PhreeZone 15 #76 July 30, 2012 The PT6-140 appears to be a brand new design.. QuoteP&WC Certifies the New PT6A-140 Engine for the Cessna Grand Caravan EX The first variant of next-generation core for P&WC's PT6A, providing the best power-to-weight ratio and performance in its class LONGUEUIL, QUEBEC, Jul 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC), a United Technologies Corp. UTX company, is pleased to announce that Cessna Aircraft Company has chosen the PT6A-140 engine to power the latest innovation in the Cessna Caravan product line- the Cessna Grand Caravan EX. "We are proud to launch this new PT6A engine for our long-time customer, Cessna. Designed specifically to meet their needs, the PT6A-140 is the first variant of next-generation products that produces 1,075 SHP thermal for significantly improved climb, cruise and take-off performance in hot and high operation," said David Van der Wee, Vice President, Business and General Aviation, P&WC."This is the most powerful PT6A engine in its class and it provides the best power-to-weight ratio." "The core of this new engine is the next step in our continuous pursuit to bring the latest technology to the legendary PT6A family and establishes a new benchmark in its class, with the capability of meeting multiple demands across the agricultural, corporate and utility markets," added Van der Wee. "We have answered customers' desires for better performance and this engine demonstrates a 5% improvement in specific fuel consumption, through the incorporation of advanced aerodynamics, a more efficient compressor, and the latest generation of hot section materials. Furthermore, as part of our commitment to improving our products' environmental footprint, we have reduced the product life cycle impact through the use of the latest green manufacturing processes and materials." P&WC has completed all development validation of this new engine and received Transport Canada type certification for the PT6A-140 turboprop engine. The PT6A-140 engine features a 3,600 hour TBO with the benefit of a 6,000 hours/12 years TBO for specific conditions with FAR Part 121/135 operators. P&WC will be providing to operators the PT6A-140 with its Flight Data Acquisition Storage and Transmission System engine diagnostic solution. The latest innovation in P&WC's expanding suite of advanced diagnostic solutions automatically acquires, stores and transmits engine and aircraft data. Stored engine data is readily available for review and transmission to the customer the moment it is required for analysis to optimize engine operating and maintenance costs. The PT6A-140 builds upon the PT6A legacy of offering unmatched performance, durability, reliability and superior customer value to the market. Since introducing the PT6 almost 50 years ago, Pratt & Whitney Canada has consistently introduced newer versions of the engine, leading to more than 130 applications for business, commuter, utility and trainer aircraft and helicopters. The PT6A turboprop fleet has logged more than 335 million hours, an astounding amount that is 10 times more than its closest competitor. Others have made efforts to launch similar products; however, there is only one PT6! About Pratt & Whitney Canada Founded in 1928, and a global leader in aerospace, Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) is shaping the future of business aviation with dependable, high-technology engines. Every second, a P&WC-powered aircraft takes off or lands somewhere in the world. P&WC's engines, with close to 600 million hours in the air, are the industry benchmark for innovative design, dispatch reliability, operating economics and easy maintenance. P&WC is firmly committed to ensuring that its products are designed, produced and operated while minimizing environmental impacts throughout their life cycle. There are currently more than 49,000 engines in service on more than 28,000 aircraft operated by some 10,000 operators in 200 countries. The most extensive support network in the industry, which includes more than 30 company-owned and designated service facilities, supports this global fleet. Based in Longueuil, Quebec (Canada), P&WC is a United Technologies Corp. company UTX +1.44% . UTC is a diversified company providing high-technology products and services to the global aerospace and building industries. Contacts: Kathy Roberge EAA 2012, Oshkosh, WI, Hangar B - booth 2132 Cell: 514-244-2531 [email protected] @kathy_pwc www.pwc.ca SOURCE: Pratt & Whitney Canada mailto:[email protected] http://www.pwc.ca Copyright 2012 Marketwire, Inc., All rights reserved. Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
totter 2 #77 July 31, 2012 Cool! Thanks for the read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 615 #78 July 31, 2012 QuoteQuotePT6A-140 engine ? Is this an uprated -114 or is this the Blackhawk -42 mod? .................................................................... The PT6A-140 looks like a new, up-rated version of the -114A engines installed in most Caravans. The 140 has a single exhaust stack (lower right) compared with the double exhaust stacks on Balckhawk's -42 conversion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerospinskier 1 #79 August 26, 2016 Alright it has now been several years that both these engine modifications have been around, and used in skydiving. Any updates from people who have been using 1 or both? I still am having trouble choosing which conversion to go with. We are at a 4300 msl field elevation going to 18k msl every load in hot weather, so climb power is a priority. However, reliability is always important of course. Any new advise from experience over the years of having one of these conversions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #80 August 29, 2016 I remind my 10 year old opinion and am officially a believer! ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WV177RG 19 #81 August 29, 2016 I flew PT-6's and TPE-331's Part 135 for close to 5,000 hours in the 90's. Operational reliability was pretty much equal for our regional airline. Zero engine failures and no inflight precautionary shutdowns that I'm aware of during my six years. (There were a couple of shutdowns that were the result of false warnings/indications, not actual ENGINE problems.) Both great, safe engines. Mechanics preferred servicing the Pratt and Whitneys. I preferred flying the Garretts because of their direct-drive, smooth and predictable power response. P+W free turbines would spool up at different rates on go-arounds, missed approaches, etc. Extra caution required employing beta/reverse thrust on ice/snow/standing water contaminated runways in New England and Quebec, especially with strong crosswind/tailwind components. Garretts were much less squirrelly. Probably not an issue if you're only looking at single-engine aircraft. One quirk of our Dornier 228 Garretts: engines/props turned counter-clockwise resulting in LEFT rudder input required during takeoffs, go arounds, etc. Also moved the "critical engine" to the other side during emergency/single-engine operations. Easily mastered in training, but something to be aware of and anticipated in advance of an emergency. Again, less of an issue for single-engine aircraft. (I don't recall if all Garretts turned "backward," or if this was just a design spec of our German aircraft manufacturer. MU-2 pilots might be able to address this question.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dzswoop717 5 #82 August 30, 2016 what does anything you said have to do with the Supervan 900 mod. Have you got any time in one flying jumpers? WTF???????????????????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WV177RG 19 #83 August 30, 2016 "what does anything you said have to do with the Supervan 900 mod?" A number of posts addressed the issue of PT-6 vs. TPE-331 mechanical reliability (spinskier+.) We operated a mixed fleet of 20 aircraft using variants of both engines. Respecting manufacturer procedures and limitations, mechanical reliability between the two engine types was pretty much equal. Some folks wrote they'd had bad experiences with one type or the other. Another post addressed engine maintenance. Our mechanics preferred the Pratt and Whitneys over the Garretts. Might matter to some operators. Someone else addressed the issue of power response. PT-6's lag on power-up due to the free turbine design. Garretts have much smoother, more immediate response to power lever input. The difference between the engines' power response might save your life--or your pilot's life, if you care--and your aircraft the day a truck rolls onto the runway or a skydiver overshoots the LZ and lands on the runway as your aircraft is taking off or landing (happened at our DZ this past weekend), the aircraft hits windshear/downdrafts approaching the treeline heavily loaded on takeoff or landing (an issue at our DZ), or performs takeoffs/landings on contaminated runways. Garrets had better power response in high density altitude conditions in our experience. Rotational direction of the engine/prop? Might've gone a bit too far with that one. I've seen inexperienced pilots roaring toward the weeds because they failed to compensate correctly for the torque, p-factor and spiral slipstream of a "backward turning" engine. Send me a note when you're going to ride in the back with a green pilot in gusty crosswind conditions. I'll buy the marshmallows. The Supervan 900 looks like a ballsy airplane. As much as the climb rate of a raped ape and ability to haul a zillion and one asses off high density altitude runways may be great selling points, some folks expressed interest in other factors, too. No, I haven't flown one in skydiving operations...yet. Off your meds today? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dzswoop717 5 #84 August 31, 2016 Do you know if there are any mechanical issues with this conversion? have there been cracked motor mounts, overstressed firewall attachment points. Do the numbers jive with the expense of the mod for the performance gains. You are just another internet big mouth telling us everthing you have done with no answers to the recent question of how the supervan 900 actually works out, because you have "0" experince with this mod. Another dickhead who brags about something he has NO experience with. I'm not on meds but your EGO is on steroids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cutaway68 4 #85 September 1, 2016 I know there is a newly converted Supervan 900 at Glidersports in Clinton, Mo. It is a rocket of a jump ship!!! Don't Pull Low... Unless You ARE!!! The pessimist says, "It can't get any worse than this." The optimist says, "Sure, it can." Be fun, have safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keithbar 1 #86 September 1, 2016 Cutaway68 I know there is a newly converted Supervan 900 at Glidersports in Clinton, Mo. It is a rocket of a jump ship!!! . Damn I wish I could have worked the time off out for that one . $99 for Thursday,Friday,sat,and sun must have been sweet i have on occasion been accused of pulling low . My response. Naw I wasn't low I'm just such a big guy I look closer than I really am . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #87 September 1, 2016 WV177RG Off your meds today? I enjoyed the info in your post, and hell, I'm not even a pilot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dzswoop717 5 #88 September 1, 2016 I already apologized to him in a private message for the name calling. I NOW APOLOGIZE PUBLICLY. It still annoys me when someone asks a specific question and some one who has no experience in the specific aircraft answers everything except the dudes actual question. I think everything he said is correct and true, he just had 0 hours in a supervan 900 flying jumpers so he really can't help the guy with a decision on spending over half a million dollars on an engine upgrade. There are so many things that could come into play when putting a more powerful engine on an airframe designed for a lower horse power engine. These things can lead to metal fatigue which leads to cracks which leads to big repair bills and high maintenance. There could be flight characteristics that are undesirable, over heating issues, and so on... with not time in this specific airframe\powerplant combo he can't really give the advice that the guy was asking for. Rant over, I'll go back in my cave and take my meds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,325 #89 September 1, 2016 Hi 717, Quotehe can't really give the advice that the guy was asking for Then do you not think it is only proper for 'the guy' to complain; since you, apparently, have no dog in the fight? Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dzswoop717 5 #90 September 1, 2016 In my cave now, won't be coming out. dog fight is over, nothing to see here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 278 #91 September 1, 2016 dzswoop717 It still annoys me when someone asks a specific question and some one who has no experience in the specific aircraft answers everything except the dudes actual question. As WV177RG stated at the beginning of his post, a number of posts in the thread concerned Garrett vs PWC engine reliability, and that's what he addressed. It's a topic that draws heated debate. So he was addressing a topic that came up in the thread and added to that (with a lot of very relevant experience), that was also relevant to the original thread topic, even if it wasn't addressing the single and related question that revived the thread some years later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skytribe 17 #92 September 1, 2016 QuoteHi 717, ***Quote: he can't really give the advice that the guy was asking for Then do you not think it is only proper for 'the guy' to complain; since you, apparently, have no dog in the fight? Or perhaps the guy should just get a few references from the companies doing the engine mod and speak to them directly rather than soliciting advice in a public forum. They may get more real life experience responses that would be useful in determining a position on the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #93 September 2, 2016 dzswoop717 I NOW APOLOGIZE PUBLICLY. Rant over, I'll go back in my cave and take my meds. Hey, we're all friends here, right? No worries. . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mathrick 2 #94 September 2, 2016 pchapman*** It still annoys me when someone asks a specific question and some one who has no experience in the specific aircraft answers everything except the dudes actual question. As WV177RG stated at the beginning of his post, a number of posts in the thread concerned Garrett vs PWC engine reliability, and that's what he addressed. It's a topic that draws heated debate. So he was addressing a topic that came up in the thread and added to that (with a lot of very relevant experience), that was also relevant to the original thread topic, even if it wasn't addressing the single and related question that revived the thread some years later. Which is not at all helpful as an answer to a concrete question in a thread specifically made to address the very specific mod named in the title. As P&WC notes, they have 49K engines installed in 28K different aircraft and PT6A are the most widespread turboprop engine family in history, and consequently, are the most familiar and most discussed ones in the industry. General notes based on flying some P&WC's "in the 90s", regardless of how true and interesting they might be otherwise, do nothing to add to anyone's knowledge on the topic. On the contrary, they actively contribute to the lack of knowledge, because now anyone looking for that specific information will have lost time wading through yet another off topic discussion, and it will very likely obscure the actual, factual answers when people search for them. I'm a total sucker for general knowledge and love gaining and sharing it on the wildest of tangents, but this kind of utter lack of respect for others' time and effort they spent on formulating their questions clearly drives me crazy. Please, don't be that person, take your general knowledge to a general knowledge thread where it will be both appreciated and useful, and leave the signal to noise ratio of specific threads unmolested."Skydivers are highly emotional people. They get all excited about their magical black box full of mysterious life saving forces." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,145 #95 September 2, 2016 I can see your point. But bear in mind the forum we are posting to.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cutaway68 4 #96 September 2, 2016 gowlerkI can see your point. But bear beer in mind the forum we are posting to. Fixed it for you. Don't Pull Low... Unless You ARE!!! The pessimist says, "It can't get any worse than this." The optimist says, "Sure, it can." Be fun, have safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WV177RG 19 #97 September 2, 2016 Gentlemen (that's bound to offend someone)--risking one last off topic post: I'm an older guy with little internet forum experience, trying to learn the guidelines for posting. I PM'd dzswoop717 with an apology for missing the mark with my post. I didn't realize there are now several years' worth of skydiving operational experience with this particular mod that would be far more relevant at this time. (The only reason I mentioned some of my flying experience is that I see guys get flamed here all the time for not offering the background information that helps forum readers evaluate the validity of a post.) He replied with a more than adequate apology in return. Looking forward to reviews from folks who've flown one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #98 September 2, 2016 Despite my uninformed nearly, 10 year old review previously in this thread, I have a completely different opinion of this aircraft. After flying more than three seasons in them I find them to be able to do all that is advertised. The are fast to altitude, even faster on descent, an easy workload for the pilot, very reliable, VERY efficient on fuel, and just plain fun to fly. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WV177RG 19 #99 September 2, 2016 Excellent--thanks. Sounds well worth the investment. Any maintenance issues? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonstark 8 #100 September 2, 2016 diablopilot Despite my uninformed nearly, 10 year old review previously in this thread, I have a completely different opinion of this aircraft. After flying more than three seasons in them I find them to be able to do all that is advertised. The are fast to altitude, even faster on descent, an easy workload for the pilot, very reliable, VERY efficient on fuel, and just plain fun to fly. Can you address some of the maintenance issues that have arisen with this mod? The early adopters didn't know what they didn't know and have evidently learned a lot. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
