Citrus needs a 6 pax piston single.

Not counting acquisition and carrying costs, the Cirrus Jet is under $1,250 an hour to operate.

Orange you glad spellchecker gotcha on this one?

I have an ovation and as much as I love it, it will not do 195 knots unless youre really willing to give it gas. If you want to see 195 knots at 8000ft, expect about 19gph.

The ovation is a true 180 knot aircraft. I get about 180 knots LOP 13GPH at 8000 ft to 9000ft. Maybe 178 at full gross weight.

The main issue however is useful load most ovations seems to be around 1000lbs if not under that. You cant do 800nm with 4 people in an ovation. I will say i spent a lot of time getting the Useful load up to the 1217lbs I currently have, but I've never met any other mooney owner with a useful load that high.

I love my mooney, but it deffinetely isnt the right plane for the mission the OP's looking for. My closest bet would be on a 1978 to 1983 bonanza A36 with an atlantic aero IO550R conversion kit and some osborn tip tanks and the 4024lbs gross weight increase. It wont do 200 knots, But itll do about 180 knots burning 15or so GPH, and itll be able to carry everything you need in nice comfort while staying in the non O2 levels. An A36 is a lot cheaper to own than a lot of the other options posted here. It will run you no where near 1200 bucks an hour, but it is also a less capable aircraft.

An TN'd A36 will do 195 KTS at 12-1300ft at 17.5 gal/hr if it has the latest Whirlwind III conversion. The older models are 5 KTS slower and 17 gal/hr. No O2 needed. Much cheaper to operate vs. the Malibu. The Malibu needs a bigger hangar. The advantage goes to the Malibu when you get up high because it's pressurized. It's only 10 KTS faster so that is not the reason to get one. Fuel burn per mile is about the same. Its a more impressive looking plane with an airstair and jet like look, big cargo door sits high off the ground. But you're paying a lot for that. If money is not a problem then The Malibu is better. If money is an issue I don't think you can beat a TN'd A36 for the best economics with almost as good performance.

I think you pretty much have the perfect aircraft for your mission... maybe a Malibu but I don’t think it’s going to carry 4 people and do 800nm. Seems like most aircraft struggle to do over 180kts unless you go up high or have a bunch of power. That sucks your AerostAr ate a lifter, but that could happen in anything. I love how someone always mentions the king air or MU2 being so much more affordable to run than most think... well when a king air or MU2 eats the proverbial lifter it’s going to be a lot more than 100k lol.

Yes. What's so complicated?

Yes. What's so complicated?

Well, obviously the plane for this mission is the M600. I don’t fly at 8000 feet very often, but had a very short repositioning flight. 244 knots, could easily carry 800 pounds of people 800 nautical miles with reserves. Well, not exactly the low cost option, but does the OP’s mission nicely.

A comanche 400 would do all of that.

I agree that the Malibu/Mirage are good choices. Malibu will easily carry 4 adults 800 nm; and will go farther. Meridian and JetProp will have useful load issues but will fly that distance. The LX7 version of the Lancair IVP/IVPT by RDD seems safer than the original and probably a low op cost option (not cheap to purchase, however).

Also, the Pipstrel Panthera looks damn close to 200 knots at 8-10k, no pressurization, chute and 4 pax. Apparently you can now order one as an experimental ...

And, of course, +1 for the M600

The question gets more interesting if you limit it to pistons and set an upper purchase price limit ...

Cheers

So where did we end up?

An M600 will definitely do this mission, as will many of its siblings (Mirage, Meridian, Malibu) and maybe the Jetprop, depending on useful load.

An Aerostar will definitely do this mission.

The big Twin Cessnas (414, 421) will easily do this mission. Does a Baron 58P have the combination of range and useful load? Certainly many of the unpressurized B55 variants can do it, for example, a President II with IO-550s would probably not break a sweat. Same goes for Cessna's T310, both would have to stay low because of not being pressurized.

Sounds like most piston singles aren't fast enough, maybe the Lancair IV and TTX can do it, Mooney not quite fast enough and not enough useful load. Late-model P210 with added fuel tanks can do this mission pretty straightforwardly.

Most high-performance turboprops (any MU-2, any Conquest, any Merlin, Cheyenne, later King Airs, Pilatus, any TBM) can do this mission easily, it's no sweat in that performance category.

Since the question was about lowest operating cost, I'd think the singles would beat the twins.

Malibu for the win?

Yeah, Malibu wins on gas & cabin, and P2 wins on capex & redundancy. Opex probably a wash with good examples.

-J

Not trying to take anything away from the PA-46 as it’s one of the best values and a great aircraft.

From a overall operational cost I went from PA-46 to 421C and I am spending about the same per year. My main mission is 600nm. I fly less hours as the 421c is faster. My average trip time went from 3 hours to 2.4hrs. And I have 2500lb useful load.

The PA-46 cost more than the 421c to acquire and maintain. So by the time I work out all cost is closer than I would have expected.

That’s the problem with the cost of aircraft. There are so many variables to the annual operating cost. I assumed my 421c would cost me more annually but that’s not been the case. Although to be fair I think fuel cost is less now than it was when I was flying my Mirage.

My annual inspection for my 421c was $12k thats $20k less than my PA-46. That covers a lot of fuel cost.

You will get 100 different opinions on this subject and they are all correct. Haha. For me the 421 is more challenging to fly but I feel safer flying it.

Mike

Has the SR22T been mentioned? Or will it not do 200kts without oxygen.

I would be concerned with planning any 800nm with passengers without pressurization or FIKI.

Those are long trips and most likely going to include changing weather. It would stress me out to commit to others to take these trips. I really struggled with a non pressurized non Fiki plane to do 600nm trips and had to cancel a lot of them.


So just because a plane can do the mission VFR I don’t think I would expect that trip to happen all the time. I look back at my VFR days and that was the most stressful and dangerous time of my life.


Mike