You have to educate them, or else they’ll always go for the most expensive, vanilla option.
Same same in EASAland
Yes. Part 91 you do need to do inspections, but not overhauls. As for gear overhaul, if it’s an SB, don’t need to do it. If It’s an AD, you do. Not sure how it’s worded for the King Air. But as an example, on the Piaggio P180 Avanti, the gear was $250K to overhaul every 12 years. Until someone got clarification form FAA, part 91. No need. Just need to inspect. That’s a pretty huge saving.
Another example – Hartzell wants you to overhaul my props on the Commander every 6th year. My props are brand new – like less than 100hrs on them. Makes zero sense sense to overhaul them, which means grinding them down (you only got 2-3 grind downs before the blades get rejected). It’s an SB. No need to comply, I can just inspect. Saves about $12K. But you need to fight the maintenance facilities on this and know the regs. They’re so used to part 135 or big operators, they don’t even know the rules – they just overhaul or comply with the manufacturers recommends without questioning.You have to educate them, or else they’ll always go for the most expensive, vanilla option.
AdamFrisch wrote:
And in case of MU-2, they’re famously built very sturdy and have few issues, except being training heavy. But admittedly, this plane is at the lower end of spectrum and it would be reasonable to expect deferred maintenance.
I was reasonably sure that a twin-turbine aircraft had to adhere to the Manufacturers inspection schedule, and that it didn’t have the flexibility of a SET/SEP/MEP aircraft to simply do FAR Annuals/AD’s and Airworthiness Limitations listed in the MM. I am not familiar with the MU-2 schedule, but the Beech King Air for example you can’t get out of the 6-year inspections on the landing gear as a Part 91 operator. My take on it was you were bound by inspections (Hot Section for example) and not bound by overhaul intervals. Beech does have a lighter inspection schedule for users doing less than 200hrs a year, but it was always my understanding that twin turbine aircraft were more constrained by these inspection requirements.
FAR 91.409 e & f is what I am thinking of. Hence the OP aircraft is something you could probably work with quite easily (unless the OEM maintenance schedule was a condition of the STC like some other Soloy products).
I don’t think one can make a case that newer planes are more reliable
We’ve done this one many times, and I agree, but I think the reason is different:
Modern avionics are not actually more reliable in terms of actual aircraft downtime so they work great when you are never too far away from a Garmin dealer 
So when I am somewhere far, like Greece, most N European planes I see there are “old” ones, with “old” avionics. And most people I know with new stuff don’t fly very far.
To a large extent this is reflected in who turns up at our more distant fly-ins, too.
Obviously there are exceptions and people are always fast to point those out
Another very big and very significant difference is that new stuff tends to be under warranty so in GA issues are very under-reported because you need the dealer relationship; if you post about issues openly, the dealer will cut you off (as I well know from when my TB20 was new). GA is a tiny community and owners of new kit are really careful to not say stuff openly. We’ve had loads of cases here on EuroGA where stuff had to be deleted at the speed of light, because somebody lurking here (rarely somebody contributing, I reckon) picked up something and passed it immediately to the dealer, the dealer phoned up the owner and bent his ear, and the owner asked me to amend or delete his post.
Whereas with a mass product like a car, nobody will care and prob99 nobody will notice if you slag off say VW all over the VW forums. Just the VW Scirocco has four forums in the UK and nobody of relevance in the trade will be reading them
At the far end of the scale, the “real vintage” stuff doesn’t fly anywhere either because the owner is constantly fixing something. And this is true for many homebuilts, especially the lower-end ones.
Well, I think aviation is different than cars in this regard. Since planes are constantly upgraded (due to regulatory maintenance and inspection), I don’t think one can make a case that newer planes are more reliable. And in case of MU-2, they’re famously built very sturdy and have few issues, except being training heavy. But admittedly, this plane is at the lower end of spectrum and it would be reasonable to expect deferred maintenance. I purposefully didn’t include any Turbo Commanders because their prices have shot up quite considerably and capex cost is not as attractive as it was a few years ago. MU-2’s are a better deal in this market if it fits your mission.
@AdamFrisch that conjures up the age old discussion of “capex vs opex” and the practicalities of buying an old plane vs a new one. The MU2 looks a bargain on the face of it, but will it become a project rather than a totally usable plane?
I just bought a brand new Toyota GR Yaris. I’m very pleased but for the same price I could have bought a 15 year old Aston Martin Vantage. Despite the beauty and noise of the Aston, the little Toyota will run and run without any problems, whereas the Aston will be yet another project.
The problem with projects is that they tend to remain as projects, project cars are forever being tinkered with and project planes are always in the hangar being tinkered with. This is quite clear when you look at the hours on various homebuilts for sale.
I’ve always said that if they ever finish that diesel powered retrofit for the Aerostar, They’d have a real turbine killer. FL280, 230-250kts, 1500nm range, FIKI.
You can fly a MU-2 for about $600/hr. Factor in the lower purchase prices compared to a SET and you can pay a loooot of enroute charges and fuel before you even catch up – probably more than you could ever fly in a lifetime.
Peter wrote:
The real reason why TPs are pressurised runs roughly as follows:
You can put it much simpler: A non pressurized airplane is a suitable for longer range travel only for flight enthusiasts without smaller children. 3hrs+ with canulas in your nose (not to mention masks) is simply only acceptable for enthusiasts (or as a "once in a lifetime I join him experience). So if you seriously want to go places and your family doesn’t share your passion for flying itself. there is little options.
But every plane has it’s mission: For the turbine bonanza it is for sure the climb rate and short field performance. If you live in a valley near a very short strip it might be your plane – if you not shy away from the 30gph that give you true speeds that a Cirrus or other types deliver at 13-15gph.
Peter wrote:
It’s a bit like the car market. T34 tanks are a big fashion now, and once you drive a tank, the MPG doesn’t matter (it will be relatively poor anyway). BUT if you can sell tanks, a lot of stuff becomes much easier
Not only that, SUVs are cheaper to make (simple body on frame construction) than cars, but also sell at a premium. I think Ford in the US has simply stopped selling cars now and only makes SUVs because they are so much more profitable and marketing has convinced everyone they want an urban battletank.
On the turbine A36 Bonanza, it’s one of the few conversions that actually look good. Due to the W&B issues, most piston to turbine conversions look absolutely terrible with an out of proportion long nose (e.g. turbine Cessna 210).
New turbine planes are all several million US now.
People buy them to fly 200-300 hours per year, reliably, perhaps even on a schedule, from A to B, without spending days ahead worrying on windy (= this almost invariably involves flying through less than ideal weather).
Be it CBs in summer or icing in winter, FL200 puts one right in the muck, and so isn’t feasible with those tiny GA wx radar dishes. FL300 helps lots and FL400 is where things are definitely „easier“.
A turbine Bonnie is a great plane, I’m sure. I’d have to agree though that it’s more of a reliable „fun flight“ SEP, and less of a full bore turbine A to B machine.
