Stephen,

I disagree. (Is there any surprise in this?)

Basically, if you fly less than 200 hrs a year (in my case due to flying faster in the Aerostar I am between 125-150 now), you find many time limited components in KA and other Turboprop planes. This makes the per hour cost significantly higher. When I discussed this with a local KA shop they agree you really should fly a KA about 500 hours a year or more. Otherwise you calendar time out instead of cycle time out to many components.

Most jets are even worse off.

Tim

Ok, I don't own any airplanes. I have operated many corporate airplanes, including twin Cessnas of all stripes. Some factors cannot be quantified by an accountant which is why you never let him make the decision on what airplane is best for an operation. As for jet aircraft, I am not opposed to jets. It is just easy to buy more airplane than you can afford to operate. But, if you can afford to operate a 421, you can afford to operate a C90 (or 425).

A 421C will do "80 percent" of what a C90 will do on "half" the operating cost. I "CAN" afford a C90 and have a 421C because most of my flights are less than 500NM with 3 people. I only fly it 150 hours a year and that is not enough to justify a C90. That said as prices come down on C90's I still may consider one or a PC 12. Jerry

Stephen - your opinion is valid, and King Airs are great aircraft, but the key to your bias is you have never owned or paid for any of these airplanes. You have relied on someone else's pocket to operate them. It takes a significantly different balance sheet and needs/mission to justify operating a turboprop over a pressurized piston twin.

Pressurized piston twins, if flown enough and properly maintained, fit a specific mission profile effectively and affordably. We can all debate which brand we like and due to cost, many have compromises which tend to drive our decision (and opinions) on what we all consider as the "best" option. What I don't agree with, is to disqualify any or all without taking into account the cost of ownership as well as claiming you wouldn't fly above 10K feet unless it has a PT6 bolted onto the airframe. That's nuts.