Some guy "stole" the Victoria Clipper IV last night

[QUOTE=Steamer;125796]A pair of MTU 396s … I think they swapped out the GTs a few years ago because of operating costs.

Hard to believe the MTUs are all that much cheaper though.[/QUOTE]

I bet the MTUs are costing less to maintain even if the fuel costs aren’t all that much less.

MTU’s are big bucks to maintain if you follow their exact specs which are ridiculous. If you revert to good engineering practices they aren’t too bad. Definitely not gas turbine expensive I’d think though!

[QUOTE=z-drive;125827]M If you revert to good engineering practices they aren’t too bad. Definitely not gas turbine expensive I’d think though![/QUOTE]

Since it is a classed vessel, good engineering practices aren’t good enough, the letter of the manufacturer’s specification is what counts.

The TF-40s that were installed could be “overhauled” in a few hours, they are modular engines and a hot section change out (equivalent to a “top” overhaul) is fast and easy. I don’t know what that cost is these days but I do know it makes a W6 look like buying a new engine.

They installed the GTs in order to double the horsepower and reduce the trip time when fuel was relatively cheap. They didn’t take them out because they were too expensive to maintain, they did it because they couldn’t afford to feed them. A GT is just as fuel efficient as a diesel at high power but the run wasn’t long enough to take advantage of that and the savings in time from doubling the horsepower didn’t cover the rising cost of burning double the quantity of diesel fuel to achieve that extra power.

The perceived beauty of the diesel is that it can be completely ignored until it breaks or its unreliability costs more than the money saved by ignoring it. The GT doesn’t need any more maintenance than a diesel and it doesn’t need it as often, it just needs it before it breaks and it isn’t a good idea to leave those maintenance decisions to bubba from the bayou.