I disagree. I was in a 4 person partnership on a SR22. Near the end it dropped to 3 partners. Over a period of 4.5 years we only had 2 or 3 "real" scheduling conflicts; as in two people wanted to go somewhere at the same time. The other conflicts were "it's a nice day, I'll go fly. Oh dang, X has the plane." Yeah, that second conflict may be an issue with a 172 or decathlon, but not much of an issue for a traveling plane.

Will there be sales tax on the aircraft on top of the 1.2?

One thing, as a sort of test. Before you do it, sit down with the other partners and work out a partnership agreement. Especially getting out clauses and more importantly scheduling and sharing ;so there are no surprises later.

Even if the three of you buy one for 1.7 instead, that is still workable. But availability problems will make you wish you didn't get involved. And if it can't be worked out/finalized before you have a plane, it won't get easier after you bought it.

I disagree. I was in a 4 person partnership on a SR22. Near the end it dropped to 3 partners. Over a period of 4.5 years we only had 2 or 3 "real" scheduling conflicts; as in two people wanted to go somewhere at the same time. The other conflicts were "it's a nice day, I'll go fly. Oh dang, X has the plane." Yeah, that second conflict may be an issue with a 172 or decathlon, but not much of an issue for a traveling plane.

NYS allows a setup where you don't pay sales tax on the purchase but you pay sales tax on the rental rate the partnership charges to the members. Depending on factors like holding time, business use, financing etc. this can be a worthwhile structure on expensive aircraft.

I suggest the OP talk to BT member Neal Schwartz. For one he should have a good grasp of the TBM market. He also has experience with the sales tax structure mentioned above.

Thanks regarding the taxation info- I will look into that. A call to Neal is probably in order either way.

When you have an airplane that can be used both for pleasure and business you will be amazed at how much is possible.

I would not be able to do what I do without a travelling airplane.

Frankly the B58 is a great machine, it's just that the TBM is better for business travel. I believe that the TBM will pay for itself and then some.

If your doing 100 hours or more a year, you should probably expect scheduling conflicts. I would really want to know my partners well, but your sort of buying them as much as you are the plane.

How much additional annual cost would those of you with TBM/Baron 58 experience should you expect being 1/3 TBM owner vs 100% Baron 58? As my various businesses grow I'm thinking of turbine as well and TBM would be on top of list.

Both are very attractive options and I think would do well for what you describe. I personally wouldn't hesitate to take a Baron into known icing to Buffalo. I've had my Seneca in plenty of light to moderate icing conditions (don't go ANYWHERE near severe ice or SLD) in the Midwest and around the Great Lakes and it has done a fine job. You just have to be diligent to ensure the system is functioning as there's lots of stuff that can break or stop working (boots, pumps, prop deice elements, windshield heat, pitot heat, alt air doors, etc).

That said, I would give my left arm for a (3) person partnership in a TBM. That's a VERY attractive option, although is somewhat overkill for 250nm missions. If you go that route, my bet is that you will magically find other trips to take, given the much higher capabilities.

Regarding the partnership, do you have a backup plan if there is a scheduling conflict? As mentioned above, I doubt you'll have many conflicts with (3) partners but having a backup option makes partnerships work even better for those few times when something comes up. If I were you, I'd sit down with the other partners and discuss specific usage plans and schedules for the next year to see what potential conflicts you may have. I have (3) partners on the Seneca and we may have had a conflict 1-2 times in the past (2) years but we also sat down and discussed our vacation plans and longer trips ahead of time to avoid conflicts.

I would also run the #'s to see what the finances looked like if you went to (2) partners. Could you still swing it? There's a chance down the road one of the guys may bow out. You will also want a good exit clause in the contract. We have a provision in ours that says if a partner wants out and can't sell his share that he can sell it back to the other (2) for 20% below market value. It gives an out but also provides an incentive to either find a buyer or stay in.

I would guess (and I emphasize - it's just a guess) that 1/3 of the TBM would cost less than 100% of the Baron.

I had a Cessna 340 for many years, and my total annual cost for the MU2 is maybe 50% more than the 340, for more miles but slightly less hours per year. That includes fixed costs like insurance and property tax (both based on hull value, Mits is a fair amount higher), steadily rising hangar cost (same hangar, rent just keeps going up), and so on. I owned the 340 back when avgas was still relatively cheap, so higher avgas costs these days might even bring the difference slightly closer.

Based on my financial comparison, I put the 1/3 TBM share at ~20% higher all-in cost. That's figuring 100 hrs on the Baron and about 75 hours on the TBM, due to faster block time.

If someone came to me with a 1/3 share offer on a TBM (with good partners), I'd write the check on the spot.

Based on my financial comparison, I put the 1/3 TBM share at ~20% higher all-in cost. That's figuring 100 hrs on the Baron and about 75 hours on the TBM, due to faster block time.

If someone came to me with a 1/3 share offer on a TBM (with good partners), I'd write the check on the spot.

The SR22T is a great ice flying plane while you have TKS fluid on board. It would probably solve the OP's problem if he could shuttle his pax but the SR is not a choice for 6. If the A36 TKS system works anywhere near as well as it does on the Cirrus that would be a great choice and a lot less expensive than the other ones especially for the relatively low utilization rate.

The SR22T is a great ice flying plane while you have TKS fluid on board. It would probably solve the OP's problem if he could shuttle his pax but the SR is not a choice for 6. If the A36 TKS system works anywhere near as well as it does on the Cirrus that would be a great choice and a lot less expensive than the other ones especially for the relatively low utilization rate.

Well, 60K for TKS is only chump change in comparison to buying a TBM...