Doesn't the Baron have 2 engines ?

3 overhauls per engine in 5000hrs sounds about right with a 1700 TBO.

There was something about a refrigerator.....

That's how I figured it. Two engines lasing 1700 hours each with a top at midlife and no other expenses whatsoever. I also figured the Baron at 25 GPH total at 175 Knots. I took the slower speed of the Kodiak into account when figuring the cost per mile.

What other recurring maintenance does a PT6-34 require except for a mid-time hot-section ?

Another recurring thing on the pistons are the magnetos with their various wear items. In 5000hrs, that should come out to be 10 irans +/- some overhauls for each side.

Had a nice yellow Kodiak pull up next to me on the ramp a few weeks back....spent some time looking it over and talking with the owner...he loves the thing and uses it mostly for personal use hauling his family around. Says it is easy to fly and forgiving and can get in and out of most any strips around. He runs it below 10K and rarely uses O2...burns around 35gph, cruise at planned 160 - 165 kts. CG is not reported to be an issue. Looks roomy inside and still a fairly large airplane...not Caravan large, but a half notch up from a Baron 58.

3hrs (~500nm) + 1hr reserve makes for 140Gal (910lbs) of fuel required. Useful load per the company website is 3535 leaving you with 2625in the cabin . Yes, that is a notch up from the Baron, even the best examples quoted on this site would top out at about what, 1200lb in the cabin with a similar mission ? This is more TwinBo or Queen Air territory.

Craig,

The problem with maintaining these engines (and other turbine accessories) "on condition" is that doing so makes it harder to sell when the time comes. Yes, much cheaper and quite doable in a Part 91 environment but that owner is eventually going to have to deal with the ramifications of that practice when it is time to sell. Might not be a big deal in the ag world but I've dealt with these issues when selling/buying TBM's, Caravans, and some others. Owners that neglect to do the ongoing maintenance (including inspections) will see a hit in the value of their asset.

-Neal

wow, that's a lot better than I thought it would do. 160Knots at 35gph is pretty darn good. It will almost haul it's own weight as well. I was figuring 150 Knots at 40 gph in my previous numbers, so it's even better than I thought.

Craig,

The problem with maintaining these engines (and other turbine accessories) "on condition" is that doing so makes it harder to sell when the time comes. Yes, much cheaper and quite doable in a Part 91 environment but that owner is eventually going to have to deal with the ramifications of that practice when it is time to sell. Might not be a big deal in the ag world but I've dealt with these issues when selling/buying TBM's, Caravans, and some others. Owners that neglect to do the ongoing maintenance (including inspections) will see a hit in the value of their asset.

-Neal

Agreed. But I wanted to point out the effects/ramifications of operating like that to those on the forum with little or no turbine operating or buying/selling experience. There is a cost to everything obviously. And I saw it first hand on a TBM deal that I worked on about a year ago or so.

-Neal

I thought that complying with all of the various time/cycle limts (like TBO) on the PT6 was mandatory because a PW published service bulletin with those limits and the TC for the PT6 requires compliance with all SB. This is why there is a MORE STC.

We have been told here by 'authorities' in the field that TCs, MSBs etc are of no importance and that the PICs word is the law when it comes to maintenance.........

We have been told here by 'authorities' in the field that TCs, MSBs etc are of no importance and that the PICs word is the law when it comes to maintenance.........

On a single engine turbine, you get to do the maintenance just like a piston single. The only exception is the rotating components in the engine that have cycle limits. You can run it over TBO just like you can your IO-520s on your Baron. You also don't have to do SBs or calendar limited things like 6 year prop overhauls or 5 year flexible hose replacements. Can you imagine how many current Beech owners would have to give up their planes if they had to do everything Beech recommends? Now if you operate it as a 135 aircraft (which many will do) then you are back to following the book to the "T". I would imagine that the value of the plane would make a difference as to how it was maintained. It would be about the same as the difference in a 58 that is maintained part 91 and one that is maintained 135. Most countries also won't let you import an aircraft is over TBO or has MSBs not complied with. I usually buy planes that aren't exportable anyway because they are cheaper up front. You can always catch up the MSBs and overhaul requirements if you find that the only market for your aircraft is 135 operators or exporters.

The manufacturer also has a great deal to do with the cost of operation. I'm sure Quest isn't requiring you to replace the landing gear each 6 years like Beech. They may also have more liberal requirements on things like flexible hoses. I think the economy of this aircraft will give them enough market share to make a real go of it. I hope so anyway.

wink wink nod nods aside this is news to me. Not trying to come across as a smart a** or anything, l just have never seen this take before.

If an aircraft, or engine for that matter, is operated outside of the parameters set in the certification process (TC), then is it in compliance? Isn't there a big stink about the 58P and 58TC turning into pumpkins because of the 10k airframe limit? Is the paperwork different for a PT6A-67D than for an E? One goes on a twin and the other a single.

I seem to recall that the FCU is limited to 4100 hrs. So, at 4100.1 it fails and puts the single into a shopping mall parking lot, are the Feds really going to say that it was ok after reviewing the logs? Seriously, I'm curious about this.