BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 13:31

Quote:

These certainly look like a great value. Is the cabin the same as the 421?

Yes, exactly the same.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 13:33

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

the same # of miles would go up 210%

I totally get it. But one thing that I didn't understand when I moved to a turbine is that you will not fly the same amount of miles. You will fly a lot more because now all of a sudden trips that you would never take in the Cirrus (or on the airlines for that matter) are suddenly very convenient and doable. I now visit customers in rural area that I never would have seen before because it was too much of a PIA on the airlines or in my piston commander. I take the family places that they never would have gone in the commander because of the speed/noise/lack of pressurization. If you step up I guarantee you'll fly 50% more. Of course you'll pay more too but who's counting??

I've heard that same feedback from countless folks I've spoken to when upgrading to tprops or jets. I think it's FAR more common to fly more miles than less when upgrading, so I certainly agree with you.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 13:35

Quote:

I think it's FAR more common to fly more miles than less when upgrading, so I certainly agree with you.

Yes, but to be fair it costs more too. So if you don't have a need for those additional miles then it could be a problem. It's just at this stage in my life with my family and my business it works out. 10 years from now it will probably be a different story.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 14:02

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

I think it's FAR more common to fly more miles than less when upgrading, so I certainly agree with you.

Yes, but to be fair it costs more too. So if you don't have a need for those additional miles then it could be a problem. It's just at this stage in my life with my family and my business it works out. 10 years from now it will probably be a different story.

I just checked out your website under your signature Scott. I think I may have some of your products in our new home. Perhaps my purchase paid for a gallon of Jet A for you!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 14:28

The 400 series Cessna's have the Best Cockpit in GA. Period. IHMO of course...

I would love to have a -135 C-425 or a -441. Same fuel, faster, and more room. I haven't flown the -441, but everyone I know who has loves them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 14:30

Username Protected wrote:

That's a great airplane John. What's your take on Garretts? Wouldn't a Conquest II be much cheaper to operate?

I love Garretts, more fuel efficient, longer TBO/HSI intervals, better throttle responsiveness, overall much less costly.

BUT - while the Conquest II (441) is a fabulous and capable airplane, and I nearly bought one, by all accounts it is not cheaper to operate than the 425. Other aspects (maintenance) seem to make it cost more.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 15:59

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

Absolutely love the Conquest. I wish I could buy about 100 hrs on one...

For what you have in that 5 year old Cirrus you could just go out and buy one (or get very close). A nice -112 powered example is like $600 - $700K.

65 gph.

I'd love to fly a Conquest, or Aerostar 700P. Operational costs are just too much for me. Fits in others' budgets, just not mine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 16:54

Username Protected wrote:

John, are you getting ready to sell it?

Gerald,

Not sure if you're kidding...

No, I'm not getting ready to sell, but I do have an itch for a Mustang. Same problem as others on BT...Do I sacrifice all the benefits of a turboprop just to say I fly a jet? Maybe...I'd really love to say, "Let's take the jet."

Also, I'd really like a PC12 but first I'd have to add-on to my hangar and second, is it worth another $1.5M for a plane that basically does the same thing as mine, just a little more comfortably? Maybe...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 17:01

Username Protected wrote:

65 gph.

I'd love to fly a Conquest, or Aerostar 700P. Operational costs are just too much for me. Fits in others' budgets, just not mine.

Wayne,

Most of the time I'm paying around $3.50 a gallon for Jet-A. That's if you know the secret handshake...

John

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 19:25

Username Protected wrote:

That's a great airplane John. What's your take on Garretts? Wouldn't a Conquest II be much cheaper to operate?

Direct costs would be as if you maintain the airplane on the engine manufacturer's schedule (HSI and OH), the PT-6 is roughly $30 more per engine just for HSI and OH cost based on the PT-6 at 1800/3600 and the 331 at 2500/5000. This was based on the costs from a shop that worked on both engines and average final cost for each (i.e., not minimum starting costs).

Our (i.e., a managed) RVSM 441 is 300 KTAS on 60GPH in cruise once you are above FL300, so about 40-50 KTAS faster on the same fuel burn.

We upgraded from the starter airplane, a 421C that we operated for three years and the only complaint we have is why didn't we do it sooner.

I would imagine that maintenance would be about the same between the two airframes if on the Cessna phase inspection program. They look similar with a quick look...

I have no idea how insurance compares, but the 441 at four times the value of the 421C was about 25% higher. Training would be virtually the same.

I did a 800NM, three leg trip with the 441, then again with my Aerostar 601P/SS700 a few weeks later and the fuel cost was the same between the two. The 441 was a much more comfortable ride for us and the charity recipients, not to mention three times the recipients on the same trip for the 441...

There's enough 331 mechanics around that maintenance isn't a problem. Many even have scheduled air carrier experience such as airline or cargo operator and know the engine very well.

Jason

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 19:46

From what I've heard (but not actually experienced) is that a 441 is a little more involved when it comes to MX compared to a 425. There are a few more inspections, a few more systems, and the parts cost more. For example, a 441 has thicker windows (higher diff), O2 masks that drop down and have to be tested, 2 batteries vs 1, and a ACM instead of a simple air conditioner system. That all adds up and I think it costs more during a garden variety inspection than a 425. It also requires a big hangar to deal with a 50' wing. But there is no doubt at all that 300 KTAS @ 60 GPH is amazing and certainly mitigates the additional MX to some degree. And don't forget, you can do all that for like 1800nm if you have RVSM. Incredible.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 20:16

One problem is everyone loves them. Hence finding a good example has been difficult

Love to find an off market one

AB

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 20:29

What I've heard is that a lot of the good, low time ones were snatched up by Australian mining companies because they can fly from the coast to the outback round trip without refueling.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2018, 22:06

I have been flying a 425 for a local concern, and have been pleasantly surprised at how comfortable it is. It seems that (for me) the King Airs I've flown are a bit more tiresome after 5-6 hours. YMMV

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2018, 21:52

Username Protected wrote:

I’ve had my Conquest for a little over three years and 700 hours so I thought I’d write a short review. So far it has been a great experience.

It’s good for so many of the short, sub-200-mile trips I make for business. Or, if I want to go high, it’ll fly for five hours with reserves and cover nearly 1250 miles. It handles six 200-pound guys (and 100 pounds of baggage) for up to 750 miles. It has that huge nose-baggage area that helps haul my family of eight and all their crap to Colorado twice a year. It has a potty on board that is used often by my munchkins. It cruises between 250 and 260 knots and burns 60 to 65 gph (depending on temperature) at FL250 and does it with two of the smallest and coolest-running engines Pratt & Whitney ever made. It has autofeather, making an engine-out event a non-issue. It has stone-simple systems: Everything is electric except for the hydraulic landing gear. This particular airplane has the venerable Sperry SPZ-500 autopilot, installed in most of the 500 series Citations. The fuel and environmental systems are simple and work great. It has trailing link landing gear that makes me look like a hero. If I want to fly it VFR at 17,500, it’s happy to accommodate, cruising about 230 ktas at 60 gph. It’s easy to fly, requiring no super-human pilot skills, and it has all those cool little round dials that look like they came out of Apollo 11. Plus, it fits in my 40’x 60’ hangar.

In summary:

A King Air 90 has a bigger cabin but the Conquest is faster and has more room for baggage.
A 421 is cheaper but the Conquest is more reliable.
A TBM is faster but the Conquest is bigger.
A Pilatus is…well…a perfect airplane. But a used one costs about $1.5M more than what I have in the Conquest.

And for you Mitsubishi and Commander guys - sorry, I don’t like Garrett engines.

Sounds like an awesome ride.

My Cessna 425 Conquest I