine fuel burn increase easily.


Likewise for turbine. TPE331 in airline service gets 9000 hours.


You left out two things, the denominator of hours over which the money is spent, and the costs of in between maintenance of the two engine types.

Every 50 hours, the TSIO-520 on a Cape Air 402 is in the shop getting something. Oil changes, plugs, mags, exhaust leak check, cylinder pulls, etc. Meanwhile the turbine engine is running without interruption, scheduled or otherwise, for much longer.

Let's say they get 2500 hours from a TSIO-520 and it costs $60K to overhaul. Let's says the routine maintenance adds up to $500 every 50 hours. Total cost per hour is $34/hour.

Let's say they get 9000 hours from a TPE331-10 and it costs $250K to overhaul, $50K to HSI mid life, and it costs $500 every 400 hours for routine maintenance (which is nozzle cleaning mostly). That is $34/hour. The turbine airplane probably flies faster, so this is actually less cost per mile.

The turbine is also a big difference in customer acceptance, pilot acceptance, dispatch reliability, and safety.


Turbine exhausts are simple. Piston exhausts, particular for turbocharged engines, are complex, turbochargers, waste gates, cross overs, and often have 50 hour AD leak checks.


Exhaust problems on turbines are rare. Never heard of one on an MU2. It is a pipe about 10 inches diameter about 12 inches long. Basically nothing to go wrong.


That is actually not true with regards to exhaust systems. My exhaust is around 500C. On a turbocharged piston, the TIT limit is around 900C, so MUCH hotter, glowing red hotter.

In any case, the reliability and service intervals are unquestionably better for turbines.

Mike C.

I'm gonna guess that Cape Air and others have number crunchers who have sorted all of is out -- based on many factors -- and have made aircraft type decisions accordingly.

Mike,

I understand what you're trying to convey, and you have valid points. You are leaving out very important factors in business. You can purchase (9) Piper Navajo Chieftains or (24) standard Piper Navajos for the price of (one) used single-engine Cessna Grand Caravan. Forget the twin turbines... that's a whole different level of costs and complexity. The most important factor you're overlooking is CASHFLOW. Most airlines operating in the smaller tier communities have to work within the budget constraints for their audience, and the turbine model of economics does not work. Although more reliable and such, they are too expensive for the returns in these markets - particularly for the amount of pax you are regulated to haul in the (9) seats or less regime.

The turbo charger returns do glow orange, but the actual exhaust in a piston is blue/pink. The exhaust from turbines is white-hot. Take a look at the temperature versus color spectrum. Yes, the turbine exhaust is built to withstand that heat - to a degree (so to speak), but they do have hot spots that can eventually crack, and when they do, it gets very expensive to weld or replace a turbine exhaust transition in a PT-6.

I can go into this as deep as you want to go. Besides three college degrees in business, economics and airline management and forecasting, I've got over four decades of experience operating both. I've seen, repaired and experienced the bills for both types. Yes, the pistons are more labor and hassle intensive, not more cost intensive over the long haul. Not even close. Turbine aircraft are generally meant to haul more faster, which is not usually the necessity or mission of short stage, small community air service.

The reason people are switching to turbines in many markets is out of necessity, not preference. It's getting extremely difficult to get any decent, airline certifiable, piston twins anymore. The Feds are making it almost impossible for fledgling businesses to operate piston twins, and the pool of available 135 certifiable aircraft is rapidly drying up. This has been intentional on the part of the engine and airframe manufacturers, as well as the FAA. It is less costly and less trouble to produce a single engine aircraft over a twin. There's more to it than that, but I won't go into it. I actually helped get single-engine aircraft certified for use to haul passenger for hire IFR, but it was only initially supposed to be for Cessna 208's. At any rate, Cape used up the 402C's, most of the 402B's have been exported to South America and Mexico. Beech 18's are used up and almost uncertifiable now (deice for just one issue). The only reasonable 'medium' piston twin left in any numbers is the Navajo series, which is rapidly being depleted in both airframes and parts. This is why you're seeing an increase in turbines. They are almost all there is left to give an idea a try with, not necessarily the best tool for the job. The difference in flying an aircraft Part 91 versus Part 135 is NIGHT and DAY, and so is the prohibitive cost and regulation structure. This is to say nothing of the enormous costs associated with certifying an operation under FAR Part 121, under which most twin turbines now have to operate to haul passengers IFR for hire. In the lower tier of commercial aviation, it is not less costly to operate turbines. It is just less trouble by some measures - until you go broke.

You have several good points in your references. There are other, sometimes more important factors, in operating small commercial airline aircraft into smaller markets besides just what appears on the surface to be the logical choice.

~~ Mark

The idea they can only buy cheap used airframes is incongruous with the fact they are funding the development of a new airplane with as yet uncertified engines. They obviously don't think the upfront costs with that strategy are out of line, which means the purchase price of the fleet isn't the issue.


The exhaust temperature right out of the pistons is red hot. Those are the parts which fail on the turbo Cessna twins. It only cools AFTER the turbo. So lots of parts, collectors, bellows, clamps, crossovers, run red hot. These parts typically have to be reworked at each engine overhaul at some expense, this is even forced by AD for the 402C.


Not true. 500C is typical for me and I'm sure the PT6 are similar for EGT. That is not white hot.

You are confusing internal temperature with EGT.


If I had to fly my plane every day on scheduled route, it would be significantly less costly to do that than a 402C. For one, I need a mechanic on full time staff, not so much with a turbine.

The engines cost about the same per hour, but give more miles per hour.

The fuel costs me less per hour and I get more miles per hour.

There's no way a piston twin flies the route for less.

If the demand for a piston twin light airliner is so high, why is no one filling it?

Mike C.

Not if you flew it like Cape Air or any of the island hopping airlines. You'd cycle out your rotables quick, which means a HSI pretty much.

Aurigny Airlines of the Channel Islands used to be the largest operator of Trislanders. Single pilot. Their shortest flight from Guernsey to Alderney was 12 mins long and 20 miles. Do that 20 times a day and a turbine is not going to be cost effective. You also increase risk of hot starts with multiple short duration flights.

No SE turbine transport possible under EASA rules either, so that only leaves twins. Which turbine twin can be flown single pilot and fit this mission and cost? And this is just one airline - there are hundreds and hundreds just like it. Trust me, the P2012 will have a market.

These are generally short hops.
Cape Air serves rural and island destinations in New England. They do have some routes in the Caribbean and some out West, but guts of their business is still in Northeast.
90 min is a long flight. I believe their longest from Boston to Bar Harbor. Most of them are 60 mins or fewer. These guys are doing short-haul, milk runs.
KLEB-KBOS
KBOS-KACK
Also, while they do a great job, often get Wx delays & cancellations due to their origin
& destination airports.

Not sure what impact flight duration has on a/c choice or power plant choice.

If the market truly existed, someone would have filled it by now.

This is going to be at least $2M/copy when it hits the streets.

A Cessna 208 will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, go faster, carry more people, use less runway, be more reliable, can flex more easily into cargo uses as well.

By the time this gets certified, single engine turbine ops will be normal in Europe. Some countries already allow it.

It is not the first new piston twin in decades, BTW, don't forget the Diamond DA-42 and DA-62, for example.

Mike C.

This plane will end up in the $600-700K region and at that price it will be very competitive. Tecnam have always been good at delivering their stuff on time, when they say they will, and on price. The little P2006T is only $450K. Which is insanely cheap when you think about it. That's about the same as a new C182 costs new. Both have G1000.

Another thing that helps it out is it's getting EASA certification, then grandfatherd into FAA. Faster and much cheaper than FAA certification these days. Notice how anything that comes to market fast, like the Diamond's DA62 is always done via EASA. FAA is like molasses and will bankrupt companies.

I seriously doubt that.

The engines alone are going to be $250K COGS, $125K each, new in box. Even if the rest of the airplane was free, it can't go out the door at $600K unit price.

The product liability insurance for this will be multiples of a GA airplane, so there are added costs there.


That's two Rotax engines.

A 350 HP electronic Lycoming is an entirely different animal.

Everything on this airplane will be 3-5X the cost of the P2006T.

Mike C.

What evidence to you have to support that? Absent solid evidence, I too would suspect anything billed as a "mini-airliner" would have to get close to $2M.

I think I have read that they are in the 1.25 Mio USD range now, which I guess means, when all is done and ready, it may be a 1.5 Mio bird…still a bit less than a new Caravan, but not by much...

The aforementioned purchase prices listed are for the existing fleet available to procure, not something that's not yet flying for hire. It's what operators have to work with. The "issue" is available airframes for the correct market, which are now rapidly becoming non-existent. And it's not just about the purchase price, it's the cost of getting the aircraft to meet compliance under FAR119/135. If you ever have trouble falling asleep, take a gander through those regulations and what is necessary to comply. Your total investment in 'airline-ready' aircraft is MUCH less with the used piston twins. You can have a small fleet of certified aircraft for the price of one Caravan. By the way, airplanes do occasionally break at the most inopportune time - even newer turbines.



Red hot is not white hot. It's not even blue/pink hot. The system you are describing is the way most all turbo-charged engines operate. It is not exclusive to the Cessna 402 series. Truth be told, most operators overhaul their turbos at half the engine TBO or less, if you don't want continual problems later. We do. The cost to overhaul a turbo-charger used to be about $2,700. It's now more like $4-5K, depending on condition. And you should do it without being forced. It is insurance, and comparatively, peanuts.



PT-6's usually run around 525-575C. I don't think I'm... confused?? We're talking close to 1000F. This is not red, orange or blue/pink.

white-hot
(wīt′hŏt′, hwīt′-)
adj.
1. So hot as to glow with a bright white light.

Look it up yourself.



I don't really know what to say here. The engines don't cost anywhere near the same per hour. You'll fry those Garretts if you don't have proper cool down at each short stop. If you were to fly 20 minute schedules 5-6 times a day and don't think you'd need two full time mechanics to maintain a Moo-2 with two Garretts, you're fooling yourself. You don't need more miles per hour. The stage length time for a medium piston twin versus an MU-2 on the same 20 minute route is probably within 5-7 minutes or less, and that's if ATC doesn't screw you over in the turbine. It could be longer. Happens continuously. The 402/PA31 burns 30+/- gph vs. your 80+/- gph. At those altitudes in a turbine, your fuel burn is toast. The 402/PA31 is flying single-pilot under the much less stringent regulations of not only Part 135, but the (9) pax or less version. You're probably having to operate under Part 121, plus have a co-pilot, not only for the regulations, but for the insurance. If you're going to tell me a fully loaded MU-2 has less insurance than a fully loaded C402/PA31, then I'm afraid you need to do a little more homework. I could go on and on and on here, but I won't.

There are many excuses as to why the American manufacturers don't want to produce the aircraft we are sorely in need of, but one of those is insurance claims. The industry was grown on piston twins, and there were all kinds of unscrupulous operators that cost the insurance and manufacturers a lot of money in liability claims. The exact same thing is now happening with the turbine singles, but there's not near as many yet and they've not been operating in this environment as long. Piston twins are expensive, complex and time consuming to produce, and it takes a lot more to properly train pilots and keep them current. The FAA bought off on the concept of turbines being safer (even on a single), and the manufacturers pushed to produce those airframes in simpler format with less regulations to operators. They make more money. They get rid of the bread and butter in the skies (piston twins), they sell more turbine singles. They've almost regulated and expensed the piston twins out of the air for commercial purposes. There's a little back-scratching going on. I'll stop short of the rest on this written forum.



Holy Cow! I think you might be onto something here. I'll give Linda Markham over at Cape a call right now! Stop the Tecnam! We've just discovered that it's more cost effective for you to dump your entire fleet of piston twins and run that airline with Mitsubishi MU-2's! What were you thinking all this time?? Although it is a good platform for certain uses, the fact that you might own/operate one of these fine ships, doesn't necessarily make it the best airframe in the sky for every mission.

I flew a short body (B) corporate ship a little in Tennessee back in the late '70's, and a long body (G) hauling checks: Seattle-Portland-Oakland and back at night in the early '80's. That was a great, long distance, high-altitude trip for the lawn-dart. What it really likes and was meant for. It's a fast bird, especially at altitude. There is no way on God's green earth that you'd make it flying short, low altitude, commuter hops in that thing. You'd be broke in a month... maybe sooner. ~~ME

What evidence to you have to support that? Absent solid evidence, I too would suspect anything billed as a "mini-airliner" would have to get close to $2M.

I don't know much about operating an airline but I will take a single PT6 Caravan over any piston twin. Its not as your replacing with a used twin at under $200k.
We see it in crop dusting, its all turbine now and these guys are doing short hops all the time.