new cessna corvalis err columbia 400 err

Overhaul of even a small PT6 is $600K. The cost of a small turboprop vs. the larger on the PC12 is not the gas. It's the annual of a pressurized vessel, overhaul and hot inspections.

I don't care what size pressurized turboprop you get into.... It's outrageously more expensive than a piston. So, like I said, I'll just take the PC12 and get all the benefits.

Also, what's wrong the the Evolution? It seems to fit the bill for what you are talking about.

 

Good interview with Cessna exec on the subject.
http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?watch=lmYnNyMToZ5-pZTTyl3trZ8SQpQyk8zI#ooid=lmYnNyMToZ5-pZTTyl3trZ8SQpQyk8zI

 

You are thinking series 4 engines with those numbers, a -34 or 42 is a lot less than that. The OEM's aren't paying that much for a whole new engine, even a 67 is less than that at the OEM price.

That's the point, the newer gen of small turbines will be less expensive in first cost AND O/H cost and that will help bridge the gap. P&W hasn't done the industry any favors by gouging the market for turboprops. As an example, had a R&R time for the hot section on the A/C of less than 1 hr for an engine that we are working on. We did a total teardown/overhaul, removing the H/S from the engine, replacing all of the H/S life limited parts, and had it back in the test stand and running in three hours, with two tech's working it. That's less than 6 mmh for a hot section overhaul, and this engine was still in the development phase so everything wasn't as neat as a production version would be. There's some amazing technology out there even right now.

The Evo has a 50 year old gas sucker that is expensive to maintain and overhaul. The speed is fine, but the payload falls off when you try to go long distances. That airframe is crying for a modern engine. I haven't looked at the payload/range chart for the Evolution, but I doubt that you could fill the seats and go very far with the kind of fuel burn that a -34 or a M601 gives you.

 

I don't know much about the smaller turbines. I fly the PC12 a lot as I think I'm on the sales guys "most wanted list". They quote me time and again that I'm looking at $600K when overhaul time comes. My home FBO is the SE Pilatus service center and that's what they charge for an overhaul.

So would a smaller turbine be more like $300K? Or way less that that?

 

No you are probably in the ballpark for a major if the engine is run out it could easily be that much. Pratt has an on condition maintenance program that eliminates the mid life hot section inspection, but when you go inside(at 3500 hours) you are going to go big time and it's going to be expensive. Still it's probably on the order of more than half of a 67, but less than 3/4's of the cost for engine reserve.

Also depends a lot on who is doing the work, some places are a lot more expensive than others.

After the first overhaul things can get more expensive and after two or three it's cheaper to buy new rather than rebuild.

It's interesting that small engines have a $/hour that is a lot more expensive than you would think. The engines we did for regional airliners had almost the same engine reserve costs as small helo engines. Fact was that the small engines cost 1/6 that of the airliner engines, but the airliner engine runs 6 times as long before it gets overhauled.

 

That is such a good looking bird....I'm still a little suspect on the new touch-screen glass panel for the Corvalis TTx though it looks really cool.

 

We have a member building one of these now, Austin Meyer, Mr. www.x-plane.com.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=311554&highlight=meyer

 

Here is a new link to the build Austin sent me http://www.x-plane.com/hardware/hardware.html

 

ooohhhh ARRGH

that is SO true it is just enraging

what you might NOT know is that cessna out-sourced the production of that airplane to mexico.. and had a wing-skin separate in flight as a result. the spar had never been prepped for bond to the wing skin!

when cessna signed the deal with the mexican union, the union promised a certain number of workers be available at the factory each day.

they never promised that they would be the SAME workers from one day to the next.

and, as cessna learned, as soon as they would PAY a mexican, that mexican would NOT report back to work until his paycheck was completely spent! WHY go to work if you ALREADY HAVE MONEY?

as a result, they did NOT have the same workers from day to day

the day this one plane was built, the spar was never prepped for bonding to the wing-skin.

yet the mexicans glued the wing skin on anyway, without the preparation (simply rough-sanding the spar!!!!) and it separated in flight. the plane limped home with fuel leaking.

as well, the pay that mexicans receive to do this stunningly half-ass job is miniscule... WAAAAAAAAY below minimum wage in this country.

so, why is the price of the plane that is a piece of fiberglass, like a boat, with an old engine from 1950 so absurdly high?

well, the liability insurance that covers the outrageous cost of lawyers and lawsuits decided by non-pilot juries made of half-wits pulled out line at the DMV is huge. and take a look at FLYING and AOPA PILOT magazine... full-page Cessna ads splatter those mags from cover to cover.

so what are you paying for?
a fiberglass airframe that is about as complex as a boat hull?
an engine left over from a VW bug or old Corvair?
avionics not much more complicated than a GPS and accelerometer-equipped iPad?

or an un-ending parade of lawyers, lawsuits, insurance companies, and full-age advertisements to feed the MEDIA?

i won't answer these questions because i don't want to make any statements that i can't back up in court later, but I can sure ask the questions, and examine the evidence right in front of me!

there is no need to despair, though... Cirrus SR-22's are (so far) still made in America and perform as well as a Corvalis, and home-builts like the Lancair Evolution fly circles around a Corvalis like it is not even moving... AND you get the fun of building an Evolution with a skilled build-team!

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/cessna_corvalis_wing_composite_fine_FAA_205442-1.html
(ok the link above mentions humidity. but that, honestly, is BS. humid as mexico may be, the spar was NOT prepped, and the workers were NOT the same from day to day. FLYING magazine did an article on the Corvalis a little bit after this happened, and, as i recall, the new cup-holders in the airplane WERE mentioned. the separating wing skin was not. Cessna advertisements littered that issue, and all issues, from cover to cover. personally, i might be slightly less interested in the cup-holders than whether or not the wing will stay on, but that is clearly just my own subtle list of priorities, perhaps not shared by FLYING)