Those are true statements and really quite a shame. The pressurized piston twins have a reputation these days of being mx hogs and lacking factory support and are problematic for regular dispatch rates. It’s a shame as it leaves an enormous gap in the new a/c market between high performance singles and pressurized turbines. When the pressurized twins do finally die off, it will be a sad day.

By contrast, I can only imagine what a thrill it must’ve been to take delivery of a brand new C421 or C340 straight from the factory with that new airplane smell, excellent factory support and new everything.

Well... There is this (Piper M350), which I personally think is the best value in aviation dollar for dollar, when talking new aircraft when you take into account technology (full envelope protection, automatic descent) safety (perfect fatal rate for the GX000 birds, production started in 2009), capability (FIKI, radar, pressurized, FL250, >1000nm range, with 90% of the capability of the low end SETP's), redundancy (3 ADC's, 3 ADHR's, dual pitot static systems) and cost. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 the cost of the competing SETP's. Don't know why this bird doesn't sell more, but then again they are still selling I see serial #715 on controller.

They aren’t selling because it’s too much plane for someone who just got his private (unlike sr22) and not enough plane (generally) for someone stepping up from an SR22

In my business we frequently say:

Cost
Time
Quality

Choose two.

I'd say the aviation version is like this:

Cost
Speed
Reliability

Choose two:

Or even stepping up from a Bonanza. Every time I drool over another airplane, I either want another engine or kerosene. I have a hard time swallowing the costs of a Malibu and the idea of playing around in the flight levels and ice with relatively low speed, low climb rate and no redundancy. I'm also not keen on the low maneuvering speed.

I get that a glide from FL240 gives you more potential landing sites, it also gives you more chances to be dead sticking through the soup or through ice.

Let’s say $1M+/- and >1500 NM range. Now what? Commander 1000 or 980? C-441? Cheyenne 400LS? Merlin IIIA? Will any SETP really do 1500 NM (i.e. PC-12)? Anything others with long range fuel options that are rare?

Chris I think you are absolutely on the money. I came to this same conclusion and bought a nice Cheyenne II. I get 250 knots true reliably or less if I want to save fuel. Everything you stated has been my experience (including the King Air comparison).

I do use mine for business as well as personal use, but still don't expect a utilization above 100 hours /year. The Cheyenne is a great deal for a low utilization owner-pilot for all the reasons you state (notably - the annual maintenance requirements are far below the King Air for low utilization). If I could have comfortably carried twice the capital I would have been asking Mike if I could skip the line and buy his MU-2, but as he says capital is an inescapable piece of the equation. MU-2's I think kinda got rediscovered in recent years and my perception is that their values have gone up, taking them a bit out of my range. I think the Cheyenne will have a little of that effect too as they get re-discovered, but for sure they will be substantially less than a comparable King Air (rightfully so - the King Air earns is value).

With respect to Paul's original post.... I think it's foolish to say you could simply replace any piston twin with a turboprop and spend no more, but you certainly can in some situations and if you're looking for a low-cost reliable turboprop I think the Cheyenne is a natural choice given what a good one can be had for these days. If purchase price were less of a factor than that answer changes a lot, but I can swallow the entire opex difference for the capital difference between my Cheyenne and a Meridian. All the others are great options for their own reasons but have a much higher capital requirement. With respect to the Single turbine crowd, you all are very smart people with your own reasons why you choose the way you do and we can each be right without the other being wrong. I wouldn't be afraid of a single turbine, but my operating parameters would be adjusted for the lack of a second engine. Personal decision for us all and no basis for eye-pokes (Charles - I am not being dishonest with my passengers - my wife and I spend a lot of our hard earned money and time on redundant systems and training / proficiency precisely because of our passengers... Mike is right, if you are not safe to fly with two, you are not safe to fly with one).

I think there are four critical variables that have changed that makes this a different equation that in years past... 1) Current position on depreciation curve of turbine airplanes, 2) Real world experience of TBO extensions on both Garrett and P&W, 3) Jet-A pricing relative to 100LL, 4) High power piston engines are more expensive (relative to turbines) and less reliable to overhaul and maintain then in decades past IMHO. This is evident to me in conversations about declining QC from accessory shops, metallurgy issues at Lycoming and Continental. etc. This is anecdotal, not empirical - but certainly has been my impression. I think what it takes in money , time, and energy to keep a high power piston at high dispatch reliability is simply more than it once was and (again, anecdotal) not as effective as it was years ago.

Paul - I think if you wade into the marketplace with $300-$400k, you would end up with a very nice de-bugged Cheyenne I or II and you could run it for substantially the same budget as a heavy piston twin, give or take 10%. You will never match the efficiency of your Aerostar 601P. The rest of the variables are qualitative and personal choices.

I can't figure out which one I am missing.

Note that cost and speed are related. Faster means less hours to get there which means less cost.

The worst is a slow PT6 twin (say DHC-6 twin otter). No speed, high cost.

Mike C.

An M600 will do 1500 nm, 1484 with NBAA alternate per Piper pubs, but their tables are pessimistic in my experience, unfortunately not in the 1 mil ballpark. The later model TBM's will do about the same, again, not the 1 mil range. Maybe in a couple of decades

The way to think about the cost of the plane though is what you buy it for minus what you sell it for. Most planes do not go to zero value when it comes time to sell. So no real difference in price between a 3 mil plane that you sell for 2.5 mil and a 1 mil plane that you sell for 500K. Small delta on opportunity cost, but that is a rounding error.

Everyone has to be comfortable with their decisions. We are not talking about a 1980's Malibu, which had a very checkered history. The picture is of a 2017 M350. A completely different aircraft that has as the only thing in common with a 1980's Malibu the type certificate. With that, I would just say that your concerns are not statistically valid. The Mirage particularly the latest iteration has an enviable safety record, and amazing redundancy minus the single engine.

Say your corporate rate of return (the return you get for investing in your own business) is 5% per annum, or your personal rate of return (say for investing in the stock market) is 5% per annum. The difference between a 3 Mill plane and a 1 Mil plane is 2 Mil. 5% of 2 Mil is $100,000 for each year you hold the plane. How is that rounding error?

You have to acknowledge the opportunity cost of capital as well as asset depreciation when you do you cost calculations. Some the entrepreneur pilots on this board have growing businesses that provide a good return for a capital investment that goes into the business versus buying a plane. However, for the entrepreneur, the ROI for personal time savings can be quite substantial also, as Penmann points out.

Come now.

We'll assume no property tax. We'll assume the $1mm plane depreciates 50% in the same period that the $3mm one depreciates 16%. We'll assume you don't pay $150K in sales tax on the $3mm plane.

Let's just talk hull insurance. At 1%/year, the $3mm bird is $30K and the $1mm one is $10k. (And since the cheaper plane depreciates more, the difference will wider over time) Hard to call $20k/yr a rounding error. That's 125 hours of fuel burn at $4/40gph.

NEW:

Zilch. Nothing you can buy new meets your parameters.

PISTON:

Not considered.

SETP:

$1M won't buy a TBM or PC-12 of any quality, so they are out. PC-12 will do 1500 nm, TBM as well, but tighter, not in headwinds.

Meridian can be found at this price point. Can't reliably do the 1500 nm trip, though.

TP:

For $1M, in the twin turboprop class, the lead choice is a 441. They used to be more expensive but have come down in price a lot these last few years (cheap gas, people move up to jets). Big cabin, easy 300 knots, FL350, 2200 nm range, cheap reliable engines.

Merlins are a brute of an airplane, big, heavy, pushing the limits on the engines. Will do the job if you want heavy iron. Need an elevator to get on board.

You will not find top end Commanders for under $1M. I don't find them compelling. Big, need huge hangar, rough ride, maintenance issues, always seems to be some big AD or SB in the pipe.

No MU2 qualifies, not enough range.

Cheyenne 400LS is super expensive to operate with DR props and big block TPE331. A jet is cheaper and faster.

King Air B100? Maybe, price is well under $1M, would have to check range. Will be the slowest of the bunch but comes with the King Air superiority complex despite having a TPE331.

PT6 twins are just expensive to operate, so I don't list them here.

Jet:

The Eagle II Citation I 501SP with Williams can be just had at $1M and will do 1700 nm range. This would be the best jet choice within your parameters, IMO. Single pilot out of the box. About 50 conversions out there. The original JT15 ones won't have the range.

A Citation SII/S550 will do it with original JT15 engines and can be had for half your budget. Burns a lot of fuel, requires two pilots or single pilot exemption. The Williams converted ones are out of your budget.

A straight Citation II/550 might be able to 1500 nm, but it will be close. Lots to choose from, inexpensive to get. Also has 2 pilot problem or SPE.

$1M will also buy you a Citation V/560. More fuel, bigger, but otherwise it is just like a II or SII as far as rules. 1500 nm will be tight but doable most days.

Summary:

In my mind, the 441 or Eagle II 501SP are the lead candidates to meet your parameters. 441 will be about $800/hour ($900 with engine reserves), the Eagle II about $1200/hour (includes Williams extortion). Not that different when considering costs per mile, however.

Mike C.

Have you looked at your last two years of travel and plotted out how many of these 1000nm vs 300nm trips you have done in the Aerostar ?

Say your corporate rate of return (the return you get for investing in your own business) is 5% per annum, or your personal rate of return (say for investing in the stock market) is 5% per annum. The difference between a 3 Mill plane and a 1 Mil plane is 2 Mil. 5% of 2 Mil is $100,000 for each year you hold the plane. How is that rounding error?