I will continue the Beechtalk tradition of responding to "Should I buy A or B?" by answering with "C"

A 441 is more comfortable and capable than those options and can be updated with the latest Garmin touchscreens and autopilot. It has about the same fuel burn. I think with 6 people and bags, even though 4 are kids, will get tight in those cabins. I would consider 3 hours the real range limit for any trip with female passengers in an airplane without a toilet. Just about any shop can do your routine work, apart from the engines it's a twin cessna, and there are a couple options out east for your 2/3/D every other year.

Expect to spend $1.5-1.9M. I would plan on putting in the GFC600 ($100k) if it doesn't already have it. The biggest downside for a buyer is they did not make many so there are usually only 1-2 good options for sale at any given time.

If you want safety, comfort, speed, range, with that amount of capital, you can be in a Citation 501 and use the rest of the capital as an investment that pays for all of your fuel. Not an exaggeration.

I modeled out your profile as 50 150nm trips, 12 500 nm trips, and 6 1000nm trips (about 40,000nm total, about 225 hours of a DA62). Came to $125K fuel, 270 knots block, 185 GPH block. The large number of short flights penalizes the jet, but your are still ahead with a lower hull value (which also affects insurance, taxes, market downside risk, etc).

You seem to have a lot of passengers. Do a trial flight in a TBM, M600, and a 501 and have them vote. It will be no contest and they don't even understand the safety aspects of twin jet versus single turboprop. You find out you have a lot more friends when you have a jet, which may be positive or negative depending on your views.

You won't get a Garmin autopilot (at least, not yet) but you can get Garmin everything else like I have.

Also, I'd consider a 441. One of the nicest turboprops out there but a little expensive to get. You are AMEL, so why not have the redundancy of two? Two TPE331 are as cheap as one PT6 (especially the big block PT6 in the TBM). The range of the 441 will open up other uses.

Mike C.

That range is incredible... The M600 sounds like an amazing plane. I wonder why the TBM sells for such a premium give that they serve a nearly identical mission? It seems like it should be the opposite given that the TBM is at least 1.5x to operate in addition to the increase cost of capital. Maybe the extra speed is worth it to those routinely flying longer distances.

Thanks for the details on the 441 service options. I have looked at 441's in the past, but I had assumed service would be difficult in my area. I certainly want to make sure my next plane is easily serviceable at nearby shops (within a 2-3 hour drive). Don't mind having to drop it off at a far away place once or twice a year, but don't want to have to do that for every squawk that may come up.

You know you could pay someone to do that for you, right?

If you only do an operating cost analysis, it doesn't look like a winner.

If you include the true impact of capital costs, a low cost jet can start to make a lot of sense.

Your large passenger loads implies safety is a major factor in your objective. Nothing is safer than a twin jet.


I don't think so. There are a number of twin turboprops which can be operated for similar costs as the TBM, and they cost a LOT less. I could afford to get and run an MU2, but I couldn't afford a TBM.

The 441 is expensive to get, so that negates some of the hull value economic benefits, but it is a fantastic traveling airplane. I would judge it the best turboprop you can get for personal travel. There are a lot of older twin turboprops which can be had for very little money, relatively speaking.


Do not apply piston frequency of maintenance to turboprops. They just don't work that way. My MU2 would generally not need service in between inspections.

I'd be surprised if you can't find a local shop to handle nuisance issues (tire change, bulb out, etc), and then have a good inspection shop nearby. Citations seems to be serviceable almost everywhere.

Finding your support ecosystem is often more important than finding the best fit for the mission.

Mike C.

I think any type is going to have an handful of expert shops that you'll want to go to once every year or two for major inspections, and local shops that can handle most of the routine inspections and repairs. There are some oddball airplanes like the 400LS that I would avoid, but the 441 is not that rare and most of the airframe is similar or identical to other twin cessnas. I previously owned a 340 and like Mike said there is no comparison in maintenance frequency.

A 441 will cost less than a legacy Citation because the gas is significantly less. If you can afford the fuel bill the jet will get you there faster in a quieter cabin.

I'll PM you my cell if you want to chat about anything 441 related.

This is probably not meaningful to you now that the DA62 is in the out basket, but I recall that when the Austro was introduced, Diamond/Austro had a tools and training program for technicians, and my recollection is that it was free other than travel costs. Dunno if it still exists.
-dan

but isn't the 441 nearly double the price of a legacy 501?

but isn't the 441 nearly double the price of a legacy 501?

And I will offer "D" : Turbo Commander. More room than the 441, similar range, better supported.

The 501 is not a particularly efficient airplane. My V gets the same or even better nm/gal for fuel. This is due to flying higher, better wing, and more efficient engine. Being faster in headwinds also helps.

But for the mission mix stated, the 501 is fine. The short range flights dominate, and the smaller engines and lower altitude capability of the 501 make it fit well for that. It can do the 1000 nm trips. It can be had for relatively low cost, and it is single pilot out of the box, plus being under 12,500 lbs, which makes things easier/cheaper in some ways.


Not yet, anyway. Garmin is working on some models, the 501 seems to be not a priority though. I have the SPZ500 which has been working pretty well, but I will upgrade to a digital autopilot when available. Genesys is also working to get the STEC 5000 certified in legacy Citations.

441 can have the GFC 600, so you can be fully Garminized. That would be a very nice setup.


Mentally, yes.

Economically, you pay for the higher hull value all the time, whether you are flying or not. Most of this is lost investment return. An extra $1M in hull cost in Dec 2020 is $574,000 investment you didn't get if you dumped it into an SP500 index ETF. That is more than twice what I have spent for fuel flying my V in that time. So I could have bought a 441 and spent less on fuel, but I would be economically worse off in actual fact.

A nice feature with my situation is that my costs scale with usage. More flying, more cost, less flying, less cost. Capital costs don't. If you don't fly, you are still losing value.

And this doesn't count the direct costs of higher hull value such as higher sales tax on purchase, higher property tax on ownership, and higher insurance premiums for a higher hull value. All of those things add up, too.

And lastly, the higher the hull value, the more market downside risk. I could probably part out my V for near what I paid for it, no chance you can do that for a 441. And, of course, I am enjoying a sizable market upsize right now. I could sell now and have flown it for free. I am sure the market will correct at some point, but for now, that's awesome.

I really tried to buy a 441 before my jet. The prices those things go for is pretty high. Now, they are worth it, very nice airplanes, smooth, fast, long range, etc. The best turboprop going. But the actual total cost of ownership is pretty high.

If I could get a 441 for $700K (what I paid for my jet), I'd have one instead.


If you can't become emotionally comfortable with buying the fuel a jet uses, then don't get one. But that doesn't mean you are flying cheaper than a jet, you are just not aware of what it is costing you.

Mike C.

Potentially triple.

Mike C.

Mike,

What about the "jet tax" fees - ramp, parking, handling, overnight, etc?

Haven't been too bad. Here are my fee totals for the past two years (landing, parking, ramp, etc):

2023: $2988

2022: $3728

This works out to $32.52 per flight hour average. Most of it is overnight parking, ramp fees are usually waived with fuel.

A 501 would escape some fees as it is under 12,500 lbs and that's a common dividing line. For example, an airport might have a landing fee for over 12,500 lbs and not one for less. I don't pay much on landing fees in general.

CAA requires FBO to hold to published fees in their bids, so those are known and can't change in the contract term.

For example, KSRQ, a place I frequent fairly often:

Citation V: $200 ramp waived with 200 gallons, $50/night parking, $46 "airport fee".

Conquest 441: $150 ramp waived with 100 gallons, $50/night parking, $46 "airport fee".

Given I am buying those amounts of fuel anyway (they have a good price on CAA), there's no difference in fees.

Another example, KBFI:

Citation V: $200 ramp waived with 1 gallon, $100/night parking.

Conquest 441: $200 ramp waived with 1 gallon, $50/night parking.

So it costs me $50 more per night for the Citation at KBFI. On the scale of things, that's not too bad.

I'll add KHPN since you are based there:

Citation V: $45 landing fee, $20 facility fee, $350 ramp waived with 250 gallons, $175/night parking.

Conquest 441: $25 landing fee, $15 facility fee, $200 ramp waived with 125 gallons, $100/night parking.

So $25 more each visit and $75 more pre night parking.

The fees are not that high for the light jets because the FBO makes its money on the fuel. In some rare cases, the jet fees were less than the turboprop fees.

Mike C.