The other issue is that turbines need a job.. much better if you can pay for them with pretax money. For those of us who just want to bomb around for personal/family transport, hamburger runs and "for the love of it" flying, and are paying with after tax income, flying 50-100 hrs a year... piston wins. That's why there is still a market for the 421.

Last thing I want to see is a 421 flown by a 50 to 100 hour a year pilot. That is a recipe for disaster and the insurance rates reflect that. When I used to fly 600 hours a year, even if good portion were in the back, I could probably keep a 414/421 right side up on one with my eyes closed. I still believe when flown conservatively a Meridian is the safest aircraft in the sky for a low annual time pilot. Even a turbo piston is harder to fly. 414/421 are absolutely the hardest, most complicated GA aircraft ever created and you don't become one with them until you fly them at least weekly. What makes Meridian safer than I believe other SETP is the low wing loading.

Rick if all you fly is 50 to 100 hours a year then maybe?

It depends on the pilots skill level, currency etc. I fly my 421C 100 hours a year and have 1600 hours in this plane. I also fly my Baron 200 to 250 hours per year. I do not feel I am at risk flying my 421 100 hours per year.

I don't think he funded the purchase of the plane he flies, so it is easy to talk about "cost of money" when you don't have to pay it yourself.

Mike C.

This is an odd pigeon-holing of financial situations. I don't know people who finance airplanes, so I assume that:

1. Planes are purchased with excess earnings, or unspent savings. These can be a windfall year, sale of a business that accumulated value over years, or a decade of driving a nissan to your executive-level job while staring at a photo of a SETP dangling from the rearview mirror.

2. Planes are operated with income.

If someone gave you a PC-12, you could likely run it on 100K/yr, or 25K if you spend disney dollars like Penman.

If you don't have large capital reserves, but earn well, your numbers make sense. But theyre not the only way to pencil out a plane like these.

==

I'm starting to think MikeC is Ed Bacon's wife. Wasn't she the one who originally suggested the inheritance/jealousy nonsense levelled against him?

The insurance rates largely reflect time in type, so if you fly 100 hrs for 5 years I'll bet the carriers look kindly upon you in year 6 and beyond.

I am really surprised how little the Cheyenne comes up. I just sold a Cheyenne 1 we had for 5 years. Bought with 2200hr engines, 9000TTAF, G600 dash and nice P&I for 350k. Flew it 5 years, 1400 hours, sold it with run out engines for 250k. Having listed it a few times in my ownership that was a little less than she was worth but I was out of depreciation and wanted to move it quick. We were a 230-238knot plane at 400lbs/hr in cruise. We did 1000 miles no wind easy. We flew at FL230-240 usually. Amazing performing little plane. Cabin class, albeit not quite a king air inside. But decent cabin with a "bucket" potty.

No SIDS, not horrible inspections, a lot of Navajo parts apply. They aren't terribly expensive. It wasn't a hard plane to fly. No special training. She was "ok" reliability wise. Some piper squack stuff, but the PT'6s are awesome. We flew hard and often and I often was impatient with minor airframe squaks. Built like a Piper. (really interesting to compare the build quality of the Piper to my King Air; there is a difference).

Point being, at best a 300k, aircraft. We sold it for 250k and it was prime for MORE or some Part 91 guy that, like me, thinks TBO is a P&W profit venture.

She was a good plane. Maybe not perfect all the time, but a cabin class bird, easy to own, easy to deal with. And CHEAP.

I am addicted to my KA300, but man, that Cheyenne sounds like it fits what you want. Nothing like those smooth, always run, never hiccup, PT'6's whirring away to make you feel good.

I would also say, ignore the asking prices on Controller for the Cheyenne's. I am not sure why, owners seem to think they are worth more than they are. They can be bought often a lot less than listed for.

I would do it again.

It's nice to get "paid" to fly by Uncle Whiskers. The guys who have high priced iron flying "primarily" for business would be flying something less or riding on SW if the tax breaks went away.

In my circles, I don't know anybody who doesn't finance everything, including their morning coffee. I have never once in my entire life not financed a single purchase in excess of giving a few $/Euros to a homeless guy. If it cannot be financed, I cannot afford it. There is an old adage, if you owe a bank $100 it's your problem, if you owe a bank $100,000,000 it's their problem. Owning any depreciating, fluctuating value asset is a fool's errand. In my business life, I've paid off multiple loans. I've also defaulted on quite a few as well when it made sense to do so. Earning interest comes with a risk. I'm old now, I don't fly myself anymore, but even my NetJets share is financed. As are all my properties. I fully expect my children to negotiate the principle amounts with the bank when I pass away if the asset is worth less than principle amount - sales hassle to the bank. They better.

My long term 100 hours per year average is about $75K. If I flew 70 hours, roughly same miles as you, my costs would be about the same.


I'd rather fix up a turbine than a piston. Things just don't break as often in general, and turbine systems are just built better.

I know someone with a nearly 50 year old MU2 and his dispatch reliability is very good.

Dispatch reliability is more about your approach at maintenance, fix things so they stay fixed, than the age of the airplane.

Mike C.

Well, it depends.

You can have one guy who flies 100 hours/year, but always on autopilot, does no training, no practice approaches, just drones around. He may not fly for two months. He does a BFR every two years, that's it.

You can have another guy who flies 50 hours a year but goes up with an instructor every 3 months for practice approaches, hand flies a lot of the time otherwise, tries to fly at least every two weeks, goes to type school or simulator once a year.

I'm flying with the second guy and avoiding the first. Hours watching an autopilot don't make you a better pilot.

Mike C.

In my circles, I don't know anybody who doesn't finance everything, including their morning coffee. I have never once in my entire life not financed a single purchase in excess of giving a few $/Euros to a homeless guy. If it cannot be financed, I cannot afford it. There is an old adage, if you owe a bank $100 it's your problem, if you owe a bank $100,000,000 it's their problem. Owning any depreciating, fluctuating value asset is a fool's errand. In my business life, I've paid off multiple loans. I've also defaulted on quite a few as well when it made sense to do so. Earning interest comes with a risk. I'm old now, I don't fly myself anymore, but even my NetJets share is financed. As are all my properties. I fully expect my children to negotiate the principle amounts with the bank when I pass away if the asset is worth less than principle amount - sales hassle to the bank. They better.

The reason piston twins aren't used for business is not because they cost less to run, they don't, it is because they break down too much to be reliable business transportation.

If I trade my MU2 for a 421C, I don't save any money, but I get something that is slower and less reliable, which costs me money ultimately. Reliability is a component of effective speed.

Mike C.

Chris, we waited 4 years for your first post, and it's a winner! Don't be a stranger

Listen up fruitcake, my numbers are dead accurate, my numbers have been posted here, but they're getting even lower........my HSI was only 6k



I know JC personally and have for a long time........Mike's about as far off base on his statement as statements go............for a man who prides himself on empirical evidence, it's in short supply when he talks about JC.........