Flew my first round motor today. The first 1340 powered new Thrush in I think 13 years. They don't shake as bad as I have been told, this one so far doesn't burn or leak oil and nothing sounds as good as that old P&W loping along at a 500 RPM idle. Makes me want a 195, but I'm sure I could never afford one.

I have a couple friends that are getting rid of there 3 turbines and going back to round engines.

They say turbines are just to costly, when they first switched they loved them.

Is it because of lack of qualified Ag pay turbine mechanics or has the industry changed enough that guys are going back to round.

I do love that sound

Scout,

Price a PT-6 overhaul, then price a 1340 overhaul. The PT-6 tbo is 4500 hours, but the cost to overhaul would buy a dozen 1340's, PLUS the PT-6 is going to require a hot section sometime in that 4500 hours, and those aren't cheap either.

I'm surprised more ag operators haven't discovered Johnson's Thrush with the Walter engine. Pretty slick, MUCH cheaper than a PT 6, and they quote you an overhaul price at time of purchase.

I'm also surprised that very few ag aircraft have been converted with Honeywell turbines. The 331-10 can go to 9,000 hours on condition with no hot section, in some applications. They're heavier, and noisier, but....make mucho power.

But a 1340 is dirt cheap to buy and overhaul, bottom line. It's probably cheaper to overhaul a 1340 than it is to overhaul an O-540 Lycoming.

MTV

Mike the Garrets have gone up in price the last few years and work out to be about the same a PT6 in the long run. I've always liked round Pratts, more so the 985 than the 1340. Done a bit lately in a 985 Stearman, good fun that. The 1340 always seemed to vibrate more but in a Thrush was a nice handling machine. The 1340's got a bad name over here because people used to run them out to 2500 hours and say they only did 1400, consequently they crapped out mostly before coming to the 1400 hours when actually they'd done nearly twice that. A disadvantage with the turbine is fuel flow now, a PT 6 on heavy work uses about 220 litres an hour of Avtur, the 1340 uses maybe 140 litres of Avgas.

Round engine seems to have more soul, never two the same. You can have two sitting alongside each other of the same Aircraft and installation and either could require completely different start technique's. The pointy one's you seem to turn them on and turn them off without much difference between engine besides maybe a few degrees hotter or colder.

The ex military PT6's seem a pretty good deal over there, they were quoting firewall forward off a military Queenair for $75K US. That was for an engine that had done around 3,000 hours. For that sort of money you could run them right out and throw them away, I have worked a PT6 that had an actual time of around 9,000 hours with only one hot section. It still pulled and the temps were well within limits.

MTV,
I've been wanting to build a 400gl Thrush with a Walter and Cascade's STC, but we got caught up in an AD that hasn't happened. My idea was to build 1340's, convert the via STC and see how much interest there was. I believe we could market a bare bones 400 gl Walter for a little over $500,000. The OEM price for a T-34 Pratt alone is $300,000. Add about $50,000 worth of prop and engine accessories and the T-34 ain't cheap.
If there was any interest, then certify a Walter powered Thrush.
Dave Johnston's aiplane is a Cascade conversion.
Walter America is Darryl Riddell, another Thrush dealer.
One problem though, a couple of weeks ago Walter was bought by GE, and I don't know what is going to happen. I hope GE wants to de-throne PWC, somebody needs to.
The -10 Garrett is back in production, it's on the Predator-b. I contacted Honeywell if they would sell to the public and what would be the price, they gave me a number that was, well, just nut's.

a64,

Still lots of Garrets out there on the rebuilt market, but those are probably getting used up. Buy a MU-2 for the motors....

The only caveat on the R-1340 is you don't want to run one on a Single Engine Otter. They installed a gearbox on that one to swing that big three bladed prop, and those engines are notorious for having problems, most of which are catastrophic, expensive, and sometimes loud.

MTV

Now this is great news.

I have alway gravitatied to the round engines. Go to airshows, static displays, I'll walk past the turbine to the older round engine powered birds.

man this made my day!

See ya, Bub

There are quite a few variables that you guys are overlooking where ag aircraft selection for modern operations are concerned.
The only reason for a guy to move back to a round motor I see is less volume overall due to ground rigging, chemigation, fertigation, and genetic alteration. The down sides are too great.
Number one is that most of us run real hard for two months or so a year, make it or break it. 200 hours a month for a round motor requires a mechanic performing unscheduled maintenance in the middle of the night (unless you do night work then it's oposite) or worse, missing out on work during the day.
Number two - fuel - yeah they may only burn 35 gph instead of 45-55 gph but it costs more per gallon, in some cases as much as $.45.
Number three - fuel - it BURNS more easily. I don't like the prospect of crashing in a Low Lead burner at all. Jet-A is way more friendly when shit starts flying apart.
Number four - fuel - If neccessary you can burn number one kero or home heating oil, and even though I wouldn't due to dye build up on the t-wheel causing imbalance, red farm fuel. 100LL can also be burnt in the PT-6 for short periods. You can burn auto in the radials as well but there are differing opinions on that just as the variable fuels in the turbines.
Number five - aircraft size in a modern world - Due to the decrease in our use overall we are ferrying further and further all the time. A 600 is only going to haul 350-380 gallons. Where a 500 gallon airplane will haul 450-480. That difference could mean fewer ferries at as much as 25 miles one way for me personally. the extra load with the round motor negates the lesser fuel burn of it. This is an isue that will only get worse with new containment regulations. Guys aren't going to want to build $40,000 pads at every dirt strip for a little work so they'll start ferrying from home.
Garretts - The new AD for less than -10 or -11 (I believe) engines makes many of them more expensive to operate. Basically Honeywell (after a couple of uncontained catastrophic failures) realized that ag and jump operators are starting them up and flying 20 - 50 loads without a shutdown. So they abbreviated the cycle count formula which made many of the wheels timed out instantly and made the cost per hour go up.
They are loud as hell on the ground which makes it hard to operate at certain strips near people and makes it hard to talk to customers/ fieldmen without getting out. Ingestion of objects (birds) even with an intake screen is a problem and has caused failures. Ingestion of corrosive chemicals such as liquid fertilizers and Cotton Quick is a problem due to the fact that there is no filtration.
I have also personally witnessed some wierd "voodoo" on Garretts where they run and run with no problems for a while then a chip light comes on and then you can't saxrifice enough chickens to fix them. I have seen a -10 on and off an airplane three times in 125 hours with over $50k spent EACH time!
Overall for ag they weren't meant for this application, they were meant to be APU's. Strated up and run at constant power for long periods in a concrete environment. The MU-2, Aero Commander, King Air profile works for this; roll off a shiny floor, taxi out and take off on pavement, fly at FL 220 for three hours, land FOD-free on pavement, taxi in, shutdown, and push back in to the shiny floored hangar to get buffed on. Not start up and take off on dirt, dust, rocks 50 times a day, while ingesting fertilizer dust/ liquid chemicals while dodging birds.
Fuel burn is less which is a benefit in these expensive fuel times.
Walter's - never flown one by the way, just operated next to a couple. Seemingly good on the surface as far as maintenance. The cost of these has gone up over the years so they aren't as good of a deal as they used to be when they were trying to certify the D's. I lived in Deland, FL when Turbine Design was working on them in 1995 on Cat's, Thrush's, 301, etc. and the price kept going up and then they couldn't get certified at all.
On the certified engines front they seem to pull a bit less than compareable H.P. due to the prop. This has been fixed a bit by the three blade instead of the five. They are fast though once you get them going. In the certified world you HAVE to send the engine back to Europe to O/H and once they got your shit thousands of miles away you gonna argue when they say it ain't what it was supposed to be. On the non-certified front South African John at Dimech turbines in Deland can do the work fairly reasonably.
They also seemed to lose power faster than PT-6's when hot or high. Of course they have a hot/high model for more money but then you are getting close to the price of a PT-6.
I also have heard rumors of an AD but I'm sure a64 knows more than me on that.
PT-6's - EXPENSIVE - But damn they do it. With the filtration systems that the ag aircraft manufacturers have come up with they are a freakin' horse. There aren't many ag operators that will argue with the efficiency of a 500 gallon PT-6 powered ag plane. VESATILE, you can haul a 50 acre load 15 miles on one job and not lose your ass, then turn around and get 1,500 acres of work done in a reasonable fashion time wise. When it comes to dry work 65 cubes gets the work done reasonably fast even when ferrying. Don't get me wrong I've flown them all and bigger CAN be better BUT when the phone stops ringing the -34 500 gallon airplane won't eat you at the bank. Fuel burn a bit higher but they will do it to it. I'm not saying this is good but I'll give you the numbers on mine (it is the only affordable way to start into the business in a turbine) mine has 14,500 hours on it, more than most fly in a lifetime, NEVER BEEN OVERHAULED, hot sectioned every 700-1000 hours (last one cost me $8,000 dollars after 1150 hours, next one will be @ $40-50,000 though), ONE gearbox inspection at about 8,000 hours (probably $25-35,000). That's it. Now it is going to nickle and dime me if I'm not careful but there are two guys that rode the equity out of it and made an ass-load of money. Assuming that it has averaged $750/hr gross over it's lifetime it has grossed $10,875,000. That's almost 11 million dollars for about $500,000 in engine maintenance costs over 28 years. Here again though I don't bullsh*t myself about what I have, I know that I bought low up front, it will cost more along the way, and I'll need a little luck for a few more years until I can get on my feet and trade up.
Other notes; I have 8,000 hours of PT-6 time having flown almost all from -20 through -67. Almost 3,000 hours of Garrett time -1 through -11. Only about 1200 hours of round engine time.
NONE of them have ever quit me.....yet.
The most important thing in ag aircraft selection is that it fit's the individual operator's situation but it has got to be something special to go BACK to radials.

We had a couple outfits running bull thrush's and a turbine...they went back to the 1820, because of cost....
The geared 1340 is a great engine, but they can't be "jockeyed" like a straight 1340...too many "wives tales" gave them a bad name! There were quite a few hung on AirTractors at one time, as the slower turning prop was nice for noise, and they worked well. I spent some time on Otters and built alot of those engines, and as long as they're run right, they're an awesome machine!
JH

G3,
I don't even think we intend to market the Radial. It's a one time contract buy for Libya which has "special" needs. I think they will mostly sit, dispersed around the country and wait for a locust invasion. I did try to tell them they could get the same work out of probably 5 T-34's, but they need at least 18 aircraft, but can't afford 18 T-34's.
I know we can't turn back the clock and turbines are the cat's meow, but still flying that old Radial is fun, but I don't have to make a living out of it either.
When your aircraft was built the T-34 was less than 25% of the cost of the aircraft. It is now almost 50%. If the airframe cost rose at the same rate as the engine then a 500gl turbine aircraft would cost about 1.4 mil now. Competition is good for any industry. PWC doesn't have any and I believe that is why they are so expensive.

a64,
i follow you and agree whole heartedly. Something that could moderate pricing a little where the PT is concerned would be good. I also enjoy the sound of the radial, and flying them. Just not down below the wires all day.

Lowflyin,

You are absolutely correct--There are a LOT of variables in this equation.

Where I'm from, Jet A costs slightly more than 100 LL. Go figure

When one runs an engine beyond manufacturer's recommended TBO, the core value of that engine depreciates considerably. So, running past tbo may or may not be a real bargain, when it comes time to hang a new engine on there. Also, as you said, one big surprise could spoil that party, profit wise--but, as long is it goes without glitches, so much the better.

You pointed out utilization, and you're correct there. In many parts of the country, turbines just cost too much to operate, no matter HOW much crop they can work in a day. Take a look at eastern Montana, for example, and see how many turbine ag planes work out there, in wheat country. Lots of Pawnees, Ag Trucks, etc. but not many bigger planes.

So, it really comes down to economics. If a Pawnee will earn you a living, and a turbine anything will put you in debt to the bank for half a mil, which are you better off with? That turbine may make you lots of $$, but one bad season and the bank may own an airplane.

But, that is totally dependant on what work is available. THere's no question that the big machines can out work the smaller ones. The 502 seems to be the favorite around here as well. Not TOO big, but still works hard and covers a lot of country.

So, you're coming up on your second wing AD? Ouch!

MTV

Unfortunately way more than one has run past TBO in ag. I've flown a -20 that had 18,000 SOH, a -45 with 16,000 SOH, and the most I've seen is a -34 with 22,000 and never been OH'd. Somewhere along the way it became accepted. I don't like it personally but I can only pay so many bills at once to play catch up. Once I'm up and going I believe I'll get on the light OH program that Covington has going. It fits ag well.
The Montana thing is mainly due to the type of work and consistency of it. They do almost no dry work at all and most of the liquid work is 3 gallon or less. A lot of those guys can cut a fat hog in a Cessna at a gallon hauling a quarter section at a time. When it's there a lot of it is gravy where field size and border problems are concerned but they rely on the sky for rain.
It's still the same AD for now but we're expecting another soon. I've already got my spar kit bought so I'm ready when it comes.

Makes me want a 195, but I'm sure I could never afford one.

Don't be so sure...I looked at 195's on a lark and was surprised to see that for what they are, they're amazingly affordable. They're probably not that cheap to run, but they seem to be about as underpriced as 180's are overpriced.

I couldn't sleep for a week when I discovered I could actually own one...had it not been for my eventual realization that it wouldn't take me where I want to go, I'd have bought one.

Despite flying a Cessna 140, I don't have a big ego. That said, a 195 would be worth having just so people could see you in it.

Hammer,
I think I could buy one, but I'm not sure I could afford ownership. Don't feel bad about the 140, I got one as a second plane and I'm having a blast. I can fly it several times a week whereas the Maule, I feel like I have to have a reason because of the expense.

FWIW,
I have about 8-10 hours in a 195 and a couple of friends that have the 275hp Jake and one friend with a Turbo 195. Having both played with them and worked on them, I have formed my own opinion. There are a couple of falicies and a lot of unknowns here.
The plane can do;
Three people and gear, down and stopped in 900'. Fuel consumption with a reasonable hand, 14-16gph @ 150-160 mph. Push it and you'll do 170-180 and pay for it but it will go like Hell given the opportunity. The back seat is that of a couch.
There is no dihedral in the wing, you are constantly flying through trim. Of the tail wheel planes I've been in, this is one plane you don't want to let get ahead of you. It tries to ground loop at what seems like a fast walk. Visability sucks on the ground, S-taxi is the mantra. Heat comes from a gas fueled fan under the seat and does a great job. However, the company went out of business a couple of decades ago and that leads to the biggest problem, this plane (like most vintage A/C) is made out of unobtainium. You scrounge, fabricate or do without.
That having been said, this A/C is the epitome of a single engine, Art Deco, Cabin Class cruiser. There is nothing like the start up and sashe (sp?) of the airframe rocking side to side. Everytime I'm in one I expect to see a reflection of myself with a fedora, jacket and tie with spats on. I think of a class of aircraft like the Spartan Excutive, Stinson Reliant and Howard DGA that drove this era. The 190/195 was kind of the end of it and probably the most prolific. I will never pass on a ride in one.