28 Nov 2025, 23:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900?  Posted: 30 Jul 2017, 14:18 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6025
Post Likes: +3389
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Nobody is trashing your PC-12, a very fine airplane in fact, its at the top of its class. If I were given a choice this certainly would be my no reservation #1 pick. To answer the OP, even considering another SETP plane if he has the budget is kinda silly. Be happy! http://tinyurl.com/y962o8ex The ultimate burn. LOL. Seriously though... I haven't heard anybody trash your airplane. I think the PC12 has more general appeal, but if you don't need the space, why pay for it? I'd give my left nut for either one, and would do some serious begging for a right seat ride on a TBM.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 30 Jul 2017, 21:22 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8610
Post Likes: +11159
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: This is a bit misleading since unlike other manufacturers, Pilatus has stuck with one model of aircraft. It would be like saying all King Air 90's are one model. Or all CJ's are one model. I like what Pilatus is doing, it's my biggest concern with TBM... new models every few years. But, for comparison sake it does skew the numbers.
Made two points there that probably should have been separate, the first was that Jason is comparing the Pilatus PC12 (1500 units) with the XLS (330 units) instead of the Citation 560 series (1700 units) or the King Air 90 series (2849 units)
Pilatus has stuck with one model, with fairly minor changes since 1994
My second point was a compliment to Pilatus, part of the reason they have such strong resale is that they haven't created models that made the legacy airplanes obsolete.
TBM has built a little more than half as many airplanes over a longer period, they have good resale but not like Pilatus, and the legacy TBM's are pretty weak.
The upside is that TBM is coming out with innovative, fast, really cool airplanes!
I'm still trying to decide if we want to focus on doing acquisitions of TBM's, where as the Pilatus was a no-brainer for us. The downside of the Pilatus is that once we acquire one for a client, they aren't likely to upgrade anytime soon!
The TBM client is likely to either upgrade or buy something else within a few years, that means repeat business for us.
_________________
Recent acquisitions - 2019 King Air 350i - 2025 Citation M2Gen2 - 2015 Citation CJ3+
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 30 Jul 2017, 21:35 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14428
Post Likes: +9558
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm still trying to decide if we want to focus on doing acquisitions of TBM's, where as the Pilatus was a no-brainer for us. The downside of the Pilatus is that once we acquire one for a client, they aren't likely to upgrade anytime soon!
The TBM client is likely to either upgrade or buy something else within a few years, that means repeat business for us. You're telling us it's a hard decision for you whether or not to put your own interests in front of the interests of your client.
_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 30 Jul 2017, 21:40 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 10/27/10
Posts: 10790
Post Likes: +6894
Location: Cambridge, MA (KLWM)
Aircraft: 1997 A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm still trying to decide if we want to focus on doing acquisitions of TBM's, where as the Pilatus was a no-brainer for us. The downside of the Pilatus is that once we acquire one for a client, they aren't likely to upgrade anytime soon!
The TBM client is likely to either upgrade or buy something else within a few years, that means repeat business for us. You're telling us it's a hard decision for you whether or not to put your own interests in front of the interests of your client.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 08:11 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Jason is comparing the Pilatus PC12 (1500 units) with the XLS (330 units) instead of the Citation 560 series (1700 units) or the King Air 90 series (2849 units)
It doesn't matter how many were built. It matters how many are in the air as opposed to sitting in a hangar. That's the data I've presented in this thread. There are more than 330 XLS/Excels. They're one in the same on Filghtaware.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 08:37 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09
Posts: 5193
Post Likes: +3038
Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
That said, if you track jet routes from CDW to S. Florida most don't go out over water either. They follow the coast.
I believe that's largely due to navigation and communication requirements over the water (WATRS airspace and HF required).
The AR routes from ILM & DIW to SO FL are not WATRS and do not require HF. They do have an MEA of FL240 and are over 100 miles offshore so require a raft. If you are not carrying a raft then you should take the coastal routes.
_________________
Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 11:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6063
Post Likes: +715
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
I have flown these route many times in the TBM and I always carry a raft. Username Protected wrote:
The AR routes from ILM & DIW to SO FL are not WATRS and do not require HF. They do have an MEA of FL240 and are over 100 miles offshore so require a raft. If you are not carrying a raft then you should take the coastal routes.
_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 11:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8610
Post Likes: +11159
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm still trying to decide if we want to focus on doing acquisitions of TBM's, where as the Pilatus was a no-brainer for us. The downside of the Pilatus is that once we acquire one for a client, they aren't likely to upgrade anytime soon!
The TBM client is likely to either upgrade or buy something else within a few years, that means repeat business for us. You're telling us it's a hard decision for you whether or not to put your own interests in front of the interests of your client.
Not at all, actually the opposite. I'm always very concerned about doing what is best for our clients, the Pilatus, if it fits the mission is an excellent investment.
I'm still watching the TBM market and overall ownership experience. I'm concerned that the introduction of new models may adversly effect resale ability.
The reality is it's not as simple as blindly taking on clients regardless of aircraft model, it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to "know" a particular type of aircraft, as a result we have to choose which models to focus on and which to refer out. An example is the Malibu Jetprop / Meridian, great airplane but I don't know them well enough to do an excellent job of acquiring one for a client, so we refer them to someone who can help them.
So, now I have to decide if it makes sense to learn the TBM world, I could do the job of buying the aircraft right now, the market research has to be fresh with each new acquisition anyway. I'd just have to establish a clear understanding with our client that there would be a ramp up period as far as product knowledge goes.
If I do decide that we should focus on TBM's I will do my best to immerse myself in that world so i can properly advise our clients!
I'll let you guys know what I decide to do.
I apologize for typos / spelling errors, sitting in an airport typing this on my phone.
_________________
Recent acquisitions - 2019 King Air 350i - 2025 Citation M2Gen2 - 2015 Citation CJ3+
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6063
Post Likes: +715
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
It doesn't Chip. As newer model comes out it creates a good secondary market for others to move up. There is a strong demand right now for low time TBM 850 model and there is not much on the market. I could sell mine for what I paid for it last year. Username Protected wrote:
I'm still watching the TBM market and overall ownership experience. I'm concerned that the introduction of new models may adversly effect resale ability.
_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 02 Aug 2017, 20:34 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/24/09
Posts: 56
Post Likes: +6
Location: KBDR
Aircraft: BE55
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Pilatus has stuck with one model, with fairly minor changes since 1994
My second point was a compliment to Pilatus, part of the reason they have such strong resale is that they haven't created models that made the legacy airplanes obsolete.
TBM has built a little more than half as many airplanes over a longer period, they have good resale but not like Pilatus, and the legacy TBM's are pretty weak.
...
The TBM client is likely to either upgrade or buy something else within a few years, that means repeat business for us.
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "...legacy TBMs are pretty weak"? I ask as a Bonanza owner that might like to step up to a SETP, and the only TBM that would be feasible for me (if any) would be a 700. Thanks...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 02 Aug 2017, 23:11 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8728
Post Likes: +9456
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Pilatus has stuck with one model, with fairly minor changes since 1994
My second point was a compliment to Pilatus, part of the reason they have such strong resale is that they haven't created models that made the legacy airplanes obsolete.
TBM has built a little more than half as many airplanes over a longer period, they have good resale but not like Pilatus, and the legacy TBM's are pretty weak.
...
The TBM client is likely to either upgrade or buy something else within a few years, that means repeat business for us.
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "...legacy TBMs are pretty weak"? I ask as a Bonanza owner that might like to step up to a SETP, and the only TBM that would be feasible for me (if any) would be a 700. Thanks...
I'm not Chip, but I am someone who looked very hard at the market, depreciation and operating cost data for a number of turbine aircraft (including virtually all KA's 250 and below, old and new, MU2's, Conquests, Commanders, various models of CJ's, a few legacy Citations, Eclipse, P100) a year ago. I decided that the PC12 and TBM were the best buys on reasonably fast pressurized turbine transportation for 4-5 people. I think that analysis would hold today if I were interested in investing the not insignificant amount of time and resources I spent making it.
JetAviva probably has market data as good as anyone's. They report that the over the last 5 years 700 series TBM's have declined in value just under 30%with just over 7% of the fleet on the market. In the same time period Legacy 850's have declined just under 17% with just over 8% of the fleet for sale an the end of the 1st quarter.
During the same period G1000 TBM's just over 31% of their value yet only 6% are currently for sale.
It would appear, solely from these figures that the legacy aircraft are fairing better than newer in terms of depreciation.
Just as a comparison all models of the PC12 have increased in value over this same period of time.
You can't just forecast the most recent historical trend into the future and count on it as what will happen. Though many do. However, it is valuable to project a reasonable future based on the past, bearing in mind uncertainty risk, and make total cost of ownership estimates in this way. When you do you can accurately assess what the entire ownership picture is with some degree of reason. For myself I assumed that my aircraft would depreciate about 5% per year (not taking into account relative advantage in buying or selling) which in combination with the other projected costs resulted in a very favorable cost in my opinion over my anticipated hold period. Certainly my analysis showed the TBM to be one of the lowest cost turbine options available of any aircraft including much cheaper legacy alternatives when all factors were considered.
So, as general and unspecific as Chip's comment was I don't find it to be of much value and really hard to agree with.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 09:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8610
Post Likes: +11159
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
For clarification, when I say legacy TBM's I'm referring to 700A's and 700B's, it seems that they market and values are stronger for 700C2 and the 850 is what I would consider hot. I don't really believe in reports of percentage lost value, we just don't have a large enough sample of accurate sold data to make these claims. I make a lot of calls when we study a market and know from experience how hard it is to get sales prices at all, much less accurate information. I do look at days on market and feedback from sellers who are trying to sell certain models of aircraft, that is what I base my opinions on... both the performance (when compared to 850) and the market of the older TBM's seem weak to me. Just my opinion. My point wasn't a commentary on the TBM market, a market which I made clear above we are not currently active in, my point was that Pilatus has protected the value of the older airplanes (intentionally or accidentally) by not introducing new models that have huge leaps in performance. We are active in the PC12 market, the resale, especially of the older airplanes is impressive. If you TBM guys take off at the same time as the Pilatus you can read this entire thread before the Pilatus lands.  Not dogging the TBM but I do believe the legacy PC12 is and will continue to be a better buy from a value retention standpoint than the same vintage TBM's. .
_________________
Recent acquisitions - 2019 King Air 350i - 2025 Citation M2Gen2 - 2015 Citation CJ3+
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PC-12 NG or TBM 900? Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 11:46 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 560
Post Likes: +268
Aircraft: eclipse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No flying over the weather instead of thru it while taking a performance hit and having two engines instead one is the thing The 15 minutes and 51$ per trip is the cherry on top  What's your all in operating cost per hour? Don't include cost of capital? It's gotta be better than a Baron when compared on a per NM basis.
Micheal
Sorry for the delayed post I was on vaca without the information handy.
There are folks running Eclipse's for 800 per hour I am not one of them.
The reasons are I over maintain my airplane for example I change the oil yearly which is not required and I complied with all service bulletins and hangar the plane when I am on the road.
Also I only fly a little over 100 hours per year last year for example I flew 103 hours.
These are last year's numbers.
Fuel and maintenance cost me 534 per hour and I replaced more parts in the last year than I did in the first 6 years of ownership.
Add insurance 6 mil liability and 1.5 hull no deductible and we are up to 644 an hour.
Add my hangars in NJ and Fla now we are talking 809 per.
Finally add ESP gold which means they fix everything including loaner engines it's up to
1042 per hour and that's what it's costing me.
At $2.4/NM it's cheap
|
|
| Top |
|
|
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
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
