Hello,

Trying to decide between Cessna 425 Conquest I and a Piper Cheyenne I or II. This decisions depends very much on what examples of these aircraft are available. Obviously a good pre buy inspection is a necessary and important part of buying the right aircraft. Appears that a Cheyenne I or II in good condition will be a bit less expensive to operate over the next 5 or 10 years.

My question arrises from learning about a Low Utilization Maintenance Program (LUMP) for the Cessna 425. It is provided/expedited/approved with the help of Bacon Aviation. Would you purchase an aircraft that is on a LUMP? Would you expect a discount when purchasing? They say the approved LUMP is not transferrable to the new owner. I was under the impression that one could keep whatever maintenance program the aircraft was already on. Maybe this doesn't apply to this particular program since it is not from the manufacturer.

I'm probably only going to fly 150 or so hours a year. I hope that goes up as I try to work less and travel more, but based on previous years of 125 hours or so, 150 seems about right.

I'm looking for insight on LUMPs as well as opinions on these two aircraft. These two models have been selected based on safety, performance, budget and ability to fit in my current hangar in Atlanta, GA (PDK).

I am becoming more familiar with the often "eye-watering" expenses associated with these twin turbine aircraft that are only a few years younger than me. Just want to plan accordingly.

Cooper

Cooper,
do yourself a favor and look into Mitsubishi MU2s. I was a P210 guy like you are when I made that jump 4 1/2 years ago and haven't regretted it. An MU2 will be faster than either of the aircraft you mentioned on less fuel since the Garrett TPE331 is a more efficient engine than a PT6. It has longer service intervals as well. Parts and service haven't been a problem as Mitsubishi still supports the plane even though the last ones were made in 1986. The MU2 is the economy champ of twin engine turbines. There is a factory service center in Aiken, SC. Just something you should consider, I don't regret doing so at all.

Jeff Axel
N228WP

Aside from the maintenance program question, I highly reccoment the " work less and travel more" option.

Cooper, my experience with operating expenses of both a Cheyenne II and a Conquest 425 aligns with your thought that the Cheyenne is likely to be less expensive to operate, maintain, and inspect as required.

In my case under part 135, the difference was substantial. Good luck with your acquisition.

-Ted

Second the mu2 comment. We looked at 425/441 and some commanders as well and decided on the mu-2. Early on still but couldn’t be happier with the decision.

I doubt there's much difference in operating costs between those options.

Just go with whatever fits the mission, maintenance locations, and cap budget.

Don't have info on cost for 425 but have owned and flown a Cheyenne 2 for 3 years now would be happy to answer any questions on it fly just over 200 hours a year. Been great so far goes from inspection to inspection without really anything needed.

I think the reality is all the turbines are pretty darn reliable and bulletproof for the owner operator.

Throw the Citation 501 into the mix. It doesn't cost much/anything more than an old turboprop.

When I talked to Bacon a few years back when we were looking at them for a 441 LUIP, I believe they said for a fee they would transition their program and gain approval for you through your local FSDO. My understanding is, unless you are using the Cessna program on the 425 (and 441 in our case), you will need the FSDO to accept your program.