BeechTalk - BT - How I set out to buy an MU-2 and ended up in a 441

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 00:40

Quote:

.My airplane has been back and forth from South Florida to Cali 8 times this year alone.

Michael, do you have house in California? We have good surf in Malibu.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 07:13

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

Stevens switch is labeled PTT, don't know why. The radio has to be turned on and the xmit depressed.
.

That's actually a push to talk for transmitting. I also have the original PTT on the yoke.

That remote PTT in the picture is used when flying on the AP. Its a very comfortable place for a PTT

The ground com is next to the radio stack and only powers up my GTN 750. I like to get ATIS and clearance before I load passengers maybe 5 to 10 minutes prior to closing the door.

I can then load any modifications to the clearance onto my iPad before engine start and before loading passengers. Once I have engines running all I need to do is send route to the 750 from my iPad through the 210.

Less distractions after start.

OK I get it. In your post you were talking about the ground comm installation but the photo showed a PTT switch.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 11:11

Username Protected wrote:

See the two attached images.

Yup, the interest exceeds my yearly budget alone.

And I doubt you can actually get 3% interest on an aircraft loan. Numbers I've seen are in the 4% range.

Your numbers only work for an excessively high yearly hour figure, an excessively optimistic interest rate, and an excessively high hourly figure for the MU2. A lot of feet on a lot of scales to make it work.

As I said, self delusion is often a necessary ingredient in aviation.

Quote:

Conklin is the only reliable online source...

Online? Yes.

Reliable? Hardly.

They have never asked MU2 operators. At best, they extrapolate "turboprop" numbers, which means King Airs.

Quote:

I don't know the Mitts market and so I priced the bird at 600k. That is without full glass. I know your thoughts on steam gauges and all glass, but frankly, I like glass.

Last airplane like mine, N54PC, was glass, -10 equipped, sold for $600K. Glass is $60K if you want it (G600).

One thing you didn't price in was market value downside risk. You have $3.2M to lose, I have only $600K. If the economy tanks badly, you could lose my entire value in months on your airplane.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 12:53

First, OP, this is a great thread. Thanks for posting your experience! :thumbup:

Username Protected wrote:

Now call me delusional mate but I'm getting a 2008 full glass plane for the same price as the Mitts all in. That's why your Mitts are priced the way they are.

That's interesting. I did some similar math years ago when deciding between Barons and Bonanzas. Your finding agrees with mine that when the cost of capital is considered for both, the markets really are pretty efficient.

That said, unless I'm misinterpreting, the turbine operator that only wanted to fly 100 hours per year would come out significantly ahead with the Mits/441, etc vs the PC12.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 13:05

Username Protected wrote:

And I doubt you can actually get 3% interest on an aircraft loan. Numbers I've seen are in the 4% range.

I paid cash, but PNC is about 3% - 3.4% depending on your profile

Quote:

Your numbers only work for an excessively high yearly hour figure, an excessively optimistic interest rate, and an excessively high hourly figure for the MU2. A lot of feet on a lot of scales to make it work.

I'm at 220 hours already this year. I reviewed these points for myself, it was the viewpoint I came up with. I use my bird to travel well and make me money...........if you only fly 100 hours, go out and fly more :pilot:

Quote:

As I said, self delusion is often a necessary ingredient in aviation.

The difference between you and I is that I don't have delusions, I go out and have a ton of fun.........you may need to learn how to surf......it will chill you out a little

Quote:

One thing you didn't price in was market value downside risk. You have $3.2M to lose, I have only $600K. If the economy tanks badly, you could lose my entire value in months on your airplane.

Mike C.

3.2MM to lose, surely you jest........you seem to believe that someone who buys a 3.2MM airplane has no reasoning or analytical skills that are comparable to yours...........now that is where you are absolutely delusional........

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 13:27

Username Protected wrote:

I paid cash, but PNC is about 3% - 3.4% depending on your profile.

I'd have thought the expected return on investable cash is well north of 5%. No?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 14:38

Username Protected wrote:

I paid cash, but PNC is about 3% - 3.4% depending on your profile.

I'd have thought the expected return on investable cash is well north of 5%. No?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 16:12

Username Protected wrote:

And I doubt you can actually get 3% interest on an aircraft loan. Numbers I've seen are in the 4% range.

I paid cash, but PNC is about 3% - 3.4% depending on your profile

Quote:

Your numbers only work for an excessively high yearly hour figure, an excessively optimistic interest rate, and an excessively high hourly figure for the MU2. A lot of feet on a lot of scales to make it work.

I'm at 220 hours already this year. I reviewed these points for myself, it was the viewpoint I came up with. I use my bird to travel well and make me money...........if you only fly 100 hours, go out and fly more :pilot:

Quote:

As I said, self delusion is often a necessary ingredient in aviation.

The difference between you and I is that I don't have delusions, I go out and have a ton of fun.........you may need to learn how to surf......it will chill you out a little

Quote:

One thing you didn't price in was market value downside risk. You have $3.2M to lose, I have only $600K. If the economy tanks badly, you could lose my entire value in months on your airplane.

Mike C.

3.2MM to lose, surely you jest........you seem to believe that someone who buys a 3.2MM airplane has no reasoning or analytical skills that are comparable to yours...........now that is where you are absolutely delusional........

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 16:37

Username Protected wrote:

I'd have thought the expected return on investable cash is well north of 5%. No?

That would be nice. Then minus out income tax of 43% and you're back to zero.

If you don't spend the money, you don't have an airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 16:39

Username Protected wrote:

That said, unless I'm misinterpreting, the turbine operator that only wanted to fly 100 hours per year would come out significantly ahead with the Mits/441, etc vs the PC12.

A Mits flying 100 hours a year? How does one stay current?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 16:40

Username Protected wrote:

3.2MM to lose, surely you jest........you seem to believe that someone who buys a 3.2MM airplane has no reasoning or analytical skills that are comparable to yours...........now that is where you are absolutely delusional........

Yup, I've made money on my PC12. Even if I didn't, it's the best money I've ever spent. YOLO.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 16:54

Username Protected wrote:

Penman might be right. His bucket is slowww, so you can really rack up the hours.

Also, it's missing the other motor.

Slow is relative. Speed has more to do with mission length and payload than IAS or KTAS. You can fly a PC12 faster than a light jet if you don't have to stop. It may even be faster than a Mits if you count the amount of real time spent on figuring out how to maintain it in comparison.

Show me the accident statistics where PC12 engine failures resulted in deaths since 1991 and the overall fatal accident rate in that period compared to practically anything that would compete with it with two engines: KA 90 & 200 series, Conquests, Cheyennes, Commanders, Mitsubishis and any light jets you'd like to throw in.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 16:59

AND....... Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. You really wanna fly around in a Japanese airplane?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2016, 19:41

Username Protected wrote:

That's interesting. I did some similar math years ago when deciding between Barons and Bonanzas. Your finding agrees with mine that when the cost of capital is considered for both, the markets really are pretty efficient.

Jeff, sorry I missed your post. I agree on the market efficiency on airplane prices

Quote:

That said, unless I'm misinterpreting, the turbine operator that only wanted to fly 100 hours per year would come out significantly ahead with the Mits/441, etc vs the PC12.

On this I would agree to a small extent due to the acquisition/carrying costs. My very simple spreadsheet shows just that. When I decided to go Turbine I was planning on using my airplane a lot more and totally forgoing commercial for anyone in the family. This has been accomplished in the PC12. I based my decision on roughly 250/300 hours a year. Fortunately the efficiency of the turbine and the ability to go in most conditions, has increased my utilization. I'll be north of 400 hours this year at my current pace.

I would argue that the 441 is cheaper to maintain than a piston 421, especially when considering dispatch. People I have spoken to have said that their 421/414's are expensive to run.........The other biggie is that JetA is damn cheap at the moment when compared to AvGas.....I don't foresee this changing much.