Adam I didn't mean to discount your plane or a converted 681/680 model. It's just that I don't see too many. It may be a bit like talking about how much fun a 500B is. Or maybe a T-Bone. Few can relate until you take them flying. I didn't get it until I tripped over one and figured it out.

They're getting rarer. Most have been exported. Out of the 70 made, I would guess there's less than 20 still flying. Out of the 680V's, I would guess less than 10. And all those probably have the -1 conversion. I doubt there are many -43's still flying.

The 690 series is when they hit their stride and captured the market desires. Close to 900 were made of those and the subsequent Jetprop models.

Rich history in the commander line up. Pistons, turbrops, Jet Commander and the Westwind/Astra series. Way to go Ted Smith!

Anyone have real world data on operating cost differences between turbo commanders and MU2's? I realize there are many variables but in general are turbo commanders 25%, 50% more, double an MU2? Gear inspections, spar AD's, etc. have always scared me away from the turbo commanders. Is this a real concern or OWT? Eagle creek has an operation expense pdf you can review that basically says $200k-$250k per year minimum all in cost. I simply can't believe that's accurate unless you service it with them and throw them the keys. What's real? Anyone?

Without knowing too much about MU-2 inspections, I think they're pretty close. The 5 year gear overhaul is $14K on the Commanders. That's a lot less than on a King Air. The MU-2 doesn't have that as far as I know, but it has a pretty onerous inspection around 6-7000hrs that the Commander doesn't. The AD's you mention (SB241, SB208) have all been dealt with now on 90% of fleet.

From my friends 681 that he operates for less than $650/hr (his words), to a more capable 690 or Jetprop for about $1000/hr. There are certainly ways to operate them below Eagle Creek document.

I've now myself overhauled both starter/generators for $4300. Got used set of complete fuel manifolds (old ones shot) and overhauled all nozzles for $5400. Rectified door so it pressurizes correctly. Polished one and replaced other windscreen for $3400. All in, I've spent $25K so far to get her (almost) ready. That's with a phase inspection. Less than I spent on my piston Commander when I first got her. Might not be where it ends, but just as a reference.

I think they're probably $25-60K planes per year, depending on.

When I ran the numbers back in 2011, I found the operating cost difference to be about 1.5-1.75X higher in a turbo commander than an MU-2. Note I was looking at -10 engine models for both to try and do an "apples to apples" comparison of direct operating expenses. I ran the numbers for them (and C90) assuming 5 years of ownership so I did include a "cycle" of inspections as most things come up every 5 years or so. Not perfect, but what I came up with. I assumed 150 hours/year utilization in all the planes to try to match things up.

It was almost 5 years ago, but my memory was the higher cost of the Commanders was due to higher parts costs and additional inspections/work required (hydraulic systems, etc.). Note I did not look for a "bare bones" approach but rather assumed maintenance at service centers and went with the prices they quoted me...again, figured if I kept things the same I would get closer to an honest comparison.

I think 2x higher is probably a little high, but it may be their costs have gone up more over the last few years.

For what it is worth, when my airplane (MU2) was repaired at Executive Air Maintenance in Scottsdale (a Garrett overhaul facility and a major Turbo Commander service center), it appeared there were a lot of planes there for an extended period of time due to parts availability issues. As a matter of fact, their director of maintenance warned me that, based on his experience with a similar issue in a commander, it might be several months before the part would be available and to be prepared for that. An hour later he called me -- he was shocked that Mitsubishi had the part in stock, on the shelf, and it would be in Scottsdale in 2 days.

Part of was drove me away from Commanders and to the MU2 was my perception/belief that maintaining the Commander would cost significantly more for not a significant increase in performance. That said, they are both great planes, but I agree you need to know what you are getting into and do your research.

As another note, when you (or any other prospective first time turboprop owner) look at buying, you really need to get with someone knowledgeable. Thinks like the differences in costs of inspecting (HSI/GBI/etc.) a -1, -5 or -10 engine are significant. Some of the older planes (which cost less to buy) are actually more expensive to maintain because of those older engines.

David - that's true for PT6's. Did you have -5's or -10's in yours? A -5 will be cheaper to maintain than a -10. And since so many have upgraded to -10's, the -5's are plentiful. Probably the cheapest option right now to run.

My friend with the 681 had both of his -1 engines come up to HSI. Instead of doing that, he exchanged them for a little more than half time engines. They cost roughly $30/hr to replace exchanging his cores. Now this is a good 5 hears ago at least, so it might have changed since then, but $30/hr is almost piston engine overhaul prices.

I am sure you did your homework back then but some real data would be helpful.

I have been involved in a major refurbishment of a commander and have not have any wait time for parts. Or cost surprises.

Certainly no hydraulic issues.

[url]. http://www.eagle-creek.com/wp-content/u ... e-2013.pdf[/url]

Here some old information from eagle creek. you will notice the fuel cost is over $6.00 a gallon in this info which gives you an idea of its age.

It's a nice way to see the differences between the models.

Hope it helps.

I lack Commander direct experience with maintenance. However, I have talked to a LOT of people about and nearly universally they say the Commanders are a lot more to maintain. This was particular true for those who had owned both.


My plane is 40 years old and has not had a gear inspection equivalent to what the Commander or King Air requires, just normal looking at every year.

That is a savings of $112K using your number for present costs.


At 7500 hours, there is a major inspection which involves gear, wing demate, tail demate, etc. My mechanic charges $23K for it plus squawks (which are usually minimal, there is debate if this inspection is actually finding anything). My plane is about 2500 hours from this, which will be long after I own it.


If you go back 10 years, I heard the same thing about Commanders. The ADs back then had been taken care of in the fleet. But somehow there are always new ADs, SBs, etc, that come about for the Commander. It never seems to stop. I begin to wonder if there is a revenue objective behind all this and not really fundamental safety. Manufacturers have an inside track to convince the FAA that an AD is needed and owners are prevented from seeing the data they use to argue against it.


I would think so, but how much lower? I think Eagle Creek wants to build an expectation the planes cost a lot to maintain since they want to foster an acceptance of this for their revenue stream.

I've flown my MU2 7 years and have yet to cross $100K, for *all* expenses, in any given year flying between 100 and 150 hours/year. And that includes hangar ($6K), insurance ($9-15K), and fees.


This is not maintenance. This is cost due to buying a derelict and having to get it airworthy again. What you are spending now is part of the purchase price (as in, you paid less to the previous owner and now have to make up for that).


I have yet to spend $25K on maintenance in any year, including years with more than one inspection in them.

Mike C.

The -10 is actually quite a bit less to maintain than the -5, -6 engines.

The -10 has one HSI at 2500 hours and overhaul at 5000. The -5, -6 has HSI at 1800, 3600, a gear box inspection at 3600, then overhaul at 5400. That is much more costly.

Further, the -10 goes through HSI for MUCH less cost. One, they just hold up better. Two, the lack an ITT harness which almost never survives HSI. Three, the first stage wheel in a -10 has individually replaceable blade segments, not a full blisk. Typical -10 HSI is $35K where as -5, -6 runs $60-85K.

The only thing that costs a bit more on -10 versus -5, -6 is fuel nozzle cleaning. This is a relatively minor cost, about $2/hour.


That logic is flawed.

The upgrade is NOT an engine swap, instead the take the -5 engine and rebuild it into a -10T engine which is a -5 gear box and compressor with a -10 hot section. So there is no -5 residual engine on the market. Even if someone does an engine exchange, the -10T still needed a -5 core to do the upgrade.

If there are -5s all over the market, it isn't from -10 upgrades. At best it will be from parted out airframes.

Mike C.

I lack Commander direct experience with maintenance. However, I have talked to a LOT of people about and nearly universally they say the Commanders are a lot more to maintain. This was particular true for those who had owned both.


My plane is 40 years old and has not had a gear inspection equivalent to what the Commander or King Air requires, just normal looking at every year.

That is a savings of $112K using your number for present costs.


At 7500 hours, there is a major inspection which involves gear, wing demate, tail demate, etc. My mechanic charges $23K for it plus squawks (which are usually minimal, there is debate if this inspection is actually finding anything). My plane is about 2500 hours from this, which will be long after I own it.


If you go back 10 years, I heard the same thing about Commanders. The ADs back then had been taken care of in the fleet. But somehow there are always new ADs, SBs, etc, that come about for the Commander. It never seems to stop. I begin to wonder if there is a revenue objective behind all this and not really fundamental safety. Manufacturers have an inside track to convince the FAA that an AD is needed and owners are prevented from seeing the data they use to argue against it.


I would think so, but how much lower? I think Eagle Creek wants to build an expectation the planes cost a lot to maintain since they want to foster an acceptance of this for their revenue stream.

I've flown my MU2 7 years and have yet to cross $100K, for *all* expenses, in any given year flying between 100 and 150 hours/year. And that includes hangar ($6K), insurance ($9-15K), and fees.


This is not maintenance. This is cost due to buying a derelict and having to get it airworthy again. What you are spending now is part of the purchase price (as in, you paid less to the previous owner and now have to make up for that).


I have yet to spend $25K on maintenance in any year, including years with more than one inspection in them.

Mike C.

Note that they predict, for the 690A/B, $450/hour for parts and labor.

This does NOT include engine or prop work!

So a 100 hour interval is $45,000 in parts and labor. Or at least, Eagle Creek wants you to think so.

Over a 5000 hour engine overhaul period, $2.25M in maintenance, or more than 4 times what the engines cost to overhaul.

Wow.

Mike C.

About $50K.

Paid for by seller reduction in sales price post prebuy inspection.

Mike C.

I don't think $1000 per hour is out of line to operate a TP. That's what eagle creek is quoting if you figure gas at today's cost.

That also includes engine and prop reserves. Which I don't add in. They also have a much higher quote for insurance than I have.

The maintenance price is based on using a top shop to do all you work. You can find cheaper.

You can operate a commander a lot cheaper than $1000 per hour. It all depends!