Pennman why the F don't you have a Jet, dude.

, cause it can't beat the PC12 man...............!!!!

, cause it can't beat the PC12 man...............!!!!

Cheapest PC-12 for sale in the US right now is $2M with a nearly runout engine.

I fly my plane for less than the lost return on capital on just buying a PC-12, much less operating it.

Forget single/twin safety argument, the twin is just cheaper, all dollars in and out.

Mike C.

Everyone seems to think I've lost tons of money on mine. I haven't. But you can have 2 out of 3: fast, cheap, good. I had to give up fast. But it's not cost me a lot of money. But yeah, the wait has been a drag. Next plane I own I'd rather finance a portion of it and not have to restore it (as much as I want to avoid debt). But I'd rather be flying than saving money next time around. I've cured my appetite...


Cheapest PC-12 for sale in the US right now is $2M with a nearly runout engine.

I fly my plane for less than the lost return on capital on just buying a PC-12, much less operating it.

Forget single/twin safety argument, the twin is just cheaper, all dollars in and out.

Mike C.

Yeah, I don't get that either. 95% of the posters in this thread seem to think money is a) free and b) useless. Completely bizarre considering that turbine owners are the 1% of the 1%.

Gonna come defend the P46T for a minute. Meridian in 2008 vs. Meridian now is a somewhat different argument. All you had in 2008 was, at most, a 7 year old meridian. Now you can get a 17 year old Meridian. $500-$600K will get you a plane that will go ballpark 250kts on 40gph. (Or a Jetprop, same story on 30gph)

They're done depreciating, hangars are cheap, no calendar maintenance, no sim training. The total ownership cost for a meridian (including cost of capital and depreciation) could well be less than a $300k twin.

I don't think relative comparisons of flight safety with respect to singles and twins are as simple as looking at the accident rates. The rates are pretty similar because most accidents are not the result of engine failure so the "signal to noise ratio" for parsing the relative risk of one vs. two engines is difficult to find. Most data are pretty convincing that the best thing you could do for safety is to have a well-trained, two person crew (which significantly cuts down on the human error/stupid pilot tricks that cause many accidents).
I would agree that statistically, twins have twice the risk of an engine failure compared to singles (obviously). The ones that can get the twin operators into an accident are usually the departure and approach failures; operators can minimize (but not eliminate) that risk by recurrent training.
In a twin, with proper training, engine failure can be limited to a financial hit rather than a medical hit. Whether or not the training given to SETP pilots for management of engine failure will be effective depends a great deal on the environment in which we fly. In my case, engine failure at night or in weather over Wyoming, with no airfields in gliding distance will likely be fatal. Even if that is unlikely from a statistical perspective, it would be on my mind and that of my family/passengers every time I'm in that "exposed" environment. Will I do the right thing "when fate comes knocking" with an engine failure in the twin turbine? I hope so, but of course, I'm only human so no guarantees. All I can do is train for it and keep my head in the game. But at least I have opportunity to do the right thing...in a single, I'm going down into the black hole below. There is a reason the well trained, dual crews of airliners don't often fly single engine planes with lots of passengers behind them.
I chose the MU-2 as a step-up from the Aerostar because it was relatively affordable, highly efficient, with outstanding performance, reliability and weather capability. That's why I responded to this thread when the original poster asked the question about his Aerostar. For my application the SETP never was a viable candidate...too expensive for what you get, too large (Pilatus) or small (Meridian), and of course...only one engine. I've had one turbo failure in a single, two wastegate failures with engine rich-out in a twin including one right at rotation, two engine overheats due to impact snow/ice, one of which required in-flight shut-down in a snowstorm, one shut-down due to loss of oil pressure in cruise, and one outright cylinder/case separation during cruise. I'll keep the twin, thanks.

As said earlier the Cheyenne is the cheapest to own and operate, simple systems 1200# useful load with full fuel 1100 mi range good support, good number of airframes decent speed.

I was mentally on board with the newly discovered safety of the MU-2 due to training requirements. Until Pascal's crash. He was not inexperienced, nor untrained.

I don't make the grade for being a "one percenter". I am somewhere around 2 to 3 percent depending on how you define it.

I generally have the most airplane I can afford. The airplane is a positive cash producing business asset. If you check out FA, N305DS, you'll see it is being used a lot lately and most of those are business trips.

Mike C.

Only one listing under $600K on controller, a 2001 model with Meggit EFIS and a high time engine. Two more in the 600-700K range of similar description.

The median price is about $1.0M for a Meridian on controller.


Are you sure? As more SETPs are built, Denali comes on line, and older PC12s and TBMs hit the market, could still be downward pressure on prices. The older Meridians with Meggit panels seem destined to be punished more.


Meridian has ~4 ft longer wingspan than an MU2. Commander would be a different story...


Since it is subject to an annual, it is ALL calendar maintenance for the Meridian. For the 100 hour/year owner flown type, the inspection programs for the twin can actually be less costly since you don't tear the whole plane apart every year.


I don't have to do sim training. Regardless, this is one area where being cheap is being deadly. Many insurance policies will require some type training as well. It scares me when pilots select an airplane expecting they can be less competent and still safely fly it. Specific airplane related skills are the minority of being a safe pilot.


Could be, but it is a lot closer than one would think at first glance.

The other point is that an MU2 is in an entirely different category when it comes to cabin room, payload, and speed. If you need to carry 6 adults, bags, and go 1000 nm, the MU2 wins that mission hands down over the Meridian.

Mike C.

Sadly, if you eliminate every plane which has had a fatal crash with a properly trained pilot aboard, you'll have very few choices left.

Since 1/1/2007 (approx 10 years ago), there have been at least 10 fatal accidents of turboprop PA46, Meridians (9) and Jetprop (1). I would suspect you would find most of the pilots are "not inexperienced, nor untrained" by your standards. If you had come to know some of the 10 pilots personally, or if Meridian crashes had the same coverage and forum activity that MU2 crashes get, I bet you'd be pretty sour on flying a Meridian.

To my knowledge, the only single pilot owner flown airplane with substantial fleet numbers and experience with no fatals is a Cessna Mustang. Eclipse was close, but they had a fatal accident about 2 years ago. I don't know of any turboprop without a fatal.

The plane makes very little difference compared to the pilot in the accident history of a type. We tend to say "a Meridian crashed" when what we really mean most of the time is "a Meridian pilot crashed".

Mike C.

If we stick with the OPs subject, Pilatus isn't in the hunt. Meridian is tough as Mike pointed out when $1,000,000 seems the mean price for a decent one. TBM Capex would also eliminate it. Mike makes and excellent point about depreciation. To me cost is cost of acquisition, operating and fixed costs and depreciation. Most of the above depreciate more in four or five years than the acquisition cost of older twin turbines. Even if Pilatus has maintained it's value well, not many can afford the acquisition cost.

So, look at entry cost, cost to operate and projected liquidation cost in four of five years. Some can afford high operating costs as opposed to high acquisition cost. Many don't want to incur debt for a personal aircraft.

That's what led us to our C90. Just over $400,000 to purchase (no debt used). Annual maintenance in the $40,000 to 60,000 range. We have recently been offered $300,000 but there would be some disposition costs. So, $100,000 to 150,000 loss of value in almost six years or $25, to 30,000 per year. We still have it and it runs fine. Plenty of used parts around and gads of folks with experience working on them. We look at the MU-2 and were impressed, but shied away after a more proficient pilot than I lost one here and was killed. The C90 is very forgiving for that day something happens and one's not at the top of their game. I was lucky enough to have one on the field here I could lease/purchase. It was an easy step up from the P-Baron I was flying. Transition was easy. It's a little tank in weather; very stable, can handle reasonable icing conditions and is made very well.
Lots of choices for lots of folks with different tastes, missions, and interests. Like cars, much of it is in the owner's eyes, but I've done very well staying main steam in a well made, well supported plane.

And therefore the government (i.e., taxpayers) subsidizes the cost.

If you're using it only for personal travel, then you're probably a 1%er.