All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:40 pm 
Offline
FLAP - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 26
Quick question. What do people think of the garrett tpe331's in terms of reliability, cost at hot section and overall operating costs when compared to pratt pt6's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:51 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
FlyNYC - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 1699
People think Garretts are LOUD!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:04 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
JHEM - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:00 am
Posts: 5470
Location: Under SWANN!
FlyNYC wrote:
People think Garretts are LOUD!!!

Image

And more expensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:16 pm 
Offline
pilot2009 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:00 pm
Posts: 46
...and burn more gas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:26 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
185Driver - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 499
Location: Rockies, western US
pilot2009 wrote:
...and burn more gas.


What!:shock:

The PT6 burns more fuel for the same power. The TPE331 is a better engine but does cost more at overhaul time & doesn't like sloppy mechanics/mx.

The PT6 is bullet proof, simple for any mechanic, cheaper at over haul but burns more fuel/HP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:48 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
azav8r - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 2405
185Driver wrote:
pilot2009 wrote:
...and burn more gas.


What!:shock:

The PT6 burns more fuel for the same power. The TPE331 is a better engine but does cost more at overhaul time & doesn't like sloppy mechanics/mx.

The PT6 is bullet proof, simple for any mechanic, cheaper at over haul but burns more fuel/HP.

Ditto 185Driver.... The TPE331 is more efficient than the PT6. But, it is a little more complex in addition to its direct drive gear-box. The TPE331 is also temp sensitive and is not forgiving to an inattentive operator.


Last edited by azav8r on Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:00 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
FlyNYC - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 1699
azav8r wrote:
185Driver wrote:
pilot2009 wrote:
...and burn more gas.


What!:shock:

The PT6 burns more fuel for the same power. The TPE331 is a better engine but does cost more at overhaul time & doesn't like sloppy mechanics/mx.

The PT6 is bullet proof, simple for any mechanic, cheaper at over haul but burns more fuel/HP.

Ditto 185Driver.... The TPE331 is more efficient than the PT6. But, it is a little more complex in addition to it's direct drive gear-box. The TPE331 is also temp sensitive and is not forgiving to an inattentive operator.


Ditto ditto those guys. They are both good engines. I find that it's more about the aircraft/engine combination. Example, Turbine Otter with a Garrett...Good. Kingair with a Garrett...Bad. I wouldn't worry so much about the engine as I would the aircraft they're attached to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:55 am 
Offline
FLAP - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 26
Thanks for all the replies. I have seen numbers on vref to the tune of 250k for overhaul of pt6 vs 180k for the garrett. Also, tbo on the garrett is 5400 hrs vs 3600 for the pratt. Does this sound accurate?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:22 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
pfp217 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:00 pm
Posts: 1053
Location: KSPI
FlyNYC wrote:
People think Garretts are LOUD!!!


triple ditto, after being around J31's for 5 years and Beech 1900s for another 5, I can tell you with surity, and slight hearing loss, that those Garretts are screamers, while the 1900 is a moaner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:29 pm 
Offline
pilot2009 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:00 pm
Posts: 46
185Driver wrote:
pilot2009 wrote:
...and burn more gas.


What!:shock:

The PT6 burns more fuel for the same power. The TPE331 is a better engine but does cost more at overhaul time & doesn't like sloppy mechanics/mx.

The PT6 is bullet proof, simple for any mechanic, cheaper at over haul but burns more fuel/HP.


You got me...I just looked up my research from a few years ago when I was considering Turbo Commanders and you're right. In fact, my notes directly show the Garret's burning about 5 gph/hr more than the PT6 at the same power setting :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:41 pm 
Offline
beechboy2 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 22
:D


Last edited by beechboy2 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:36 am 
Offline
cswan0526 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 1
I have flown -5 garrets and -10 in 690 commander and 1000

690commander 331 -5 goes 250-260 kts betweeen 18-20 thousand feet summer and 20-22 thousand in winter burning 500 pounds a hour in cruise= 73 gallons hour and 600 pounds and hour first hour =88 gallons

hot sections every 1800 hours 5400 tbo. They can be expensive if not flown consative with a cap around 106k. my first hot was 98k including inspection and parts on both engines. most damage found in hot section inspection is from starting engines with weak batteries, so i've been told.

i believe you have to do a gear box inspection on second hotsection


1000 commander 331-10 goes 300kts at 28,000 feet burning 440-480 summer/winter pounds an hour in cruise=64 gallons. first hour = 600 lbs an hour =88 gallons.

i am on 5000 tbo. one hot section at 2,500 and no gear box inspection required. 30-35k average hot section for both engines. mine was 60k for both engines because i had lot of erosion on one t wheel. supposively from flying up to 32-35 thousand feet will cause that, but plane is not rvsm'd now. I know someone who's hot sections on a -10 commander totaling 20k for both engines.



garret= push power levers foward=instant power. loud outside but don't notice it inside. pull the power back to king air speed and you won't even notice the noise, lol


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:06 am 
Offline
FLAP - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 26
Cswan, thanks for your insight. Was wondering if there is any other good info on the 690-5 as that is what I am seriously considering upgrading to. What are operating costs, 150hr inspections like, heard it is somewhat of a complex plane. What do you think about spar issues. Any info greatly appreciated. PM me if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:14 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
FlyNYC - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 1699
cswan0526 wrote:
pull the power back to king air speed and you won't even notice the noise, lol


Exactly what is "Kingair" speed? The numbers you quoted for the 2 Commander aircraft are Kingair speeds. 260 kts is a slowish B200 block speed, 300 kts is a B350 cruise. Perhaps you're thinking of old, old 90 series Kingairs?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: comparison tool
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:10 pm 
Offline
flylowflyslow - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:00 am
Posts: 1
beechboy2 wrote:
Go to planequest.com and then the operating costs. Compare a Cessna 425 (PT6) to the Cessna 441 (Garretts). That can give some perspective.

I used to fly both the 425 and the 441 (slightly bigger airframe). Much preferred the 425. Engines were more responsive. There were also several 441's lost due to engine fires, which always stuck in my head, causing me to watch ITT's a lot more than I ever did on the PT6.

:D

I think you might be incorrect about the engine fire reference. There was a metro that had a brake fire that, due to it location when retracted, took out the whole nacelle...but there has never been an inflight engine fire of a tpe331 that i know of..anyone have an NTSB to clarify?

As for power i remember working the numbers while waiting (that is what a pilots real job is) and the TPE331-10 is 13 or 14% for efficient per hp than a pt6 in flight

shoot..I just notice how old a thread this is.... :!:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:51 am 
Offline
scottieshea - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:00 am
Posts: 4
I just wanted to add my $0.02. I've never flown a Garrett powered aircraft, but all my A&P buddies whine about them. Apparently they are inherently fussy to work on, or just a PITA in general maintenance wise.
I've flown a few hundred hours on different PT6 engines, and I've not had any major issues with them, but it was all in military aircraft that have had contract maintenance, so my experience with the P&W are limited time-wise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:22 pm 
Offline
636ironhead - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:00 am
Posts: 1
Just to set things straight, the Garrett costs less to operate than a PT6. It burns less fuel and costs less to overhaul. It is more responsive than a PT6 as well because it is a common shaft throughout the engine. If you would like documented proof of this let me know and I will get it to you. The two negative things about the Garrett are that it is noisy outside the aircraft while on the ground and it is easier to hot start.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:59 pm 
Offline
bashdan - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 9
331 garrets are loud indeed, but that's from the outside looking. I also co-sign with 636ironhead's post. I've been around an A100 with -60A's and a B100 with 331's and you could could definitely hear the difference!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:10 am 
Offline
erik1010 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 9
Location: on the road
Garret > Prat.
The tpe331 is more fuel efficient.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:38 pm 
Offline
blazerman3 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 3
As an A&P who has worked both engines I can say that I`ve met my share of pilots who have flown both either under Part 91 or 135. The- 91 Garrett operators seem to fair better if operated by the same pilot most of the time. The -135 operators (if multiple pilots) seem to degrade the Garrett by different operating procedures. Mainly in the number of hot starts. On the other hand the Pratt seems to fair well with multiple operators in either catagory. Hot section inspections are rather simple to perform with the Pratt but the Garrett can be a challenge. So I guess one should weigh the difference in the fuel burns between the two and then weigh what happens at the inspection time for a hot section. By the way we mechs affectionately know the Garretts as "Claymores" as that seems to be what happens with them when they give up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:56 pm 
Offline
paviation07 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 45
the direct drive gearbox of the TPE331 is simpler than the reduction gearbox of a PT6A from a mechanical basis but it seems more mechanics know how to fix the PW engine tho

a good friend of mine went to PIA (Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics) and their MTC program details the PT6, piston, and turbofans engine but fails to train how to fix the Garrett

I was a mechanic in the military and we maintained the Allison T-56-A15s...that was a pain when those died on you...4350shp 750lbs thrust

talk about LOUD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: garrett vs pt6
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:09 am 
Offline
pilotforhire - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:43 pm
Posts: 1
:wink: Hello, I am thinking of getting an airplane that has a TFE331-6, I don't know what the yearly cost for an annual, I know about the 5000 TBO, and I think it burns less the 40 gals an hour. Any info or suggestions would be very much appreciated. This is not for business use so I need to stay on the low end of expense. Thanks in advance. Anything at all would be helpful,

Woor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:26 pm 
Offline
GWIDAS - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 1
185Driver wrote:
pilot2009 wrote:
...and burn more gas.


What!:shock:

The PT6 burns more fuel for the same power. The TPE331 is a better engine but does cost more at overhaul time & doesn't like sloppy mechanics/mx.

The PT6 is bullet proof, simple for any mechanic, cheaper at over haul but burns more fuel/HP.


Agree! Garretts' are great motors, the power you can get out of them is crazy good! but the pilot has to know what he's doing which will keep some hot section cost down and def need a mechanic that knows these motors! Agree 100% on the PT6 statement


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wesray and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: