Probably but but it would be 100% worth it. You'd have initial training and fly with a pro for a little while. No big deal. It's a lot cheaper than losing $600K on a DA62 purchase (which you would) and having to "step up" a year later when you realize 1000NM doing 185 knots at low altitude and no pressurization really sucks.

How much was insurance the first couple of years and how much mentor time did they require?

Gary you really want to hate on the Meridian, taking your facts from some dude that knowns some dude that had the chance to lick one one day. I have given you facts, a page from the POH, and I have 1500 hours in P46T's and have owned 3. So believe what you want. As far as the M600 being a 1200 nm aircraft, yeah westbound with a headwind..... Whatever. Here is 1481 nm in an M600 and I landed with over 1.5 hours fuel.



Here is midway through the flight, and notice the range rings, and the fact that I was lucky enough to be bucking a headwind.

I have flown a couple trips in a 2006 PA46T, and Chuck's numbers look spot on from my experience.

Chuck - why were you not making max diff?

The new P46's have fully computer controlled pressurization systems. Just enter the flight plan, and the computer handles the pressurization. Kind of nice to never have to mess with the pressurization system, but the downside is that it sometimes leaves a little pressurization off the table. Doesn't matter much to me, my Park City house is 7500 foot elevation, but a flatlander might notice. We have told Piper about this, and they may try to tweak the software.

The POH gives equipoise to all listed cruise power settings. There is no normal cruise speed listed in the Meridian POH. The POH gives options from Maximum cruise, which runs the engine to Pratt recommended maximum limits, then there is 1100 ft. lbs. cruise 1000 ft. lbs cruise.......700 ft. lbs cruise all the way down to 500 ft. lb cruise. They are all normal and accepted cruise power settings. So if you choose to cruise at 600 ft. lbs that day, that is your prerogative it is a normal cruise power setting. So you are covered by the FAR. Makes no sense that anyone would run to an alternate airport in bad weather, and minimum fuel at max cruise hugging the barber pole.

All,

Thanks all for the informative thread that has (mostly) stayed on topic.

By my reckoning, it seems that there are many opinions but also a few specific airplanes that have been mentioned more than several times.
1. Many people, rightly so on a Beech site, suggested building time in a Bonanza before jumping to anything bigger, more complex, or more expensive. Honestly that is what I am doing currently (albeit renting instead of owning).
2. With rare exception, not much enthusiasm for a light twin (though I am building dual time training in a Seneca to economically improve my twin confidence).
3. Lots of discussion about Pilatus (mostly pro, though with a few detractors). Meridian too. There is a company in town that sells fractional ownership in Pilatus (with a professional pilot along) that I am going to look into.
4. Several have suggested a VLJ (Eclipse and Mustang).

Although I am not seriously considering a jet purchase, I do have a specific follow up question related to the thread, mostly to all the Pilatus and Meridian drivers out there:
If anyone can get into an Eclipse or Mustang for as little as $1.5 mil, why isn't that a better route than the much more expensive turboprops? That seems much lower purchase cost than a Pilatus (and the jet seems more capable.) How much more expensive are they in the air? (Gotta be loads, right?) That said, if you save $1,000,000 on acquisition, you can afford a lot of more expensive hours in the sky.

Not trying to start a fight, just trying to understand decisions.

Joshua

I'll let the guys who fly these things fight it out over performance and mission.

From a buying standpoint we would look at likely residual values and which one will actually cost less if you sell it in X years.

Remember, it's not what you pay for it, it's the difference in what you pay for it and what you sell it for.

I think it is best to find if you have a jet mission or a turboprop mission. Turboprops do short fields, high and hot fields, low altitude missions, contaminated fields, very well. Jets do long trips flying high very well, but are very inefficient down low and on short missions. They both overlap in missions. Jets cost more to operate for the same range payload considerations. Jets require a type rating, which is a little bit of a pain in the .... but contributes greatly to the overall safety of those aircraft. You can, however, and probably should train to ATP type rating standards in a turboprop as well, it is just voluntary so many don't, and quite a few TP accidents fall into the LPE category (Lame Pilot Event)

As far as the Meridian, it is the least expensive to acquire and operate factory certified currently in production turbine out there. It has its limitations though. Coming from a Cirrus, Bonanza, Baron, Saratoga, Mooney there is no comparison, it is just a more capable and comfortable plane. Compared to a TBM, M600, PC12, Eclipse, PC12, Mustang well they all cost more to acquire and operate, feature for feature. All great aircraft.

The Meridian will any day of the week fly 1000 nm no wind, fly 265 KTAS, carry 1400 lbs in the cabin, take off in 1500 feet, land in under 1000 ft. it just won't do all of those at the same time so you need to learn the limitations and the capabilities, and live with them.

I do wonder if you are saying to yourself, should I get a TP or a jet, you may want to really think about what your mission is, and what you realistically want it to be. Most GA flights seem to fall into the 250 nm range, but some of the most enjoyable ones may be those far away destinations Good luck. I do agree, that it is probably best to get some time under your belt in a Bo, Baron or similar, before moving up. You will becomes a better stick and rudder pilot, more comfortable with ATC and procedures, and more comfortable with flight planning. Turbines aren't hard to fly, but the high altitude, high speed environment is quite complex and unforgiving.

Ding Ding Ding, we may have a winner

As for trade offs between purchase price and operating costs... yes, they exist.

Basically depends on your personal cost of capital.

Chip, I would basically agree with you…but only to a certain extent..and that is a reality that has sunk in, I guess in the US as well as in Europe in recent years…

in regards to residual values I would agree, let us take the PC12, but also the Caravan, those airplanes definitely do hold their values very well…

but with a lot of other airplanes, especially those types that had been "overproduced" during the times of "irrational exuberance" before the financial meltdown in 2008/2009, which has wiped out 50% of the values of pretty much every Bizav type of plane, I do think that slowly but surely a more sober and rational approach to "residual values" has sunk into the market expectations both in the US but also in Europe.

Means, buyers and sellers alike, slowly are getting used to the completely normal fact of life that mobile assets actually really do depreciate in the real world.

Means successful business owners, who would not lose a night 's sleep over the fact that some of their investments into equipment in their businesses lose a lot of market value every year, also have come to terms with the fact, that that is exactly the same case with airplanes…

so the pre meltdown rationale, that one only has to finance the "assumed" difference between the actual purchase price and some "virtual" future market value, does not really work anymore, in my humble opinion. ( in some cases back then people actually thought that their airplanes would appreciate in value over time…ridiculous..just because, yes there had been cases where some "instant" millionaires wanted a bird as in "right now" and were ready to pay over list or asking…but those times are over…for a long time now…)

I may be wrong, but strongly feel by personal observation and experience that that is more and more the case now.

Gerd

P.S.: or in other words…."yes, airplanes DO lose value, like cars…get over it…"

Those jets are NOT more capable. They're short range and won't carry anything. Fine for guys that just travel with the wife and dog.

Full fuel payload on even the new Phenom 100 EV is only 600 Lbs and I still can't fly non stop to Colorado. I'm not buying a jet to go slower and carry less. It also requires a 6K' runway when hot. Also keep in mind that what and airplane "can do" and what ATC "lets you do" are 2 different things. More and more I'm being brought down low with 30-40 minutes of flying left in my trip. That's a killer for small jets that are already fuel limited.

Buy a Pilatus for $4MM and you'll probably sell it for $4MM. Buy a Phenom for $4MM and you'll probably sell it for $2MM.

"Building time" is an old GA tradition. It really means nothing. Buy the airplane you want and learn to fly it with a pro. Flying a Bonanza is not teaching you to fly a Mustang. Your radio skills are improving but that's about it.

Damn. That M600 is nice Chuck. I knew they were better than the old ones but didn't know that were that much better.

How true Jason, especially also in Europe…..

north south routings in Europe….does happen quite often that you have to spend the whole time in a small jet, like a Citation or a CJ on a 500NM - 600NM trip at King Air or PC 12 flight levels…because upstairs it is crowded…

and then the flight time difference in between a jet and a turboprop is maybe 4 minutes…but with the jet you have used well more than twice the fuel than with the turbo…and may even have already been very limited payload wise…sometimes at those low altitudes you may even have to land for fuel in between..because at FL 240 or FL 260 even a Citations starts to gulp fuel like an old Gulfstream up in the levels...

Gerd