Is the Jetprop the right plane for my mission? (and other high performance types)

The Jetprop is a great plane for that mission. I know a few owners and they all get huge value out of it, with really minimal or zero downtime. The owner satisfaction is very high; a mile apart from the general piston GA situation where so many struggle with downtime and other hassles.

If my “ground situation” where I am based was better I would buy one immediately. Well, I still enjoy low level flying and getting pics, and that is the one thing you lose with any turbine with a pressurised hull, except that an external camera obviously still works. I have met one JP owner who had a nicely mounted one under the wing.

This aircraft is for sale, Doug Jackson on the Cessna 300/400 Facebook page.

@Peter
Thank you for the input. I agree with you about low level/scenic flight. But I can still do this from time to time with a rental aircraft.

@HBadger
The aforementioned plane has a space in a hangar in Geneva. While not the closest airport it still convenient for me.
And taking off from LSGG, it is not mandatory to land at a customs airport at destination if you remain within Schengen area.

Xlr8tr wrote:

Doug Jackson on the Cessna 300/400 Facebook page

Where?

Texas

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/224343875886783/

rschris wrote:

I can still do this from time to time with a rental aircraft.

Once you get into ownership , it will be a difficult big sidestep to rent a lesser aircraft you are no longer familiar with. Realistically you’ll be happier wasting a little jet-fuel low-level flying in your Jetprop, if it comes to it.

HBadger wrote:

and reliable as the jetprop

Yes, the 340 is a difficult aircraft to maintain, but a nice cruiser for six people, much more space-comfortable for pilots than the Jetprop.

A Jetprop is much easier to maintain reliably than a 340, but it can still be done if you find the right shop.

boscomantico wrote:

In fact, what you are looking for (turbine, pressurization, decent cruise speed, short/grass field capability, moderate capex and opex) does not exist.

I agree. Went through a similar thought process and ended up with a B36TC as a compromise. It leaves me with room for future upgrades, like >190 lbs useful load increase and TKS. Dispatch reliability is important for me. I had considered the Malibu Mirage, but was turned off by these citations from owners and reviewers:

Cons:

• Low maneuvering speed in the mid-130s KIAS at gross, decreasing as the airplane gets lighter.
• Anyone contemplating buying one should be ready to pay what we consider to be substantial maintenance bills, with the reward being fast cruise speeds above the weather in pressurized comfort and with reasonable payload.
• With the introduction of the Piper Mirage, some of the quirky systems were addressed. The hydraulic system was improved, the engine cooling system was redesigned, the cabin door was improved, the seats were strengthened and the flaps were changed from hydraulic to electric operation. (Actually, some of the later Malibu models got the electric flaps and improved hydraulics for the gear.)
• It gained a reputation as a problem airplane. The engine and systems were finicky to operate, and dispatch reliability ranged from barely acceptable to just awful for some years.
• Even ardent supporters of the airplane admit that it requires frequent and ongoing maintenance. Owners emphasize the value of having a knowledgeable maintenance shop doing routine and ongoing work on the airplane. The Malibu is not an airplane that just any shop can fix and we don’t recommend bringing one to a shop without PA-46 experience

Pros:

• Cabin and cockpit noise are on the low side as GA airplanes go
• Comfortably carry four people and baggage with full tanks yielding a nonstop range of about 1000 to 1200 nm. Useful load is 1300lbs.
• Typically of 220 knots at FL230-250 at 75 percent power burning 18.8 GPH, or 11.7 nm/gal.
• Excellent glide rate.