Yeager Penman!

This x2.

My company is strictly ortho docs. We fly a lot. Started with a privately owned Cessna 182RG flown by a local private pilot in the 70’s. Then bought a Bonaza flown by the same pilot. Eventually graduated to a Baron flown by our first corporate pilot in the early 80’s. Engine failure on takeoff handled well by pilot freaked out doc in back...plane traded on new C90A in ‘85. We now have 8 docs and 4 C90A’s including the first purchased (now with Blackhawk conversion and 3 full time plus one part time pilots). The King airs all have G600 panels and have been a very safe and reliable means of transport. They guzzle 65,000gal of Jet A/year and don’t fly particularly fast, but they are quiet with large cabins and can get in and out of short rural strips for our clinics much better than jets. We charge ourselves around 1100-1200/hr because they can cost around $55K per year each due to very expensive parts and calendar and hourly maintenance that’s pretty demanding on the phase inspections. I’m the only doc that flies myself to clinics and for my personal and business transportation I chose to operate an MU-2. It’s 70kts faster than the C90’s and the engine is 30% more efficient. But my partners love the King Airs and they have provided very good service.
I’d have the OP’s spine surgeons take a look at the runways they need to visit. It may be that a jet would have a hard time on a hot summer day. That is certainly what we found when looking at replacing the turboprops with a jet over the years. A King Air would make a great choice if the owners will always ride in back.

Post #2 on this thread I said tell them to charter. Let them work out a deal with a local charter company or they can go fractional.

Or let them retain a pilot or Management company and work with them on what aircraft is best. Starting with what plane to buy is the wrong question.

Nor, to my knowledge are Chuck or I speaking out of the fear of the unknown. I do see quite a bit of lack of accounting of all the issues involved but perhaps that's just my opinion. I did not mean to give offense though it aapears offense may have been taken. Perhaps we can agree to disagree...

The OP asked for opinions and he has certainly received quite a few. It will be up to him and his friends to determine which make the most sense to them. I think, in the long run, that they will be better satisfied with a newer aircraft even if the costs are higher initially with lower operating expense. Safety is primarily due to the pilot(s) so perhaps the really important issue is finding the best of that breed available.

Not entirely accurate. The 12 could meet all of the requirements under normal attitudes and power settings and under such conditions, has benign stall characteristics. The reason it could not be certified without a pusher was that it could not meet the requirements at high power (>75%) and high nose up conditions which it stalls at 45kts. It does not have the aileron authority to stop rolling in those conditions and a pusher was the best way to solve the issue. The videos you see on YouTube of the test pilots are in the extreme stall conditions.

Aviation 101: Don't stall.

Not entirely accurate. The 12 could meet all of the requirements under normal attitudes and power settings and under such conditions, has benign stall characteristics. The reason it could not be certified without a pusher was that it could not meet the requirements at high power (>75%) and high nose up conditions which it stalls at 45kts. It does not have the aileron authority to stop rolling in those conditions and a pusher was the best way to solve the issue. The videos you see on YouTube of the test pilots are in the extreme stall conditions.

You did yours in Flight Safety? It does teach you to respect the pusher!
We do some pretty extreme maneuvers in our flying (rwy 28 go-around at TFFJ), and our SOP is to let the pusher push you to ground if needs to be, it's safer than to let it stall.

I agree that charter may very well be the way to go, but not because they are non-pilots. There is a huge segment of turbine aircraft owners who are non-pilots. I suspect you may have an impression of aircraft ownership based on your own experiences. The reality is that if you get much bigger than a PC12 most of the owners are not pilots... or if they are they don’t fly the airplane they own.

It’s easy to focus on small aircraft and turboprops and forget that there’s a whole big jet world out there with professional crews at the controls.

These guys may start out in a $750k aircraft today and have a $7.5m aircraft ten years from now. Why would you want to exclude them from aviation? If being a pilot was a requirement for aircraft ownership, Gulfstream, Bombardier and Citation would all be out of business.

I agree that charter may very well be the way to go, but not because they are non-pilots. There is a huge segment of turbine aircraft owners who are non-pilots. I suspect you may have an impression of aircraft ownership based on your own experiences. The reality is that if you get much bigger than a PC12 most of the owners are not pilots... or if they are they don’t fly the airplane they own.

It’s easy to focus on small aircraft and turboprops and forget that there’s a whole big jet world out there with professional crews at the controls.

These guys may start out in a $750k aircraft today and have a $7.5m aircraft ten years from now. Why would you want to exclude them from aviation? If being a pilot was a requirement for aircraft ownership, Gulfstream, Bombardier and Citation would all be out of business.

We have a client in a CJ1 right now that has two partners in the airplane, they put in more than $250k each... but not that much more. They are not only well capable, but they are having a blast!

There seems to be an assumption that none of these guys have owned an aircraft before, but I did not get that from the original post.

Chip..... you missed the part of my post about “being Bill Gates”.

If your budget is $750k and you splitting that with 2 other non pilots you don’t know what you don’t know. You’re gonna get smoked.

There’s a great deal of “hierarchy” in the “for pay” pilot community. Bill Gates gets the cream of the crop. The 3 guy splitting the $750k turboprop get the crook and a plane that needs a lot of attention they will never understand.

I know lots of non pilots that own gulfstreams and I know pilots that own gulfstreams. I think they’re on a pretty level playing field as both “need” a staff to run the plane. That’s not the same animal as the non pilot that owns the old Lear 31 and hired some guy “coming up” to run it for him. That guy is getting over billed every day.

You are right that owners often get screwed, happens every day and not just to non pilots. I have seen really smart, experienced owners get taken to the cleaners.

In this case I don’t think the solution is for them to avoid aircraft ownership, they just need a good manager.

There are many reasons to own an airplane. Saying you do, is a big one.

$750k owners won’t get a “good manager”. They’ll get a kid or some flunky working 9 other non pilot owners who will be gone in 3 months.

These guys need to buy a fractional in Planesense and enjoy themselves.

I have non pilot friends call me all the time asking advice because some broker is trying to convince them to buy a 15 year old G200 and put it in a charter program and they’ll make money on the deal and fly the plane free blah blah. The first question I ask is “how many hours a year does the plane need to be chartered out for you to break even?” The reply usually is “400 hour. The next question I ask is “do you want the G200 available to you when you want to go”? Of course the answer is “yes”. “Then you’re gonna be really unhappy when it’s not available”. And...... it’s not gonna get chartered out 400 hours a year either. They’re gonna keep sending you bills.