"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
However, the insurers will insure Dennis the Doctor in a 414 but not a
King Air....ass-backwards.

Looking at indemnity tables from the insurers' point of view, it makes
sense. The doctor can be insured for the King-Air as easily as for the
C-414. It just costs more because the hull liability and passenger indemnity
claims are greater.

I have heard numbers
between $12 and $20 thousand as production costs on these today.

Compare the cost of a new PT-6 to that of a new Walter 601. Perhaps we
agree on this point. Perhaps Walter isn't afraid of product liability law
suits. Walter also doesn't have a world-wide service organization available
24/7 like you get when you pay the extra money.

Too expensive. The turbine Maule is $400K, the recip $100K.

Or because they can't handle high power output for extended periods of time
as required for fixed wing use. The bearings crap out.

The 331 Garrett takes a colossal amount of power to start (and has
only electric, not air impingement or cartridge start), is extremely
loud, and is not significantly cheaper than the PT-6.

A properly maintained battery will provide all the starting amperage
required. Most PT-6s are not equipped for air impingment and/or cartridges
either, so where is your valid point? The noise from a Garret is loud for
the lineguy, but the cabin is no louder than a comparable airplane with
PT-6s. What counts is the fly-over noise which is virtuaally the same for
both engines. As for cost, why should it be any cheaper?

Single shaft turbines just don't make engineering sense for smaller
applications. I don't think Garrett has ever found much non-aviation
use for the 331 whereas the ST6 (the aeroderivative PT6 non-propulsion
engine) has been a phenomenal seller, relatively speaking.

If one wants an airplane engine, who cares about derivitives? Single-shaft
turbines burn less fuel than comparable free-turbine engines. THAT makes
engineering sense. You are really reaching to sustain your argument.

Now how about addressing that little PT-6 problem with the rear turbine
bearing. The problem continued into the late 1990s. It took Pratt a long
time to address the fix and issue an AD. All engines fail, including your
beloved PT-6. They may last longer than piston engines, but they still fail
on occassion. The Garrets are every bit as good and burn less fuel.

Just wondering-
How much PT-6 and Garrett experience do you have as mechanic or pilot? Did
you arrive at your conclusions by listening to pilots and mechanics?

D.