Mike,
I can’t analyze aircraft like you do and have. My post was not directed at anyone except Dave. The point I was trying to make was that real numbers are appreciated. Some companies use a non production plane for speed and range filings. Others may not. The issues with jets as I’ve been able to glean from asking experienced pilots is quite often not the same as the POH, except under ideal/unusual/unique conditions.

We both would like to know what real world jets, equipped as most are, can be expected to perform. Different temps, weights and trip lengths etc. It is infuriating for a company to tell us time to climb, max gross, certain temp to max altitude when in reality there plane has to step climb if they can reach it at all except under any but those ideal conditions.

Most need to know, not best of class numbers, but everyday planes and their performance capabilities. Much of that information IS available in the POH’s. Much seems to only exist in users figures and experience. That is why we are here to some degree. Here to glean from those who are already flying them.

My experience is in the TBM 850 in the FL’s. That doesn’t help when thinking jet. Most guys post there best screen shots of cruise, climb and fuel use. Because I’ve flown in almost all conditions and times of year from north to south and east west in the TBM the reality is not as you know only too well > not the screen shot shared.

Look forward to continuing to glean tidbits here and there that help in making our own decision on best plane for 80-90% of our travel missions. The rest have to be in the aluminum tube. Or dry leasing your next ride.....

If I was dreaming, sitting mostly in the back seat and SP wasn’t a criteria I’d probably out of sheer lust desire a Lear, maybe 45XR. If my brain was engaged it would be a CJ3+ or 4 for all my missions. There is a plane for everyone out there, even if only in our dreams...

Now if the boss wins the PowerBall all bets are off......

I am sure you know this, but it bears mentioning - it doesn't matter if you are buying a cub or a B747... Any airplane that has been sitting for a while and / or not kept up at the top of it's game is going to have those teething issues when you first start using it regularly (I refer to them as "Title Tantrums" because they always seem to peak just after the airplane's title has been transferred to a new owner).

Your engine issue is a valid comparison lane against a turbine, but the rest of that stuff will happen on anything. It is probably valid to state that the systems are a little more robust on a turboprop (for example, the Cheyenne has a totally different, more robust and simple electrical and fuel system than the P-Navajo, with which it shares the airframe).

PT-6's can be inspected such that you can virtually rule out engine issues and chasing the various maladies that involves, so that's a big difference. No matter how well you inspect a piston, there are a lot of reciprocating & moving parts that can get wonky at seemingly unpredictable intervals.

Turbine engines sit better than piston.

The oil is never in contact with combustion byproducts (namely water), so the gear box doesn't rust like crank, cams, and lifters do in a piston.

An area that is worse with turbines is HUM bugs (hydrocarbon utlizing microbes). If the fuel system hasn't had FSII (EGME) or biocide, then it can get infected and has to be cleaned out.

My plane was VERY lightly used the 3 years before I bought it (like 20 total hours). I had no significant issues from this, however, now 9 years hence.

Mike C.

Just a data point, I see the same numbers in my -112 powered Conquest I. This is no knock on the MU2 which is an amazing airplane with universally regarded support, build quality, and economics. But one nice thing about the Conquest is it has 8 seats (2 would need to be small adults/kids) and a semblance of a potty. Here's a best condition snapshot at FL270. I can pretty much count on a minimum of 260 ktas @ 400 pph at FL270/280 unless it's really warm. The highest I've ever seen was 274 at FL180 but it was cold and I was light. Operating costs have been pleasantly mild after the first year of fixing all the stuff that breaks when you buy an airplane that didn't fly much.

Conquest II with -10 engines can turn 372 pph into 306 knots at FL350.

At FL280, 500 pph results in 316 knots (basically the same MPG as you at that altitude but a bigger cabin and 56 knots faster).

It is a heck of an airplane.

Page from -10 performance supplement:

Mike C.

Oh heck, guys, an Eclipse routinely gets 100 knots faster than that on the same fuel burn --



Ken

Yup that's right. And on top of that kind of speed and efficiency it can do it for a really long time. Check out some of Max N's posts about flying his Conquest II from Juneau to Scottsdale nonstop, or Scottsdale to the Bahamas. Amazing. And it's not really that much more to operate than the Conquest I, although getting RVSM requires dual G600's and the Meggit autopilot so the buy in there is a bit pricey.

Ken, did you hear about the Eclipse that lost control in the FL's when it encountered turbulence and lost ~10,000' while the wife called mayday? Husband pilot apparently was briefly unconscious.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N37 ... /KHEF/KFAY

I'm wondering if the turbine operators here could share some information on how maintenance works. For piston engines, it's pretty straightforward (for Part 91 operations)--barring any ADs, you inspect the engine as part of the annual, and overhaul it on condition. TBO is merely a recommendation, and there are no other required (i.e., by regulation--you still need to change the oil, replace spark plugs, clean/replace air filter, etc., but not on a mandated schedule) inspections or maintenance.

Turbine engines sound more complicated, and more restrictive--it sounds like the HSI is a mandatory interval, though TBO still isn't. But there are programs that allow the HSI (and sometimes TBO) interval to be extended? What are the basics that a piston pilot would need to know in this regard before transitioning to a TP?

Per mile, it is cheaper.

The engines are definitely cheaper to own. They can be had with 3500 hour HSI, 7000 hour OH intervals. Basically, lifetime engines.


Maybe, new RVSM rules may make that be a non factor due to allowing ADS-B planes up there without an RVSM kit.

Mike C.

There's a lot of work to do at annual on a piston engine. Plugs, mags, oil change, filter, inspection exhaust, compression check, timing check, air filter, etc.

During routine inspections on a turbine engine, there's almost nothing to do. Oil sample, maybe a nozzle cleaning. It literally takes less than 1 hour per engine at my inspections, nothing to do.


Actually, they are much simpler to maintain and own. You do nothing. The engine just works. I've never added oil to my engines in 1000 hours. The reason the shop adds a little oil is that they take some out each time for the oil analysis. My engines are 1500 hours and 18 years since overhaul and they have had ONE oil change in the time.

Now go read the pages of advice you get for a piston engine with a low cylinder leaking by an exhaust valve. Or a mag problem. Or a wastegate sticking. Or...


HSI is mandatory. Depending on engine status (usually SB compliance and the presence of improved parts), it can vary. My engines are 2500 hours until HSI (about another 1000 hours). Prior to overhaul, they had a 1800 hour HSI interval. Some similar engines get 3500 hour HSI.

Overhaul is never mandatory for part 91. You can do HSI over and over again.

What is mandatory are life limited parts. Some parts, typically wheels and stators, have cycle and hour limits, so at some point, they have to come out. Those limits are usually more than an OH period, sometimes much longer.


Consult with an engine shop on the status of the engines you are about to buy. They can research SB status and they can advise on engine health.

After that, know when you next major engine event is. This can be HSI or OH, or, in rare cases, it can be forced by a life limited part that has to come out. Then fly confidently until you get there and have it done at a competent shop.

You cannot believe how satisfying it is to have engines that simply just work each and every time. Not having to add oil to them is extremely pleasant, too.

Do not buy a turbine airplane if you expect to go back to piston and be happy.

Mike C.

Turbine engines are more sophisticated... but actually less complicated.

At 750, that should put you within the range of a Meridian.



You may have the same issues with some of the 'low cost turboprops' for the first year or two.

Pretty sure the OP wasn't considering singles.