Hmm, maybe not…. Let’s see. 
They’re selling two used TPE331-1-151’s (the same model that goes on my aircraft, many MU-2’s and others):
Look at the traceability papers on this particular engine and let’s break this down and compare it to a piston engine. This engine has a TBO of 5400hrs. Engine has 2530hrs until TBO. It also has a mandatory hot section inspection interval you have to comply with each 1800hrs (so you need to perform 2x HSI during the engine’s lifetime). As you can see from sheet the last HSI was performed 946.7hrs ago, so it needs doing in 853.3hrs, or if any of the rotables inside engine reaches its cycle limit, whichever comes first. It is unlikely in this case you would put more cycles on the last 3rd stage turbine rotor (which has the least amount of cycles left, 904) before reaching HSI (a cycle counts as a start, flight and shutdown). This would also be the last HSI you’d have to perform on this engine before it reaches TBO. An average HSI on a TPE331 runs in the $50K region, but it could probably vary up or down $10K, depending on the condition of the stators and turbine disks. But let’s use $50K, which is pretty close ballpark.
So let’s break this down:
Engine cost: $42,500. That’s about $16.79/hr in engine reserves.
HSI cost: $50,000. That’s about $19.76/hr.
TOTAL: $36.55/hr
Now let’s look at a TIO-540 engine for example, which is common in higher end planes. Engine TBO is 1800hrs, but it most likely won’t make more than 1000hrs on the same cylinders if it’s turbo charged. Same with its turbos and waste gates, about 1000hrs. I’ll use real world numbers from the Aerostar overhaul I did:
Engine overhaul all in (including turbos, hoses, wastegates, NDT engine mounts, wires, plugs etc): $60,000. That’s about $27.7/hr
Cylinders each 1000hrs: $12000. That’s about $6.67/hr
Turbo overhaul at 1000hrs: $4000. That’s about $2.22/hr
Oil changes/filters each 50hr, prob $300 each time. That’s about $6/hr
TOTAL: $42.59/hr
So the turbine, is almost $8/hr less costly in this scenario to operate. Obviously, any catastrophic event can eat up this advantage, but at the same time, the likelihood of that happening is far less than any catastrophic event on a piston. By a factor of god knows how much.
Just another perspective and to encourage those who might be on the fence in regards to turbine op costs. They won’t necessarily eat your lunch. In fact, they might even save you some money. 
The sound of a turbine starting up:
Priceless !
I suspect that there are several main factors and they are mostly human factors:
Peter wrote:
people who are not syndicating to save money
What other reason could there be for forming a syndicate than to save money by dividing up fixed costs among more owners?
I’ve found here in the US that most of those that step up to turbines come from fire breathing pistons. Meaning, it’s C421, C414, Aerostar, Baron, C210 and Malibu owners etc. They seem to come to the conclusion turbines offer an overall cost and/or performance advantage. In Europe, there are so much fewer of these high end piston owners, that I suspect the move isn’t as natural. It feels more segmented in Europe – a lower piston end and then a direct jump up ot a TBM or a jet, with very little in between.
I think the writing is on the wall: high end, complex piston planes days have been and will continue to be numbered. Especially twins (some people think they’ll make a recovery, but I don’t). Those people will more likely than not in the future move to turbines. I also think that eventually the turboprop, will also fall by the wayside and give way to jets. It just adds complexity to have gearboxes and regulate a big propeller out there.
It is therefore interesting why the business has gone this way. Is it an EASA requirement for a balanced runway, or a worldwide one, for private flights?
I have been in a CJ4 which got airborne in about 300m, full tanks but only 2 passengers. More importantly, it has amazing brakes and it stopped in some similar distance. That really isn’t different to a TBM.
What other reason could there be for forming a syndicate than to save money by dividing up fixed costs among more owners?
To keep the plane flying. Low hours → lots of failures of e.g. avionics.
So, ultimately, to save money by having the plane fly more. Almost like the .com era only it seems to actually work. :)
Reduction of downtime isn’t quite “money”
I don’t completely buy into that reasoning. You could just pay a few people to regularly fly your plane then so you have control over the regular utilization, or I’m sure there are plenty of volunteers to even do it for free…
