Wow.

$5.82M at 8% per year cost of money is $465K/year.

I can't afford it.

I fly a Citation V instead.

Mike C.

It is not clear to me that managing a newer jet is significantly less work than managing an older jet. The hoops are roughly the same. Inspections, training, insurance, assorted FAA paperwork… it’s all pretty much the same. Maybe the inspections tend to find less issues in the newer plane, but I’ve heard an awful lot of horror stories of new airplanes sitting at Textron for months waiting for… something. Some people make the case newer can be worse in that respect until they’ve gotten through the teething pains. So… I’m not convinced newer means less work to manage.

Let us be a bit more fair and compare same age airplanes.

2003 CJ1 on Controller, $1.7M

So effectively about the same price.

But nowhere near the same experience in speed, comfort, and safety.

Oldest M2 is 2014, $3.6M.

2014 TBM 900 is $3.0 M on Controller.

Not very far apart.


For similar age, capital cost similar.

Operating costs are more for the jet.

Are you willing to publish your actual operating costs per year for your TBM? I keep hearing how expensive TBMs are to maintain and I don't quite understand why that should be.

Mike C.

Thank you for perpetuating this myth that an older jet is hard to manage. It depresses the price of older jets so people like me can afford to get them.

Newer jets are no picnic for managing, either. Limited shops can work on them (sometimes only the factory), parts are almost always factory new for sourcing at great expense, limited upgrade options, engine program lock in, etc. The long AOG issues are almost always the newer jets, not the older ones, like the great intercooler debacle on 525 series. Don't ask a CJ4 owner about their windshield frames if you don't want to see utter frustration.

Meanwhile the older airplane have more shops that can work on them, great used parts sources, and can be Garminized. They also have less onerous inspections and can have those extended under a low usage program. I can also do HSI and fly past TBO, which saves a ton.

Your 1000 nm trip, 4 people, would be doable by a 550, S550, or 560 easily in headwinds. The 500/501 wouldn't do it.
Downside to the older jets is needing SPE for single pilot ops, and needing an emotional adjustment to flying something older. Both issues are manageable.

Mike C.

I've been maintaining this TBM700C2 and a previous one I had with a partner for the last 7 years. I spent less than $7k on special tooling. I've never spent more than $10k for parts each year and most years it is less than $5k (not including avionics upgrades).

My prop is over calender time for O/H, and I have the mechanical fuel pump and hydraulic pumps due this year for O/H. But none of those I have to do this year and I will likely defer the 2 pumps and only do the prop.

The most labor I have spent is about 180 hours last year when I had the 10 year gear inspection due and the vert stab inspection due (gear and stab come off the aircraft). Parts for both of those was less than $3K. Most annuals are 40-60 hours of labor.

Service centers charge high prices for labor and tend to change parts that are still serviceable.

I buy Daher specific parts from the NE Service Center and I have found Daher parts to be very reasonable. The factory does not put a high markup on parts that I can see.

Hangar $1200/mo, insurance $20 for $1.8m hull and $20m smooth liability.

The TBM is expensive to maintain for what it is, I wouldn’t expect it to be less than an M2 at all, other than the engine program cost.

That is based on having a lot of folks operating both TBM’s and M2’s.

Not necessarily.

Citation V at 14,500 lbs, ISA, is 2670 ft takeoff distance. This is with engine failure at V1, no wind, and clearing end of runway by 35 ft AGL (which is about 1000 ft of airborne travel from liftoff). I guarantee the V performance with one engine out is better than your TBM with one engine out! Do you have accel to Vr and stop capability in the TBM in 2700 ft?

At 35 C, you lose 1000 lbs to be on chart, 13,600 lbs. That's enough for 700 nm with 4 people and bags. At 25 C, 14,200 lbs, 1000 nm.

Landing would be no problem under 14,500 lbs, which is heavier than you would ever be. This is with 50 ft TCH, so about 1000 ft of airborne runway flyover, no wind, and NOT using TRs at all. Use a lower TCH, be on speed, and use TRs, you will do fine with ample margins, ground roll half the runway length typically if you use all the features.

The V is an amazing short field airplane. It is, in some ways, better than my MU2 was. It can't land as short as the MU2, but it can takeoff shorter, so the effective runway length capability is improved. The brakes and TRs are amazing.

On rare occasions, you will need an alternate with longer runways. This would be for ice and snow, and sometimes when wet and heavy. KMMU works, but also N51. This need will be rare, maybe one flight a year?

BTW, Larry Ellison's CJ4 operates out of KSQL, 2621 ft long. And they have no TRs.

Mike C.

Not necessarily.

Citation V at 14,500 lbs, ISA, is 2670 ft takeoff distance.

You and me both.

My one and only AOG event was a Skydrol dump from a corroded pin hole in a line. But otherwise, it hasn't been a problem over 5 years. Got no leaks.

I dream one day of making an STC to add a hydraulic pump into the system which you can attach an electric motor on the ground. This would eliminate the mule connections for ground operation of hydraulics. Would only cost about 6 pounds but save a lot of effort and mess.

This would also work for the newer planes, too, which is still a mess even though they aren't Skydrol.

There are "mule on a stick" things where you unbolt an engine pump from the gear case and drive it with a motor, leaving the hydraulic lines attached. I don't really like that idea, but it is another way.

Example:


Mike C.

The Epic starlink mini installation is in an external "hump" fairing. This is disappointing. Heated windshields block the signal, so I'm starting to wonder if the Epic's passenger glass is unheated.

I don’t think that is necessarily true.

Signal seems to get through my heated windshields. Now, the edges are still blocked by aircraft structure around the windows, but it seems to work through the electric heat elements.

But I admit my understanding of the physics of this is limited.

Thank you for perpetuating this myth that an older jet is hard to manage. It depresses the price of older jets so people like me can afford to get them.

Newer jets are no picnic for managing, either. Limited shops can work on them (sometimes only the factory), parts are almost always factory new for sourcing at great expense, limited upgrade options, engine program lock in, etc. The long AOG issues are almost always the newer jets, not the older ones, like the great intercooler debacle on 525 series. Don't ask a CJ4 owner about their windshield frames if you don't want to see utter frustration.

Meanwhile the older airplane have more shops that can work on them, great used parts sources, and can be Garminized. They also have less onerous inspections and can have those extended under a low usage program. I can also do HSI and fly past TBO, which saves a ton.

Your 1000 nm trip, 4 people, would be doable by a 550, S550, or 560 easily in headwinds. The 500/501 wouldn't do it.
Downside to the older jets is needing SPE for single pilot ops, and needing an emotional adjustment to flying something older. Both issues are manageable.

Mike C.

I’ve seen a lot in my over 25 years of experience in aviation, we’ve performed acquisition services for a lot of Citation V’s and we’ve performed acquisition services for a lot of TBM’s…

I have NEVER seen a single purchaser trying to decide between a TBM and a Citation V.

Oranges and orangutans!

Of course.

They were very wealthy individuals. They had substantial annual income and would have no difficulty using the entire tax benefit in a single year.

With state taxes (laws vary of course) it’s not terribly difficult to save nearly half the cost of a new aircraft right away.

Their feeling was rather than write a large check to the government they’d rather cut that in half and use the savings to pay for a new aircraft. They were going to be writing checks either way.

Certainly YMMV. Mine does.

Their tax people were top notch and they knew how to document everything perfectly and take advantage of every legal opportunity.

At times the new jets were purchased green allowing them to take advantage of additional savings.

Other times they’d get a call from a manufacturer’s rep stating a purchaser had just defaulted on delivery of a brand new jet.

Would we like to buy it at a $2,000,000 discount? (Paid for by deposit forfeiture from the previous buyer). The answer was “send detailed photos and specs”. Then the answer was “yes”.

There are many ways to get a great deal on a new aircraft. It starts with having the ability to move quickly and having the income tax situation allowing one to take advantage of the various tax laws.

My only observation was that your cost of capital calculation was overly simplistic as it did not consider the significant tax savings available.

If you prefer you can do all your analyses pre-tax. It’s your decision.

You know some people go to the dealership and they are looking for that perfect expedition, sprinter van, or extended mini-van, and then walk out with a convertible Porche or a G-wagon. Different strokes. I personally would take a free old Citation, but would not want to fly it. I would call a Broker and try to get a down payment on a modern plane. But I don't buy budget cars or budget homes either. I want new, fancy and tech filled. Burn a lot of cash living like that. But I do understand people that want to sit on their money and make a hobby out of being frugal.