I'm 6'4" and perhaps if I was 2 inches shorter, modded the seat cushion, etc could make it work... but still, no room to stretch the legs. The seat was fine though. In the Pilatus I've got 2-3 inches of extra leg room and about 5 extra inches of headroom. In the T-bone I have 3-4 inches of headroom and I can stretch my legs out fully extended. In the meridian my head literally fit just inside the cutout notch on the headliner and right smack against the roof.

BTW nice wide angle lens! reminds me of some hotel brochure shots I've seen.

I’m 6 months into my MU-2, 95 hrs, $67K total. I just finished a 100 hr inspection and all fixed costs for the year are in that $67k. So, my hourly cost will deceease throughout the year. No engine reserve - add $150/hr for that if you like.

My training expense is really high ($17k), but offset by the fact I own my hangar.

Just like always everyone loves their own choice and defends it vigorously. I did not care for the Meridian myself but the great thing is there are a number of choices and everyone gets to find what works best for them. I will say that in the hunt for "lowest cost" reliable turbo prop the Meridian is going to be near the top of the pile. It's inexpensive (relatively) to buy and to run.

Actual 421 TAS examples...for whatever it's worth.
In all three of these pics MP is 32.5", RPM is 1800, and FF is 22.5 gph/side (45 gph total).
All were taken within the last week.

Top of Climb Performance

600FPM 191KTAS through 26,600’

Really, really fantastic and generous of you to share all that info Jon. Thank you very much.

I live in the same area as Jon and hope to someday get into a twin turboprop airplane, but right now I would have to pay more for a hanger than I do from my house, that is if I could get a hanger. It looks like I'm going to have to wait until my wife retires (I'm retired now) and move out of the area where hangers are more reasonable.

Vince

Paul,
I'm sorry to hear about your engine. I've been there, done that...twice. I sent you a PM on the AOA website but it didn't seem to get to you, not sure why. I have owned and operated two Aerostars over 12 years. GREAT planes!! Fun to fly, handle like a dream, and pretty efficient travelers. Very high performance. BUT...reliability was and is an issue. I think starting with factory remanufactured engines would have helped, but even with that, I just don't think piston twins make good daily fliers for business aviation for a variety of reasons. They have system failures much more frequently. Those failures are more difficult to diagnose. Those failures take much longer to repair.
Turbine engines go round and round and just keep going.
I am about 13 months into ownership of a Mu-2 (-10K) and fly pretty often (50 hrs in last three months). I have had a flat tire that was fixed about 3 hours later. Nothing more. Things were replaced at 100 hour inspections but the "annual" didn't cost much more than the annuals I had in my Aerostars, and it took 72 hours to complete and I had my plane back to fly another 100 hours. Direct operating costs have been far less in the MU-2 than the Aerostar. Put fuel in it, fly it, put it away, repeat.
I'm sure the Meridian/TBM etc. can beat the MU-2 on DOC, but they cost more to purchase and they have only one engine. That's simply a non-starter for me if you fly at night over mountains and in the weather. I have lost the engine in a twin piston several times. Our PT-6 King Airs lost one also. It happens. Where I fly, the nearest airport is often 70 or more miles away...a twin gives you options.
Our King Airs are about $55K per year in maintenance. The MU-2 was much less than 1/2 of that. It is a complex plane and you need to stay on top of your training. But there is far less engine management going on in a turboprop compared to a turbocharged piston twin. Recurrent training in the turboprop is about two to three times as expensive as for the Aerostar. If you fly a lot, those 100 hour inspections need to be done more often than the annuals in the Aerostar...advantage piston twin.
It is true that most everyone will recommend the plane they chose...otherwise they wouldn't have chosen it! I used to fly every trip wondering what was going to fail. That is not longer the case. To me, that's worth a lot.

Oh, and since there have been several panel photos showing relative performance, the MU-2 is no slouch either.
Even with a strong headwind you have reasonable ground speed. And if I need to go far, I can climb higher, pull back to 56% power and get 268kts TAS @ 60.2gph

To reduce Jon's numbers to hourly figures per year.

If we look strictly at direct operating cost, which is fuel and maintenance:

2012 92.8 hours, $60,259, $649/hour
2013 110.8 hours, $60,420, $545/hour
2014 97.6 hours, $51,931, $532/hour
2015 97.6 hours, $34,941, $358/hour
2016 89.6 hours, $48,419, $540/hour

Totals: 488.4 hours, $255,970, $524/hour

That's not very far from what I expect my number to be though I do think I get my maintenance done at a lower cost and I generally fly more hours.

Jon's fixed costs are exceptionally high, notably hangar (two), taxes (California), and insurance.

I pay $5,940/year for my hangar, and $8,275/year in insurance, and $100/year for taxes. $143/hour for a 100 hour year which Jon nearly achieves on average.

As for his other categories, not sure they change if you swap in, say, a 421 with similar avionics. Databases cost the same. In 2016 he has a new category "Airplane: Repair". Not clear that is aircraft maintenance, so I didn't include it.

You can see the effect of lower fuel prices in 2015 and 2016. 2015 had the fortunate impact of both low fuel and low maintenance cost in the same year.

Mike C.

Geez....I didn’t realize the -10 Ks were that fast! 330kts TAS!!!! That’s early Citation speed! What makes them so much faster than the solitaires?

Many thanks to Jon Carlson for sharing the actual expenses of the MU-2.

Many thanks for those that chimed in with real life, actual C-421 speeds & fuel burns...I'm surprised to the extent people go to "prove" their turboprops are "cheaper than a piston twin.

From Jon's cost information, and feedback from others on actual costs to operate MU-2s, these cost about 140% to 200% what a pressurized piston twin costs.

The way to look at these entry level turboprops is not that they are cheaper to operate than piston twins...they are not.

They offer more reliability, and perhaps 5-15% more speed than a piston twin...at 140%-200% the total cost of ownership.

-10 engines instead of the -6 they came with.

3 blade props instead of the heavier, less efficient 4 blade props.

Cabin pressurization 5 PSI instead of 6 PSI, less bleed taken from engine.

Lighter weight, often by 400 pounds over a Solitaire.

ISA minus temperatures help a lot.

Dry air.

Maybe an area of rising air.

Best I have ever done is 324 KTAS. You will not normally cruise a -10 K at 330 KTAS. People take pictures of their panels when the speed is noteworthy, not average.

Mike C.

You didn't really read his numbers carefully.

Find me that practical piston twin that is 10% slower than my MU2. Hint: does not exist.

If I had a 421C and flew every mission I have in my MU2 (ignoring the fact it simply can't do the same missions), I expect the cost would be more for the 421C.

Mike C.

It's true that that was a PR for me in the -10 K...that's why I photographed it, but it was in level flight and not just an instantaneous peak. But I've previously posted a series of about 12 sequential flight average speeds in another thread on BT and in winter, 310 to 315 is very common at typical high cruising altitude and 320 kts or slightly more is often seen at lower altitude (with rather eye-opening fuel burns when cold). Summertime speeds have been slower at 297 up high and 303 to 308 down lower at 97%/20 deg cool side of max EGT.
Anyway, even if the plane were slower and cost more to operate, for me, the reliability is what really shines (compared to my piston twin experience). It handles ice well, is built tough and handles cross-winds well. Landed yesterday with gusts to 40kts 40 degrees off the runway again. I'm thankful to the engineers who've designed systems to be very reliable, with parts that are easy to access and exchange. Also, I've compared the parts costs between Mitsubishi and Raytheon for our company King Airs...again, I'm thankful.
It IS an airplane and everything has compromises...plugging in direct-shaft turbine when cold, annual SFAR training, my wife says it doesn't look as "sexy" as the Aerostar, Battery Minders, disconnecting nose gear link before and after every flight, extensive post-start checks, idiosynchratic fueling procedures, 3 minute cool-downs, people scowling at you on the ramp with hands held over their ears etc. etc. It's not all roses but I'm generally pleased with the plane.