Comparing Jetprop Commanders to other planes

[Achim H.]

At least over here in Europe, Commanders are very exotic aircraft, not the least because Garrett engines are sparse and only a handful of shops can service them. We have very few Commanders, very few Mu-2s, almost no Conquest II even though the Dornier Do-228 is a European product. So 9 out of 10 people I talk to tell me to better go for a PT6 aircraft.

One possible alternative is Piper Cheyenne I or II with the PT6-135A Blackhawk conversion. It burns about the same amount of fuel as a 900/100 Commander doing 270 KTAS at FL280 versus 300 KTAS for the Commander at FL300+. The cabin is much roomier (hence the speed penalty) and parts are easy to obtain. Range is significantly less with 382 usgal vs 474 usgal for the Commander. Systems are simpler in the Cheyenne, f.ex. it has a piston quality Janitrol heater instead of a complex air cycle machine. A Cheyenne II with new Blackhawk engines in good condition seems to be significantly cheaper than a 900/1000 Commander with mid time engines. So it looks like it could be an alternative, just the range is somewhat limiting.

The obvious alternative is a Mu-2. Similar engines and similar profile but probably more challenging for the pilot.

The Conquest II seems to be a fine plane but it is quite a lot bigger than the rest and it still appears to be rather popular among air taxi companies and therefore expensive to buy and usually with a lot of hours.

The small King Airs are slow and the faster King Airs are very big so not a real alternative to a Commander.

Any thoughts on what Commanders best compare to?

[Steve binnette]

The only plane that compares with the jet prop commanders is the conquest 11.  The Merlin lll is also a good airplane, but has issues at hot and high airports.  The Merlin is a bit more of an orphan than the others.

The price on Cheyennes has dropped a lot.  The ones modified with the black hawks are much better but still only match the commander 690 -5 in performance and don't come close to the jet props in speed or range.

The cabin volume on the Cheyenne is very similar to the commander.  There are multiple models of Cheyenne but you asked about the l and ll.

 Same with the conquest ll it's not bigger than the commander.  It is actually a lighter airplane than the commander.  Which is one of the commonly heard complaints.  It's a little lightly constructed.  The cabin on the conquest is nice.  It has more shoulder width but less height than the commander.

The Conquest does have something called SIDS, which is a bit of an onerous, and unnecessary maintenance program.  Perhaps it's not applicable in Europe.

[EricDapp]

The reason why Cheyennes are so cheap is they have no factory support and parts are becoming hard to find. A friend of mine had one and it took a couple years to get a used windshield that would fit. Sold the plane soon after.

[Adam Frisch]

The Cessna has the SID inspection program, which is a disaster in EASA-land. There is no part 91 there where you don't have to comply with it, as in the US. In Europe, everyone has to comply with it at highest airline level - there is no exception for private use. This is a huge cost. If you want King Air, look into the B100 model with the TPE331. That's a very sought after model, because you get the benefits of a Garrett in a known King Air plane.

Garretts are not orphans in Europe - they're well known there. Every Jetstream, every Short, every Dornier has them and they're everywhere in Europe. You just need to find the shops that deal with them. Also, there are at least 10 Commanders in operation in Europe, and they obviously service their aircraft somewhere.

A PT6 will cost almost twice as much to overhaul, has 3600hr TBO compared to 5400hr TBO and will burn 20-30% more fuel. They're a terrible deal these days after P&W monopoly price hikes. Nothing comes close to the reliability and cost of operating the Garrett. Ask yourself why does the PT6, that's is in almost every turboprop and has more flight hours, have 1800hr less TBO? 

MU-2 has not great range, needs type rating and refresh training each year. A Commander is a much better choice unless you don't mind short flights and spending $8K/year in mandatory type training.

Here's an article from an Ag operator who has found out that a PT6 will cost $400K more to operate than a TPE331 over its lifespan:

http://agairupdate.com/article_detail.php?_kp_serial=00000094

[Achim H.]

The Cessna has the SID inspection program, which is a disaster in EASA-land. There is no part 91 there where you don't have to comply with it, as in the US. In Europe, everyone has to comply with it at highest airline level - there is no exception for private use.

Luckily it's not as bad as that. First of all the Cessna twins not only have SIDs (optional under Part 91) but they also have very costly ADs which are mandatory for everybody. In Europe, EASA considers the Cessna SIDs to be optional but currently some national authorities disagree. You can freely change your registration, I moved my Cessna from the German register to the UK register to avoid the SIDs. Also you can keep any aircraft on the FAA register, all you will need in the future (currently 2018 deadline) is EASA pilot papers if you're a resident here. That's kind of sensible and not a real problem.

The twin I'm looking at will be N-reg in all likelihood.

Garretts are not orphans in Europe - they're well known there. Every Jetstream, every Short, every Dornier has them and they're everywhere in Europe. You just need to find the shops that deal with them. Also, there are at least 10 Commanders in operation in Europe, and they obviously service their aircraft somewhere.

I would guess that for every Garrett in service in Europe, there are at least 20 PT6s flying. I happen to have a Twin Commander factory service center "around the corner" but my interactions with this company have not been positive in the past. I would just look for an A&P familiar with the type somewhere, I don't think it would really be an issue maintaining the aircraft.

A PT6 will cost almost twice as much to overhaul, has 3600hr TBO compared to 5400hr TBO and will burn 20-30% more fuel. They're a terrible deal these days after P&W monopoly price hikes. Nothing comes close to the reliability and cost of operating the Garrett. Ask yourself why does the PT6, that's is in almost every turboprop and has more flight hours, have 1800hr less TBO? 

For a private owner, the TBO hardly makes a difference I believe. Even when flying 50-100h a year (that is a lot of miles!) it lasts forever. For very old turbines, the hours don't really appear to make a big price difference. The buyer will think "it might have 2000h left but last time somebody disassembled it and looked inside was 25 years ago".

Here's an article from an Ag operator who has found out that a PT6 will cost $400K more to operate than a TPE331 over its lifespan:

He also said the Garrett is 6% more fuel efficient than the PT6, not 20-30%...

[Achim H.]

The cabin volume on the Cheyenne is very similar to the commander.  There are multiple models of Cheyenne but you asked about the l and ll.

Do you happen to have an illustration showing the exact dimensions of the 900/1000? I've been inside a Commander 980, Cheyenne I and Cheyenne II (i.e. the smallest variants) last week and my impression was that the Cheyennes have significantly more room, both for pilots and for passengers. They felt much bigger. To be fair, the Cheyennes all had seats removed while the Commander had all seats installed.

All I found is this for the Jetprop 1000:



And this for the Cheyenne I:



The view from the cockpit was much better in the Commander (almost like an unpressurized piston plane) but the Cheyenne appeared to have more space and was much easier to get in and out. The Commander had a long FMS pedestal and was a pain to get in and out. I didn't have much time trying the Commander cabin so I might have gotten a wrong impression.

[SKYFLYER]

I am not sure if this is what your looking for as the interior specs are not on this...
Also the 900 and 1000 are bigger interiors than the 980 as the floors in the 900 and 1000 are 4 inches lower so more head room. As for the empty cabin void of any seats almost any cabin aircraft will seem cavernous until the interior and seats are in...

[Adam Frisch]

Good point, Skyflyer. The 900 and 1000 model pressurize to the outer hull, whereas the other models have the floor as the pressure vessel. So makes sense they should have a little more room.

There was a time when PT6 was a good alternative and a cheaper option. Now that P&W have realized they own the whole market, the prices have been hiked up considerably. A Garrett will overhaul for $220-250K, straight up. That's impossible to do with a PT6. I've not heard of anything below $350K, for the big bore ones. A PC12 will be a cool $500K. In fact, it's such a traumatic experience for the owners that it's almost impossible to find hard cold numbers online - PT6 owners are so shell shocked after being taken to the cleaners, that they won't admit to the financial beating they've had. So they all keep a silent pact. Google it and see - Garrett overhaul prices come up readily, PT6 not so much. P&W don't want you to know. Buyer beware… 

Here's a quote on a forum from Blackhawk CEO Jim Allmon:

As the CEO of Blackhawk I can attest that the overhaul costs are never a set number. We see some that come in within 10% or less of the estimate and some go over by double. Old engines like on an old Cheyenne IIIA - 61's will be high because of the age of the engines generally - lots of SB's need to be done etc. We always tell customers if you really want to go with overhauls, get the overhaul company to sign an agreement that states they will teardown and hold and determine what the "new" price will be once the engines are opened up. Most of the time the overhaul facility will send the parts out for overhaul/repair as quickly as possible. This way if the new bill comes back very high, you can still stop the process, pay the WIP charges at that point and turn in the parts to us as cores. It's a lot better to pay $18,000 or so in teardown charges rather than have a $100,000+ bill per engine for overhauling a lot of parts that you won't get credit for. But to answer your question as much as I can from my experience: I would guess a second run set of -42's will be in the range of $350,000 to $450,000 per engine at a DOF. A gray shop will be cheaper but keep in mind if you or a later owner wants to turn in an engine with a gray shop overhaul to us as a core against a set of Blackhawk engines; Pratt will not give any time remaining credit for those engines whereas if the engines are overhauled by a DOF they will credit $50-$60 per hour for every hour remaining to factory TBO. Resale value should always be on your mind when making these decisions.

Obviously, he wants you to upgrade to new Blackhawk PT6's. But the scary part is that so many do - because it's almost as cheap buying a new PT6 from them than to overhaul the old one in many cases…… 

Here's a quote from forum member Ciholas:

It seems pretty clear the quotes you get before the OH are not really that useful, so the only data you can trust is actual example costs. Yet, owners seem somehow reluctant to share that information, each believing that theirs was somehow not typical. The business model seems to low ball up front estimates and then hit the owner hard after they are committed to the shop.

Only actual data point I have is a pair of PT6A-61 off a Cheyenne. Estimates pre OH were $265K/each. Actual price came in at $525K/each. So that's over $1M for 3500 hours of engines, $300/hour! Ouch!

[Steve binnette]

Two things impacting your impressions the center pedestal and the seats being removed.

Many TP have a ridiculous long Ctr pedestal filled with old and many times unneeded avionics.

I can walk right into my pilots seats.  It's a combination of a very small Ctr pedestal and extended seat rails.

I flew a king air where I needed yoga pants just to get in the seat.

Each plane, not each model but each plane will be different.  Most updated models of commanders have a very little Ctr pedestal and most new king air models have Ctr pedestals that seems to stretch into the passenger cabin!

The first number I look at when comparing cabins is volume.  Be careful to understand if that includes cargo area or not.  That can be misleading.  The sq footage volume gives a good idea of size.  Then looks at the other dimensions and see how they compare.

Come on out to California I would be happy to take you for a ride and show you around.

[donv]

My airplane now has no pedestal at all, and it's not bad to get into-- and I don't have the extended seat tracks. Keep in mind that I'm 6'4". I used to have a pretty large pedestal, but with the Garmin avionics all of it could go away.

[donv]

Of the airplanes you have discussed, the ones I have experience with or have looked closely at in addition to the Commander are the Conquest II and the Merlin IIIB/C. I have some experience in the Cheyennes, and honestly I wouldn't go there. Talk about lack of support!

I haven't flown the Conquest myself, but have several friends who have a lot of experience in them. They won't shut up about how great it is. They just love the airplane. That said, it is lightly built, doesn't have great support, and has the SID issues mentioned above. I chose not to get a Conquest because I have a lot of experience with Commanders, a service center on my home airport, and a pool of guys who could fly a trip for me if I needed someone.

The Merlin IIIB is an airplane I have quite a bit of experience in, and an airplane I like a lot. They are fast, have a great cabin, fantastic environmental system, and parts commonality with thousands of airline versions (Metros).  They also have excellent range (especially the IIIC), although not if the seats are full. They aren't particularly fun to fly, and not great short field airplanes. And they require a mechanic who knows something about the type. I didn't go with a Merlin because I didn't need or want the large cabin (wife didn't really want all those seats-- she felt that family members would tend to invite themselves along), and the short field aspects are somewhat limiting.

If you get a Merlin, I would get a IIIC, and I would make sure it has water injection if you intend to take off or land anywhere much above sea level.

The Merlin is also much more challenging to fly than the Commander. Most of my experience in Merlins was in a two pilot environment, and until you get very comfortable, I would suggest that's what you should do. The Commander, on the other hand, is about as easy an airplane to fly as any turboprop-- and easier than the PT6 powered airplanes you mention.

[Patrick Kenney]

Achimba -  haven't fully read all the responses to your post, nor do I exactly recall your mission profile... but I suggest for Europe an alternative to $1mm -10 engined Commanders is -5 engined Commanders. Just bought one for nearly half the price of the -10 model and it is a ton of performance. From a small amount of time sitting right seat in Citations (Slowtations) in charter ops in Europe (the operator let me sit right seat because I was paying the charter), there is a lot of haggling required to get up high. I'm not sure the -10 engines, which shine above FL30, are going to realize their potential in European regular ops.
I recently bought a 690A Turbo Commander with -5 engines and state of the art avionics for a ridiculously low price.. meaningfully sub $500k, with an awesome avionics stack. Running costs look very,  very good. It is a ridiculous performer. Engine failure on takeoff procedure is basically -Go. I'm doing 3000 FPM after take off and doing 280kts tas in cruise. The numbers are sick.

I'm planning on bringing it back to Europe soon. There is some service support there, out of the UK and Germany. 

[Achim H.]

Thanks for the feedback. The 900/1000 with the lowered floorboard and longer cabin should indeed make a huge difference and for my uses, I would not envision it ever having all seats installed. I'm glad the long center pedestal is not there with more modern panel layouts because it really makes getting in and out of the cockpit rather difficult. OK for somebody being paid to fly it but annoying for somebody who paid for flying it himself

What about cabin noise? Is there any data available? The cabin of the Commander is right between the engines whereas on a King Air, the engines are below and in front of the cabin. How does it compare to other aircraft of its class? What difference does the aftermarket soundproofing make? Do your passengers fly with headsets all the time or is it typical to fly without? The family would surely prefer a plane that does not require them to wear headsets and still be able to communicate.

[Adam Frisch]

Well, the good thing about a 900/1000 is that they are quieter inside with the smaller windows. The picture window on the other models was always a little noisier. But I wouldn't call them loud inside - just normal. I don't know how they compare to King Air's inside.

[donv]

Commanders are louder than King Airs inside. That's just how it is. It's not terrible (and it's quietest in the pilot seats!), but it is fairly loud.

There are various sound proofing solutions. However, they are heavy and really don't do all that much in my opinion.

In my case, we went with an intercom and active noise cancelling headsets. They are so effective and yet still comfortable. And, my kids love them because they have an audio input, so they can watch a movie while listening through the headsets. It's a really good way to go.