To operate a piston twin with the same proficiency as a turboprop, you need to have about the same training effort and investment. I'd even argue it is HARDER to fly the piston twin than the turboprop because the turboprop engine is simpler to manage and will not fail nearly as often. It is certainly harder to handle an engine out on a Baron than on a Citation 501.

The extra training mandated or expected for turboprops is not because they require extra proficiency, it is just for that class of airplane, extra training is imposed by regulation or insurance. Basically, because you fly a more expensive airplane, you can afford to get more expensive training. Money and safety are intimately tied together in aviation, and this is another such example.

The training for basically any turbine airplane, be it a turboprop single, a turboprop twin, or a jet, is roughly the same. Ground school is systems and performance. Flight school is procedures and emergencies. These programs take 2 to 4 days for a recurrent and the number of days depends more on the provider and student than the airplane in question.

I personally enjoy training. It is a vacation from all my other responsibilities, so I unplug and immerse in the training. A pilot who hates training is a scary thing.

I would not let the training requirements materially affect the choice of airplane. Choose what works best, what fits in your budget, and get the proper training to handle it.

In the end, it is really about the money. You buy what you can afford.

Mike C.

Of all the good things Mike C. has said....the following two concepts are the most important....



"a pilot who hates training is scary"


"aviation safety is tied to money"


"in the end, it's about money. You buy what you can afford".



I cannot agree more.

I’d echo this statement. Your family is worth it.


Mike, what did you fly before the MU-2? How was the transition?

Well, I have to add a little push for the King Air.

I agree with most all the comments so far, especially Mike C's summary.

But also consider the King Air. It doesn't do anything better than all the options listed, but it does everything pretty well.

Cap ex, op ex, size, comfort, speed, range, reliability, resale, efficiency, maintenance, ramp presence, name recognition and confidence for passengers, load hauling, modern avionics, training options, access to the plane in question, ability to move up in the line . . . all of these went into the decision matrix. When I sifted through all the pros and cons, the B200 was right for me.

In looking for a new plane, given your stated goals, make every effort to end up in some type of turbine equipment, mainly for the amazing reliability of turbine equipment. It seems nothing outside of scheduled maintenance ever needs to be done.

For the Meridian, would usually want to take a full week transition course. The first time I would do factory approved training with some sim like Legacy or SimCom. but mix it 50/50 sim time and in aircraft time. The Sim does a poor/terrible job of teaching ground handling.

The next 6-12 months would do a 2-3 day refresher course in aircraft or aircraft/sim. After that a yearly one day refresher with home ground school (offered by most training programs) is sufficient. I do one sim refresher and one in airplane refresher yearly.

The Meridian is so easy to fly, much easier than a piston twin, and a little easier than a piston single...

What is different is the high altitude weather, ATC handling which now assumes that you are a higher level pilot, faster, and more commonly getting SIDS and STARS, descend vias, a mix of jet and victor airways. Weather radar, year round icing potential.

The high altitude environment is best learned with a mentor. Doesn't have to be an instructor, but a good pilot with a lot of high altitude experience, preferably in small booted aircraft.

There is no comparison to the comfort and capability. A well tuned Meridian is not going to be out of line with the maintenance of a piston twin. There are more systems though, so some annuals could be pricey. And the engine, PT6-42, while near bulletproof, has the hot section at 1800 hours and the OH at 3600 hours that have pretty predictable costs. 50K and 250K. Get a good borescope on the engine from a reputable PT6 mechanic.

The windscreen at 30K should last, but there have been some issues with heating elements going bad, check that out in the pretty.

The rest of the plane is not overly expensive in aviation terms, and there are no time limited parts. Just repair or replace on condition.

Most importantly, build some time and progress the mission difficulty slowly. These planes rarely fail. But pilots fail the planes regularly.

Once you fly pressurized, and fly a turbine, it is hard to go back. Just a different world. Your missions will definitely expand.

Load? Room? 2 motors? Do not care if pressurized?

Maybe one of the Navajo models? E.G., picked totally at random: https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... n-aircraft.

Agree 100% w/ comments from Mike C. re training.

RAS

Cessna T210L.

The MU2 was my first twin, first turboprop, first known ice, first pressurized airplane.

I got a lot of resistance from the MU2 community in 2006 about getting one since they were in the throes of the SFAR issue at the time and I was perceived as a risky new owner.

My transition plan:

Got my multi rating in Nov 2006. Took 2 days. Now any time I manipulated the controls of an MU2, I could log it as PIC time. This was before the SFAR was in effect.

I went to Simcom for MU2 simulator training in Dec 2006. Before the sim, I was pretty sure the MU2 would be too much. After the sim, I was entirely committed to getting one.

I managed to find an MU2 for rent with an instructor so I got an in airplane SFAR initial course that involved flying all the way across the country, New England to Seattle, and back. That MU2 had problems, but that just added to the training value. I got about 30 hours MU2 time and very valuable LOFT style exposure.

I flew right seat as often as I could with other MU2 owners. I had about 3 owners who didn't mind me being an unpaid copilot. I logged all that time. I described myself as the "human autopilot". I'd fly my 210 out the their airport and join them on a day trip somewhere.

Bought my airplane in 2008 when I had ~50 hours in type, SFAR initial already completed. My insurance quote was very reasonable since I had already some time in type and the SFAR training completed (which wasn't actually in force yet). I did NOT seek a quote until I had my MU2 pilot history up to snuff. The insurance required 35 hours mentoring. Insurance is harder now, of course.

I redid the entire initial training program in my airplane. So I had two SFAR initials, the rented MU2 in 2007 and my airplane in 2008.

I had two mentors, a pro hired out of Nashville that I used for about 10 hours, and a local MU2 owner I used for the rest of it.

My last flight with a mentor was flying my local guy to Green Bay to pick up his MU2 for some work. I had 90 hours in type and then I flew my plane back home solo. It was an IFR day with icing through Chicago's airspace. How's that for your first solo?

Early on I tried to fly once a week. A 2 week layoff was noticeable when I got back into the airplane. At about 200 hours in type was when I became pretty comfortable in the MU2 and could tolerate longer intervals between flights.

The MU2 is a safe airplane *IF* you fly it properly. But this is true of all airplanes of this class. I trained every 6 months while I owned the MU2. Every year there was an official required training which alternated between in airplane and simulator. At the 6 month interval, a group of us MU2 owners did unofficial simulator training where we set the agenda rather than the official program.

The step up to the MU2 was a bit of a hurdle, but once done, the MU2 gave me so much capability. 300 knots will change your life. I was now more reliable than the airlines and can do day trips that previously took 3 days in the 210.

The step up to the MU2 was less total cost and effort than using an intermediate step up like a piston twin.

If you want to know if you have the talent to fly some plane you aspire to, go find a simulator and try it. You either have the talent and discipline to do it or you don't. You don't need to fly it perfectly your first time, but you need to believe you can transform your talent into skill at some point.

Mike C.

My recommendation for turbines is to do the initial course in airplane and then 3 to 6 months after that, do a simulator recurrent.

Mixing sim and airplane for the initial is confusing. In airplane training teaches you how to fly your airplane which is what you need at the start. You don't need a huge variety of emergencies and situations, you need basic training since the pilot is the weak point at the start. You also don't need negative sim training from sim limitations (such as ground handling, sims are always bad at this for some reason). Since you are getting your first experience in your airplane, that will be the strongest learning, what the FAA calls "primacy".

Then a few months later, do the sim recurrent. Now you can reinforce the in airplane experience and explore more in depth situations that just can't be done in the airplane. The sim limitations won't be an issue any more since those lack primacy of first experience.

That's the way I did it for my MU2 and it worked well.

I didn't do this for the Citation because insurance mandated a sim initial, so I had no choice. When I started flying with my mentor it was a gradual transition to learning the real airplane.

Mike C.

Actually, on BT you see many pilots buy what they cannot quite comfortably afford. That leads to some training, maintenance or operational trade-offs that are scary.

If you can afford a Mustang, buy a Mustang. I have a 58P Baron, and I managed a G58. The mustang most years is equal in mx to what we spend on the Baron, minus the engine programs. When Jet A is cheap it's very similar in fuel costs as Jet A typically costs less, combined with the higher cruise speed your trips may cost about the same. When Jet A is $8+/gal, that may hurt.


-The Citation Jet Exchange

I upgraded from a P210 to the MU2 a little over 2 years ago. I had over 3000 P210 and 300 P337 hours, no turbine time. I did have a conventional multi rating. Did my initial in the plane and needed 50 hours of dual for insurance. I thought that was a lot when I first heard it, but it turns out that 50 hours was about right. I flew with a local MU2 pilot quite a bit in my first year as well. The sight picture in the MU2 is way different than a P210 and that took quite a bit of getting used to, thankfully the MU2 landing gear is pretty stout :-) I agree with everything Mike C. has said regarding the MU2 and training for this class of plane. The fact that training is required for the MU2 is a plus in my mind. As a result, the plane's accident record has gone from awful to about as good as it gets for multi engine turbines. The capability increase you get in this class of planes is truly amazing. The performance boost makes icing much less of an issue as you climb through it faster and get on top more often, plus the systems the plane has to deal with icing work better, bleed air for boot inflation and engine intake anti icing is reliable, vacuum pumps for boots on piston aircraft are much less so. The speed and range increase make long trips much more pleasant, and doable. Coast to coast eastbound in a day is not a problem. Pressurization is not just more comfortable, but helps with fatigue as well. Going from a 3.35psi differential in the P210 and P337 to a 5psi differential in the MU2 means I never see a 10000ft cabin altitude and this has made a noticeable difference in how I feel at the end of a long day. My plane has spent exactly 2 days in the shop outside of scheduled maintenance events. Fuel burn on long legs is 60-65gph depending on the temperature. TAS is 250-265 in the FL240-250 range. Ground speeds over 300kts are not uncommon going eastbound, but even better usually exceed 200kts going west. Speed really helps flying into the wind as it takes less of a bite percentage wise out of your ground speed. I felt when I upgraded, I wanted more performance for the money, and the MU2 filled that want more than a pressurized piston twin would for comparable operating expense due to contract Jet A costing less than 100LL and since you are going faster your cost per mile will be comparable. I have an F model MU2 which is likely as inexpensive a twin turbine as you can own.

I didn't say I disliked training, I felt that $3300 for a day and half was expensive. I must agree with Mike about a C501SP. If I could stomach the fuel costs, I'd be in one years ago. It is an extremely safe and easy to fly plane. My actual bird of choice is a CIISP.

Local conditions can affect those costs quite a bit. There are places in the country where jet fuel is in the mid $4 range, and places where it is in the $8 range. List prices are usually misleading with contract fuel options, especially CAA.

Fuel is my dominant cost. I've managed to reduce other costs quite a bit through various means.


Pretty rare and limited on useful load.

A CII (550) with an SPE is more useful, but at some added time and expense to get the SPE.

Mike C.

That's about half the KA recurrent quote I received this year

I was a bit disappointed to see where the pricing has ended up, if I have to pay these rates I'm going to insist on a Level C/D sim and at least get a type rating or something out of it

Just signed up for my 61.58 + SPE training for the jet.

For two courses, within 13 months so that covers 2 years, I paid $6400/each at Flightsafety, level C sim in Atlanta. This is a 4 day course and includes the single pilot exemption.

This was pretty aggressive pricing, so I went with it. FSI was also the cheapest CE-500 initial when they quoted it, which was not my expectation. You can't get it done in the airplane for less money by the time you add instructor and airplane operation cost.

Here the little Citation II tucked between a Canadair and a Sovereign in one wing of the sim hall:

Mike C.