Joshua,
One of my businesses is a new aircraft dealer/distributor, and the best guidance I could give you is to consider qualitative as well as quantitative and economic issues.


Quantitative and Financial:
As for the mission capability, I will always recommend an 80/20 type assessment of your typical mission: what aircraft can do your 80% mission as you wish? For the other 20%, you stop for fuel, leave someone behind, UPS the ski's to the resort, or whatever you have to do. Buying the capability for that last 20% is very expensive and often comes with other trade-offs.

Performance:
There is a real cusp in piston GA airspeeds between 180 and 200 knots. Above that range, there really is very little to choose from. But back to the 80/20 test: what real-world difference is 20 knots going to make, and how much money are you willing to throw at solving that particular problem?

Insurance: Not meaningfully more for a twin given the total cost of what you're considering doing.

Qualitative:
This is really important and often overlooked when drilling down on the numbers with great precision. Big quality of life boxes to check:
-Club seating for your PAX
-Ease of loading: How high is the baggage door? How large? Do I have to crawl in the one access door to the cabin? Can I fit comfortably in the cockpit? To me, a comfortable, stress-free load, climb in, fly, and disembark cycle is worth a lot of airspeed.
- Avionics available: eg: do you want G1000/WAAS/SVT/GFC700? There are not a ton of planes out there so equipped.
-Pressurization, especially if topping tall terrain frequently
-De-Ice: a real boon to dispatch reliability in most of the country
- If short/narrow fields are in the 80% mission profile, how comfortable will you be stuffing a big plane in a small place?

I chose a FIKI/WAAS Mooney Acclaim S for my other business. It's not perfect, but for long legs with 1 or 2 others, it checks a lot of the boxes for me, and it's the devil I know (search youtube for "mooney landing naper" for a fun video of my old 231 at the home field).

Good luck in your search.

That 1000nm nonstop in 6 hours is why Mike C talks about trading his MU-2 for a jet. A Bonanza will do everything else you describe. But this last part puts you in a completely different league.

My family has never made it on a 6-hour flight (in our planes). that's a really long time, especially if not pressurized and you're at any altitude.

we've decided that 4 is our max (which means 3+30 then the approach); the kids just get restless, etc.

Joshua,

Not to push you out of Beechcraft machines... or completely ignore your preference to stay in a single, but you might want to look into the Piper PA-31-325 Navajo C/R. It'll fit 90% of your mission statement, has lower insurance premiums (counter rotating props), easily fits your budget, plenty of good examples around, lots of storage and C/G balance, great support, parts, training (Simcom) and meets your numbers. Many have deice, A/C -- and a potty. Plus a bonus... you and your family will like it!

Check it out. ~ Mark

Not based on personal experience, but I imagine a single-engine turboprop might provide me with tremendous mental well-being.


Edit to provide clarity

There really is 1 right answer. I think a lot of jet owners have never owned a PC12 so you never get that comparison. The range a useful load of the PC12 is so massive that you never have to consider anything when planning a trip. You and everyone you want to go is going and you're not weighing stuff on the ramp making sure.

I've been shopping CJ3 and Phenom 300 for a while now but can't seem to pull the trigger. The Pilatus just does so much so well.

I ran into a friend on the ramp last night that has a single pilot jet. We were comparing mission profiles and at the end of the conversation I wanted to say.... "why didn't you buy a Pilatus"? All his landing to refuel and not bring all the people he wanted to bring etc. etc.

last week I asked the guy who's been helping me find a jet "what do most PC12 owners move to next"?... he said "PC12 owners tend to stay with PC12 or they have a Gulfstream and a PC12"

West bound in winter can be a 6 hour flight. I never have passengers that don't want to go.

What about a Cessna 441?

Speed - easy 300 KTS
Range - easy 1800 nm
Payload - 1,200 lbs at 1,200 nm
Price $1.2mm - $1.5mm (you can spend less)
DOCs - well, it has the Garretts so it's reasonable for a turboprop

Zeke

Not a good fit for a 350 hour pilot who hasn't flown for many years.

Not a good fit for a 350 hour pilot who hasn't flown for many years.

+1



I know that guy

Pilatus is a jet killer, depreciation on the CJ3 was high over the last 3 quarters......

I just had my first run HSI (hot section inspection) done by Convington (cannot speak highly enough about those folks) and it was 6k.

A b58 cost more on a per mile operating cost than a PC12.......not even a question anymore.............

If you can take the purchase price, the PC12 is the only way to go........I'm not biased at all, just seen the light!!!

Plenty of 350 hour cirrus guys moving to PC12, eclipse, P46T, citation - first year insurance is just a transaction cost.

You'll be pleasantly surprised at the insurance cost. IMHO, the Baron was way more difficult to fly than the PC12, way more.........PC12 is on par with the Mooney in difficulty........agree with a previous poster, Mooney is a great bird and IMHO has the best front seat.......way more comfortable than my PC12 before I did some seat work. Now it's more comfortable, not way more

I think the real question is are you okay with the premise of flying with a contract pilot. This often seems to be perceived as taking a chaperone on a date... BUT... if it doesn't bother you to do so, you have the ability own and fly an airplane that is a LOT more fun, a LOT more capable and a LOT faster! Not to mention the fact that you can make the contract pilot do all the work if you like.

You're only expecting to fly 100 hours a year... so that's what 10 days... 20 days... $500 - $600 a day for a pilot... even with expenses that is not much money at all.

The idea of using a "safety pilot" is much more common than you think, pilots of varying experience fly with pro pilots.

One example is a business owner I know who is a fair weather pilot that has a ton of King Air time and is very capable, but after a bad experience won't fly in weather. If it's blue skies and just him he might go it alone, family on board or a cloud in the sky... he's bringing a pilot.

Trust me when I say you're not alone in the group whose business hours have well exceeded their flight hours and the ability to purchase exceeds the ability to be insured. The smart move is to buy the airplane you want and crew it safely. Very few owners fly their own jets and when you get into mid size and above it is almost unheard of...

If you are okay with hiring a pilot, you can buy the airplane you want, the more you spend the more capable and in many cases more economical to operate. If you have a budget in the $1's spend it. Sure, you can find something with a lower acquisition cost but the overall cost and lack of capability often takes the fun out of it.

You'll be pleasantly surprised at the insurance cost. IMHO, the Baron was way more difficult to fly than the PC12, way more.........PC12 is on par with the Mooney in difficulty........agree with a previous poster, Mooney is a great bird and IMHO has the best front seat.......way more comfortable than my PC12 before I did some seat work. Now it's more comfortable, not way more

I think a SETP insurance may be a crusher in terms of cost and babysitting time.
Lately I've seen Cessna 340 pricing and training requirements being pretty reasonable.

As mentioned above if you bought a nice 36 or 58 with fancy avionics, paint and interior you will just never lose money on that. And you will sell it virtually the next day if it has exceptional pedigree and curb appeal.

Then you would be a year or two down the road and with 550 total hours, a couple hundred RG (and a couple hundred Multi you) are looking pretty sharp for another jump.

<--Is my way of thinking.