News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Weighing Options  (Read 113488 times)

ghancock

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2017, 06:41:23 pm »
Thanks for the info and not disagreeing with anything you said.  I just think you guys are a bit over my pay grade at the moment and I'm going to have to keep studying on it.  In the mean time I'm just going to keep working on my bird until I get her 100%.

But man would I like to own a turbine :-)

glenn
--glenn
You can't win an argument with an ignorant person,  they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Huck-Mag

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2017, 06:50:21 pm »
I certainly understand where you are coming from.  I regularly fly with my buddy in his King Air 300 and love it.  I've seriously considered getting a KA 90 and just recently passed up a chance on a great one at a great price from an older acquaintance.  While I love the Twin Commander shape and speed, the TC turbines are just too much money.  So, when I put the pen and my pocketbook to it, I decided to invest in upgrading the radios in the 680FL.  My engines are around 600 hours so it will fly for a while. 

If I win the lottery, I will re-evaluate. :-)

Brent 

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1712
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2017, 08:32:44 pm »
Just trying to learn the ropes here and have a few questions.

When a turbine such as this is listed as 700 so OH, does that mean I've still got 4800 hours left on them?  and about 1100 before a hot section?

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17771985/1976-commander-690a

If they're on a 5400hr program then yes. To be honest, seems a little on the cheap side for those engine times, so you might want to check they've complied with SB241, SB208, or that they have good cycle times etc. The engines alone would probably fetch around $350K.


What kind of expenses would I be getting into in something like this?
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1422745/1976-commander-690a

If it's on the 5000hr program, which is most likely with -10's, you're looking at about $250K/side for overhaul. Engines are a little staggered, so it doesn't all come at once. But that's the long and short of it, unless you decide to fly them over TBO and find a mechanic who's comfortable signing that off. Seems like a lot, but compared to any PT6, it's a goddamn bargain!  ;)

Glenn, I hear your worry about ongoing costs. I'm not trying to sell you my plane, but if you really want to fly turbines on the cheap, the 680V with century upgrade is really it. No gear inspections, no spar inspections, no heated windshield (that costs $50K/side should they crack). Cost-wise, no other twin turbine will even come close - not a Conquest, not MU-2. Even the later 681, although no gear inspections, does have the spar inspection every 36 month.

Now, if you can find a 690A/B model with the permanent spar, good times on the engines, then that's certainly a great machine that you can "grow" in, and frankly, a more capable airplane. But you'll never get away from the gear inspection. The way to look it at it though, is that the King Air's 6 year gear inspection is $40K. So compared to that, Commanders are a bargain.  :D
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 08:35:19 pm by Adam Frisch »
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

ghancock

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2017, 10:26:54 pm »
Thanks for the info Adam.  I don't totally understand the whole cycle vs time vs calender stuff yet and not sure how many more hours you have left on your engines before I'd have to replace them.  And from what I understand they are not that popular and might be difficult to continue working with.  If I am going to spend 500k on engines for a plane I want to make sure its a plane I am going to keep a while.  Honestly, your plane would totally fit my needs, just don't know what I don't know yet.   I have not totally rulled it out though.

Do you still have the 150 hour inspection requirement?

Thanks,

Glenn
--glenn
You can't win an argument with an ignorant person,  they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3467
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2017, 11:09:25 pm »
The stuff which you're concerned about is an issue with all 690s (well, except for the spar as mentioned above).

Heck, in the old days it used to be 100 hours between inspections!

For the amount of flying you're doing and the long trips you do, maybe you should consider a Citation 501. It won't cost you any more to buy, and you could buy a set of spare engines. It will cost you more in fuel, but will probably cut your number of hours in half for each year. And it will go in and out of 2900 feet.

Steve binnette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2017, 11:50:51 pm »
Glen, I think you might be thinking too much.

500k is what the engines cost to overhaul. You get the rest of the airplane for free!

I don't think you will spend 7k to 10k every three months, not sure where you got those numbers.  If you fly a bunch like 500hrs per year then the 150hrs might get you there

The only numbers that matter are the difference in yearly cost between your current ride and a new one and the amount of money left over when you sell either of the airplanes.

You will find the turbine much more useable and useful, not sure how you put a dollar figure on that.


Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1712
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2017, 05:11:28 am »
Basically all the TPE's come with 3 turbine discs. 1st, 2nd and 3rd stage. Predictably, the 1st stage which is closest in line after the burner, is the one that gets beat up the most. Makes sense, since it gets all those hot gases on it. This eventually cause heat exhaustion and erosion. Predictably, Honeywell charges the most for the 1st stage. I don't have a cost for it, but it's probably in the $20K range. 2nd stage I think is $14K new and the 3rd stage is only $7K our something. They all have cycle times. Each wheel's cycle when new pretty much equals the TBO time. So a 1st stage turbine will have 5400 cycles on it when new. Now, what some do, as they probably did on mine, is they might replace with a used disc that has been yellow tagged. So, rather than spend the money on a new disc, they bought a used one with cycles left on it and put that in. Either that or they flew a lot of really short runs and used up more cycles than hours. My hot section is only due in 400hrs or so, but the left engine 2nd stage will cycle out in about 130 cycles. Now, that could be 400hrs if you fly longer trips a lot, but if you fly shorter ones, then those 130 cycles could be used up quicker. Depends on the flying you do.

As for phase inspections, which is just a fancy word for an annual, they come in a few different flavors:

1. One you subscribe to..
2. The manufacturers..
..or...
3. One you get approved yourself.

It used to be on a part 135 cert and they followed an approves MP that had 150hrs. I didn't want to follow that and pay for it, so mine has reverted back to the manufacturers, which is every 100hrs (I think on the later models, the factory one is 150 hrs). Good thing about that is that if I don't fly a lot, I won't have to do an annual every year, just until the 100hrs are up. Bad thing is if you do fly a lot, you need to do an "annual" maybe more than once a year. That said, they're not anymore expensive or time consuming than an annual on a piston twin. And you can submit your own inspection program and interval to the FSDO and have that approved if you want to. And Glenn, with a faster plane, you'll fly less hours per year. If you flew 400hrs in a piston, you'll probably fly less than 300hrs in turbine as you get there so much faster. So the inspection hours are "worth" more.

As for availability of engines, you're unfortunately up against all the crop dusters who suck up used TPE's like there's no tomorrow. They love them as they can run them up to 9000hrs. Dash 1's are easier to find than Dash 5-254K's, that's for sure. Not plentiful, but they're around. In fact Morris just called and said he had a set of Dash 1's he'd found. 254K's you never see. 251's are perhaps a little more common. Dash 10's are not used as much in crop dusting, but on the other hand, very few used ones are available. So, from an availability standpoint, the Dash 1's and the Dash 5-251's (690A/B's) are probably the easiest to find. 254K's (840's, 900's) are unobtanium. Dash 10 availability used I don't know enough about, but I would guess not great.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 05:52:16 am by Adam Frisch »
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

ghancock

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2017, 09:09:51 am »
Steve and Adam,  thanks for the extra info.  Steve you are totally correct in the engine comment and I know that.  I also am weighing the fact that the turbines are going to be here to go somewhere and not need the constant attention I have to give my current plane.  So I'm still on the fence on what to do.

Adam,  I'm going to try to talk to Morris today and see what advice he gives me as well.  I love my plane and don't want to see it go to waste.  It served me great all year but I"m flying too much to have the time to keep it going.   It really isn't a huge bother, just for my flying I'm wearing her out.

Also, the issue with my 400 hours a year is that it could easily be 600 if I had an airplane that was always working.  I cancel a lot of flights due to me working on something or needing to work on something that could have been completed in a more dependable plane.

Adam,  you were going to get me something to start learning more about turbines and I'm going to contact Twin Commander and see if I can get a manual on your plane just to start learning about it.  Might also get a 690 manual while I'm at it.  I'm pretty convinced that to keep doing what I'm doing I am going to need a turbine, just need to find the right one as I can't yet afford a million dollar plane.  In a couple years yes, but today not at all.

Thanks again for all the help and advice and I'm more than certain I have not exhausted my question bank :-)

Glenn
--glenn
You can't win an argument with an ignorant person,  they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Steve binnette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2017, 12:30:47 am »
Glen shopping is fun don't rush it!

ghancock

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2017, 06:31:15 pm »
Steve,

I'm not rushing but shopping would be more fun if I had a lot more money :-) . I'm also needing to make at least a limited decision soon because I'm about to order a butt load of parts for my current plane and am going to be into rebuilding engines in a few more hundred hours.  If I didn't need the damn plane so badly it would not be quite such a rush. :-)

Glenn
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 06:54:41 pm by ghancock »
--glenn
You can't win an argument with an ignorant person,  they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

ghancock

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2017, 09:17:32 am »
I certainly understand where you are coming from.  I regularly fly with my buddy in his King Air 300 and love it.  I've seriously considered getting a KA 90 and just recently passed up a chance on a great one at a great price from an older acquaintance.  While I love the Twin Commander shape and speed, the TC turbines are just too much money.  So, when I put the pen and my pocketbook to it, I decided to invest in upgrading the radios in the 680FL.  My engines are around 600 hours so it will fly for a while. 

If I win the lottery, I will re-evaluate. :-)

Brent

Brent,

Just out of curiosity I looked into the KA 90 and they are more expensive than most of the Commanders.  They also cruise around 240knots which is slower than most of the Commanders and they burn more gas.  So while everyone has them and they are obviously awesome airplanes in their own right, they just aren't a Commander. :-)

Glenn
--glenn
You can't win an argument with an ignorant person,  they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Huck-Mag

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2017, 12:25:01 pm »
I have a very good friend who deals KA's so he runs across some great trade-in opportunities.  Unfortunately, it still takes a good chunk of change to get any turbine...thus my IGSO-540's putt on on down the road. :-)

Brent

ghancock

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2017, 01:55:42 pm »
yeah, I'm still on the fence and have run across a butt load of parts and stuff for my current plane that I'm purchasing and picking up in the next few weeks.  So if I do decide to buy a turbine the next owner of my plane will have plenty of supplies.  :-)

Glenn
--glenn
You can't win an argument with an ignorant person,  they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3467
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2017, 05:36:38 pm »
King Air 90s are not great. I suppose for some missions they're fine, but I can't understand why anyone would get one over a Commander.

I think you should take into consideration that flying 700 hours per year is a lot... I would guess that per mile of transportation, a 690 would probably be cheaper than your 680. And my impression is that you have your own dedicated mechanics, in which case the maintenance won't be as bad as it might be for someone like me.

Personally, I try to keep my flying to about 100-125 hours per year. That lets me do one inspection per year (which I would have to do anyway), and keeps things reasonable. Sometimes, taking the airlines just makes more sense-- I just returned from a quick trip to Boston on the airlines. My round-trip first class ticket cost me less than my first fuel stop would have in the Commander. And Boston is a lousy place for GA.

You might also think about what you're going to do as your son gets older-- if he's in school and can't travel with you, that might make speed (so you can get back quickly) more valuable. Something to think about.

ghancock

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Weighing Options
« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2017, 06:02:08 pm »
I agree.  My deals though are not strictly based on cost and usually have nothing to do with it.  It comes down to whether I can get there and back in a reasonable amount of time and a lot of the time it is last minute.  Being able to hop in the plane, fly to Miami or where ever in a few hours, do a meeting and come home just can't be done on an airline at any price.  Do I have to do these trips?  No, I don't have to do anything.  I can say my company has expanded like crazy though since I started popping in on customers at a moments notice. 

Plus, you have a hell of a lot better chance of getting me to come visit if I am flying my own plane than you do talking me into being herded like cattle through security and airlines.

Glenn
--glenn
You can't win an argument with an ignorant person,  they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.