It is not entirely US only. The SPE language allows other jurisdictions to recognize it and a few do (like Bahamas). Canada I believe also allows it (and they have a single pilot STC as well).

But overall, SPE doesn't work internationally too well. If you are flying single pilot internationally, a part 23 airplane like a CJ3 wins.


"Chartering the human" is what I call it. I have a few SIC "hobos" who like to fly along as unpaid SIC pilots, so I end up flying crew about 60% of the time at no extra cost to me.

But if you would want 450 knots and 1900 nm range, buying a 2 crew airplane works and many of them are surprisingly affordable. If you want to radically change your 1900 nm missions, then a 2 crew airplane with long range does that and shaves 2 hours off a Cj3.


The awful fuel burn is mitigated by the lack of an awful engine program cost.

The Garmin STC is said to be due by 2026, but it may be late. I wouldn't think it would be routine until 2028 to get it installed.


The full bleed wing reduced fuel capacity by 400 lbs, but the engines are more efficient so the range is pretty close to the V/Ultra, particularly if you fly it at the same speeds. The PW535A engine costs a lot to overhaul and the program prices are high (like $600/pair/hour).

Single point fueling started showing up in Ultras as an option. I don't find it compelling, adds weight, complexity, maintenance, and failure modes. I am happy I have 2 over the wing ports and no balance requirements (unlike the MU2).


Westar has been known to be overly aggressive trying to make an old plane new again. I wouldn't assume their observations represent reality.

The SkywayMRO catalog provides a reference for costs.

https://skyway-mro.com/wp-content/uploa ... 024web.pdf

The big win on the legacy Citation is the LUMP extending phase 1-4 to 3 years, phase 1-5 to 6 years. The 525 doesn't have the same relief.


Inspections more often than 300 hours or 12 months for a CJ3 (from the SkywayMRO catalog):

Doc 19: Fire extinguishers (6 mo)
Doc 29: battery (100 hrs)
Doc 35: battery cap check (3 to 6 mo)
Doc 38: standby battery check (6 mo)
Doc 40: corrosion check (6 mo)
FJ44: check 1 (150 hrs)
FJ44: compressor wash (150 hrs)

It would be nice to have a local shop to do the above nuisance inspections.


If you are willing to do a fuel stop on the 1900 nm trip, there are a lot of planes available. M2, CJ2, 501 Stallion, etc.

IMO, selling the Piaggio to get a CJ3 is not enough of a change in performance to be satisfying. While the CJ3 will get you there maybe at most 1 hour faster on a 1900 nm mission, it makes up for it in fuel burn and cabin size.

If you get a 2 crew 450 knot class plane, that would be different.

Mike C.

2 crew plane would like require 2 full time crew plus me to be able to do all trips. I would fly a 300kt plane before I did that.

I have the solution, Anthony.

Upgrade to the Avanti II model and install the aux tank with 60gal - that would most certainly get you to 1320nm into a headwind in economy cruise. That way you retain the large cabin of the Piaggio, enjoy the much lower fuel burn and only lose marginal speed compared to a CJ3.

What's even better - you can probably own it outright and forego expensive insurance costs. A CJ3 might need to be financed and with that comes requirements of full hull value and the rigmarole that entails.

I feel the same, I don't want a plane where I have to charter the human.

But if you wanted to go 1900 nm non stop and fast, most solutions are 2 crew.

The Super SII would do it, though, and can be flown single pilot with SPE.

Mike C.

Like most things there are compromises but you can hit 1400nm all day in a TBM9xx at 300kn

Slower, way smaller, one engine but you get range, way less fuel and much much better support and parts.

Matt - FlightAware profiles show TBM will struggle against the wind unless it’s under about 15 kts. Have not flown one so do not know how accurate that is. I want non stop against at least a 70kt gradient.

Mike - when I bought the Piaggio I came really close to buying an SII and probably would have if they didn’t have the corrosion issues. Not sure why but the few Super SII’s I have seen were not on program. Not sure I want to own non program Williams engines given lower TBO, high costs etc.


I have a few legs this week and Piaggio is non stop on all so perhaps I am overthinking my edge cases

The engines are extremely forgiving of momentary over torquing. I believe I have attached the correct Pratt chart to understand that.

However, I would imagine that running over 100% torque on the take-off run increases VMC and may cause other unintended consequences, so I wouldn't solely consider engine health in considering such a technique.

I see the comment about the rudder authority being sufficient in the sim, though sufficient rudder authority is of course a function of a dozen variables (weight, temp, etc)... and if you're rotating at a lower speed to make a short field departure, you'd be more exposed. A small risk but one to consider.

Changing aircraft comes with a lot of overhead. Maintenance, training, operational knowledge, etc.

Make sure the switch is worth it.

Mike C.

[quote="Anthony Pigliacampo"]Matt - FlightAware profiles show TBM will struggle against the wind unless it’s under about 15 kts./quote]
Having flown both, my experience is that the TBM and Piaggio have very similar range, and if you're willing to fly a Piaggio at TBM speeds, the Piaggio will definitely have the greater range.

This is very true. Takes a while before a new airplane is “up to snuff” and operationally reliable for a new owner.

I'll look at a flight I did a few months back. Buddy flying his TBM910 was following me to drop the Piaggio off for maintenance. I had to stop for fuel, he made it non-stop and landed well before me.

If I recall it was just around 1400nm but I'll review my log book. I was impressed.

I think some of the older 700/800 tbms are heavier and less range.

The older ones aren't heavier, they just don't have the pitot cowl like the 900 series do and are slower

Definitely the Piaggio can go further. I am confident. It does require consideration to airspeed and altitude. If you want range and slow speed in a turboprop, Pilatus is the answer.

I mostly echo this, but there are conditions where it may not be true. Specifically, when having to go into headwinds that are significantly stronger in the mid-upper FL300s (jet stream?). My MU2 had surprisingly good range and speed in the 20s, which could sometimes avoid very big headwind gradients. I find the PT6s in the Piaggio get significantly thirstier in the 20s and so the range gained by avoiding headwind sometimes isn’t there.

I don’t know where the altitude sweet spot is for the TBM, and presumably the same model PT6s would have similar fuel burn profiles at given altitudes, so TBM may not do better at lower altitudes. But the TPE331 engines were efficient enough at lower altitudes to make it viable to stay below big headwinds.

All that being said, I have yet to try slowing down for range, so that might just get me similar range as the Mits at similar speed.

I have done the slowdown a few times. I have trouble flying any turbine at less than 100% power!

The Piaggio move is drag up to FL410, max range and max speed converge. Nice and quiet and goes a long way. Just hard to get wrong way fl410 which is where I always need the range. Most of my long flights have been east coast to Denver w a climb straight to FL400. Denver drops you into the weeds extremely far out. If you were going to a less controlled area it would help west bound range quite a bit. To Jon’s earlier post it’s the down low fuel burn that gets you.

I did talk to a Citation pilot this weekend that said he gets dropped down at same spot I do going into Denver. The range hack off when that happens was more than I expected it to be.