I’ve read a lot of the prior discussions here about moving up from piston singles to twins and eventually into turboprops or jets. One recurring theme seems to be that many owners who did make the jump wish they’d done it sooner.

I’m at a point where I’d really value hearing why people ultimately justified that move, especially those who were initially on the fence.

My situation, briefly:

Multi-rated, I have a 18 month old and another one on the way, so dispatch reliability, weather capability, and fatigue matter more than they used to in my Lancair flying days.

Typical utilization would likely be ~100-150 hours/year

I value redundancy and all-weather confidence, but don’t (yet) have nonstop, constant long-range travel needs outside bi-monthly trips from KC to Florida.

I recognize that the step up to turbines or jets brings a meaningful increase in fixed costs, insurance and maintenance in particular, which often makes far more sense at 200-300+ hours/year. At 100-150 hours, those costs can be harder to justify on paper.

Where I’m feeling conflicted is mission coverage.

For example, something like a Baron would be an easy and familiar step (got my twin rating in a 58), but a regular Kansas City-to-Clearwater trip quickly becomes a long day, fine solo, but probably not something I’d routinely do with my family. That raises the concern that certain piston twins may not actually accomplish all of my flying, which in turn could reduce utilization and push more trips back to the airlines.

One of the things I’m trying to understand from those with experience:

Was recognizing those kinds of limitations a catalyst for you to move up?

Was there a specific aircraft where 800-1,000+ NM trips still felt worthwhile versus flying commercial?

I also expect business travel needs to grow over time, and of course a more capable aircraft would probably encourage more quick trips. I have customers throughout the country, but don't visit them as often as I could. If strong business travel demand existed today like I anticipate it will more a few years from now, this decision would probably be a no-brainer. What I’m wrestling with is whether to step into something more limiting now and wait until the need clearly justifies a bigger jump, or move sooner into a more capable airplane and grow into it.

On paper, aircraft like a well-equipped B58 or a pressurized (great for the family) Aerostar seem logical and would fit my current hangar. At the same time, I keep seeing discussions around aircraft like the MU-2, which opens a very different set of considerations.

I realize many threads devolve into justifying one airplane over another. I do welcome specific aircraft opinions, but I’m just as interested in the thinking behind the decision, what ultimately tipped the scales for you?

Appreciate any perspective from those who’ve stood at a similar fork in the road.

While some will say that it doesn’t matter, knowing your experience level and flying background will help.

I see you said Lancair, but that can mean a few things.

Clarification will help others chime in for a comparison to their step up path.

Brad

Thanks Brad,

I have just over 1000TT, that consists primarily of Lancair Legacy, 360's, Bonanzas, Cirrus, and a 58 baron.

Also worth noting, I'm an A&P and can do a lot of my own maintenance, but doesn't necessarily mean I want to be working on my plane all the time.

I was in a fairly similar situation about 1998. I had an instrument rating and a Turbo Lance. I lived in the Carson Valley NV and worked as a securities analyst. I flew to San Jose, Boise and Southern California several times a week to visit companies. I really had to be there or lose my credibility. The 1997-98 winter was a big one in the Sierra with 66 feet of snow at Lake Tahoe. I was regularly getting stuck on the west side of the mountains due to weather.

I bought a MU2 over the phone from a motel room in Sacramento. I had 400hrs total time and no multi rating. A week later I had 7hrs in an Aztec, a multi rating and was on the schedule at Flight Safety for MU2 initial training. I met the broker in Tulsa and we flew around the Midwest for a couple days then we went to Houston where Flight Safety’s MU2 simulator was located. About a week later I flew home in the airplane with an instructor (the final portion of the training is in the plane). Then I was on my own. Initially I flew at least every other day and got comfortable pretty fast. I flew 250-300hrs a year and did a recurrent every 100hrs until Simcom bought the training program and moved the simulator to Orlando.

I think this is doable by most pilots providing they have enough money. It is also important to be realistic about how much you will be flying once you are going 300kts. 150hrs is about 900nm a week.

My experience (3 MU2s and an Aerostar 602P/700) is that the operating cost is about the same for a turboprop and a pressurized piston twin but the turboprop is much faster, has a bigger cabin, more reliable and just all around superior to a piston twin. That said, you HAVE to get regular recurrent training, you HAVE to go the specialized service centers (which may be distant). Obviously, purchase price, insurance cost will be higher

I always self insured Hulls, both boats and planes. If you need to insure the hull, make sure you can get coverage and under what terms before you are committed. I’ve heard of 100hrs dual being required before getting coverage for single pilot operations but I have no personal experience.

In my experience which seems to be almost universal on BT, is that any plane you buy will require “catch up” maintenance pretty much no matter who maintained it previously. Best not to do this more times than you have to

If you can go 300kts, it’s always going to be preferable to fly yourself provided you aren’t planning to get there at 8am and depart at 6pm.

Keep in mind that to make that 1000nm trip nonstop westbound in the winter is going to require a lot more than 1000nm still air range.

Looking forward to hearing what you decide

Almost any turbine powered airplane will have a better dispatch record but that comes at a pretty steep cost. If your main mission is 1000nm frequently something like a TBM or Piper M500 would make a lot of sense. But if that's something you'd fly just a couple times per year and the rest of your trips are short enough that a Baron could do the job in 3-4 hours or less it would cost a lot less both from CapEx and operational perspectives. Keep in mind that pretty much anything turbine powered will require significant initial and recurrent training, both of which cost time and money.

FWIW, I think a 58P or Cessna 340 (two of the least expensive pressurized twins) should be able to make that KC to Clearwater trip non-stop under most conditions.

About 25% of my trips require one fuel stop and that includes destinations like Salt Lake City UT, Sarasota FL, and Seattle WA. My family is usually fine with multi leg trips as long as no leg exceeds 3.5-4 hours. This kind of trip does pretty much eat up a whole day but I'm almost beating the airlines unless there's a non-stop option and we can bring whatever we want including pets, sports equipment etc.

The rest of my trips are only one to two hours on the average and even the fastest turboprop single wouldn't make a significant difference from start to finish.

I have just over 1000TT, that consists primarily of Lancair Legacy, 360's, Bonanzas, Cirrus, and a 58 baron.

Also worth noting, I'm an A&P and can do a lot of my own maintenance, but doesn't necessarily mean I want to be working on my plane all the time.[/quote]

1000TT is a decent amount of experience. I wanted a larger more capable aircraft as well. I had a P210R for the previous 4 years. With about 1200TT and "0" multi. After talking with some of my trusted aviation advisors about various piston twins, they told me to skip the piston twin phase and go to a twin turbine. After much searching, I found a 1981 Piper Cheyenne I with low time engines. 10 months and 215 hours into the journey, it has been a great experience. Insurance decided I needed 30 hours of dual and an insurance check out. 5 straight days of flying across the east coast was a great way to start. After that, I made sure I flew every week. Went ahead and finished my multi commercial in December.

Flying a twin turboprop is great fun, but a pretty big responsibility. As has been previously stated, training is very important. I feel very safe flying my family around in this airplane, but I want to be the best pilot I can. The cost of JetA no longer bothers me. It is just one ingredient of the cake. Insurance, maintenance and training are another part of this mix. The only reason everyone is not flying one of these is very simple - money.

Flying my family in bad weather in my pressurized piston single started to feel less safe to me. I get a better feeling with two PT6's in front of me. This will be a good plane to fly about 200 hours a year. Would still work at 100 hours a year, but it is too much fun to fly.

If you have a place to keep it and can afford the cost, I say go turbine.

Cooper

If you get a turbine, you won't be working on the plane all the time. Most of them don't see a shop between scheduled inspections. In 5 1/2 years of MU2 ownership (two different aircraft) I have had two unscheduled maintenance events, and one of them was my fault. The biggest advantage of turbines over pressurized piston twins comes with dealing with weather, especially icing. Since your climb rate is higher your exposure is less and this was a big factor for me since I live in Oregon. This also means you will fly higher and not struggle to get there. Turbocharged piston engines tend to run hot at their maximum altitudes where a turbine isn't stressed at all and is at its most efficient. I always cruise at FL260-280 since the fuel burn is lower and range is greater. The planes don't use vacuum pumps for deicing boot inflation which is huge since vacuum pumps aren't terribly reliable and tend to fail at the times you need them most. If you have an engine running, you have bleed air and this provides boot inflation, inlet heat and pressurization. The MU2, unlike most turbines was designed from the start as a turboprop and this is why it is more efficient and faster. Maintenance is easier as well, for example removing an engine on an MU2 takes an hour or so. To get something like an Aerostar to go as fast as it can you have to really push the engines pretty hard and my impression is most folks don't fly an Aerostar at 260KTS and don't go as high as the plane can go because it takes too long to get there. My MU2 will average over 1000fpm climbing to FL280 from sea level and be climbing at much higher rates when lower. You would do that routinely in an MU2 when you want maximum range. 300KTAS is available if you want to burn the fuel and the engines aren't stressed doing that. Jet A with contract fuel is less expensive than 100LL, sometimes a lot less expensive. t my home field today contract JetA is $4.05 while 100LL is $7.55. Your fuel cost per mile vs a pressurized piston twin will be pretty close since you are burning more fuel, but you are also going faster, and the fuel is less expensive. At 260KTAS my fuel burn is ~60gph at altitude, it goes to ~75gph at 300KTAS. 6.0 pressurization is wonderful and you don't feel fatigued on long trips since your cabin altitude is around 8000ft. The planes are just more capable and reliable than a pressurized piston twin. Coast to coast eastbound is a one stop trip in 8-9 hours flying time depending on the winds. I do need two stops coming back westbound and usually make three since we have family in Kansas City. You do have to do recurrent training annually in an MU2 and I view this as a good thing. Insurance would likely require it in other turbines as well. Training matters and since it became required in the MU2 it is among the safer turbines flying. You asked about why get a turbine.....well I finally have an aircraft my wife likes! End of story

Jeff Axel
N54PC

Just realized you are in Kansas City, 170 miles from Intercontinental Jet in Tulsa, the MU2 factory service center. Something to consider.

A couple quick thoughts as a pilot and a dad.

1. Without knowing more about your history, you sure sound ready to fly a turbine. In many ways, flying a turbine is easier. So I think it's more a cost consideration for you. Things happen faster and you have to learn a few more things about weather, SIDs, etc., but that's about it. I transitioned to a TBM 900 from a Cirrus after about 350 hours, and while I sure benefited from mentor time, I was ready. After years flying a TBM, my growing family (2 toddlers 14 months apart, and two medium dogs) drove me to a Piaggio. Which brings me to...

2. Flying with young children can be tricky. If you can, I would definitely prioritize a cabin that works without noise protection for the very young. My TBM wasn't it (Piaggio is). Once kids are two or so, you can entertain them with an iPad and they will keep headphones on, but before that, it can be very tricky. Pressurization is also a big benefit. Also, think through the logistics of your wife caring for two kids in a cramped space while you pilot an airplane, prep it, and put it away. Though I had the complexity of two dogs and two under two, I couldn't have made that work without either a safety pilot or a nanny. I opted for the safety pilot route, as he can do preflight and postflight and also fly the plane in cruise if my help is needed. If you don't plan to use a SIC, I would give heavy weighting to the speed with with you can pre and post flight the plane as well.

Both my TBM and the Piaggio felt very worthwhile on 1000nm trips. The Piaggio is so comfortable, I prefer it transcon to the airlines.

Having real ice protection, the ability to top weather, and the reliability of a turbine (or two) really makes dispatch high, possibly higher than the airlines.

That's not a difficult standard to meet.

The airliner (plane) is reliable. The airline (company) is not.

I think this boils down to how much safety can you afford.

For Piaggio money, I'd consider a Citation, say 501. Burns more fuel, but a lot less to invest and easier/cheaper to maintain. Overall, cost per mile is probably less than the Piaggio for the 100 hour/year operator. The LUMP really eases inspections costs.

If not Piaggio money, then MU2 is an option. Noisier, more challenging to fly, but high performance. Very reliable.

Conquest I or II are decent, the II would be my choice. King Air is too much money to go that slow.

The SETP like TBM and Pilatus are expensive. They are for twinphobics with money to burn.

There is no such thing as a "premature" turbine transition. The only thing you will hear is why didn't it happen sooner.

Mike C.

From someone that flies a piston twin (Twin Bonanza):
If you can afford the turbine, go turbine.

Don't get me wrong I love my airplane, but if I had the finances to be flying something faster, safer and more reliable I would do so. Who wouldn't? (okay that's a loaded question, there's plenty of folks around here flying bonanzas that cost more than a turboprop )

IMO those people saying you have to work your way up are only saying that because that's what they did as finances allowed. If you have the money to skip the piston twins there's no disadvantage to doing so IMO. Yes things happen faster, yes you'll have to learn your sids and stars, and be prepared for ATC to treat you as a professional. IMO all of that is outweighed by the increase in safety of having turbine engine(s).

I went from T210 to MU2.

The MU2 was my first twin, pressurized, cabin class, known ice, turbine airplane.

Yes, the transition will be harder the more you bite off, but that is transitory and you will be further ahead than making baby steps. Get good training (in a sim and in airplane), have a good mentor, be careful, and you can do it.

T210 to Citation would be even easier. The actual flying isn't the hard part, the systems knowledge and emergency procedures are the major work, but most of that is book study actually.

Mike C.

I went from T210 to MU2.

The MU2 was my first twin, pressurized, cabin class, known ice, turbine airplane.

Yes, the transition will be harder the more you bite off, but that is transitory and you will be further ahead than making baby steps. Get good training (in a sim and in airplane), have a good mentor, be careful, and you can do it.

T210 to Citation would be even easier. The actual flying isn't the hard part, the systems knowledge and emergency procedures are the major work, but most of that is book study actually.

Mike C.

2 long trips a month makes a turbine sound enticing. One thing with turbines is that you need to leave behind piston speak.

You don't get the same fatigue per hour of flight and much less per mile with less vibration and pressurization in the turbine

Fuel stops are much easier. A typical profile is descending and climbing at 1500 fpm (average). Can do more usually if yo want or need. No complicated rituals to get the engine to start after a refuel. as long as you let the engine cooldown sufficiently, a turbine always starts the same exact way. Cold, warm or hot (within reason).

The reason I mention that is that regular non-stop 1000 nm trips requires a plane with around 1400 nm no-wind range. Fuel stops are easy, but 1000 nm day in and day out, you are in M600/700, TBM, or larger twin turbine territory.

Enroute weather planning is dramatically easier. although your route is convection central, you have to understand radar, convection and when to stay on the ground or go around. Traversing cold fonts and flying afternoons on that route require a lot of knowledge and experience.

You will travel more and go more places because the travel is so much nicer, faster and easier. About the only time I fly airlines is when the plane is in annual.

Most will die with too much money in the bank. Nobody dies and thinks, I wish I would have just had fewer good memories Flight level travel opens up chances to make memories.

Your first conversation should be with your insurance agent. You'll likely find that either (1) you can't get insurance or (2) the premium will be out of this world.

I put a lot of lower time, well selected pilots in single and twin turboprops in a 135 environment years ago and I watched them like a hawk. 100 hours of IOE was our normal requirement for the twins, and that's for a pilot flying five days a week.