Why does everyone ignore TP twins when they do this comparison? As if there are only TBM’s, PC12’s, or Citations out there. You can run a Turbo Commander/Conquest/King Air B100/MU-2 for much less money than you run a TBM or a PC12. I’m not only talking acquisition here, I’m talking maintenance, engine reserves and fuel burn. The lot.
And if it’s the age of the planes that’s bothering the buyers, well, you can get them to be brand new if you just spend some cash:
@ cirrus_man
I too believe Cirrus is a stable company but their jet is not certified yet and detailed specs are not available: I just would not cut a check to be a guinea pig at this point to risk seeing my multi million dollar airplane grounded while early issues are being fixed. Later when there is a track record maybe. There is enough choice right now to avoid this risk.
On the financial side, I have learned that price is not that important to be honest. If you have borrowing capacity (especially considering today’s interest rates) or available cash, the purchase price is not what matters most: Maintenance, resale and direct costs make the real difference at the end because 30K extra per year to finance a better aircraft is most likely irrelevant in the overall equation. Only the fuel/speed ratio on the SF50 will eat more than 60% of that on a 200-flight hour yearly basis compared with SET. I have owned several airplanes with different profile (Very used to new) and it was an interesting experience.
On the operational side, performance matters to me: I am fortunate enough to fly an airplane that is fast, reliable, robust, with good payload, range, efficiency, access to small fields and continuous improvements. I am therefore less willing to sacrifice any quality. At this point, I find the Jetprop enveloppe too little, the meridian not much better, the TBM perfect until I have too many aboard and then a PC12 becomes a must when that happens.
Paying my own flying, I would not enjoy the current jets as I find them too pricey to operate and would miss small fields such as Courchevel, St Barth, grass or turf.
But again, that is me… some might prefer the thrill of a new product or the appeal of a larger jet. I just like to fly fast, far and efficiently with few restrictions and within my single private pilots skills knowing exactly what it will cost me.
That commander is something sweet!
550 lbs for 7 seats? That is 35 kg per seat. Or 50 kgs per 5 adult seats. Who are they kidding? 550 lb are 249 kgs. That is 2.5 passengers and bags.
That’s 550 lb with FULL fuel, right?
That 560lbs number is the full fuel payload but owners will seldom go for full tanks unless it is single pilot or a couple. (Although me and my wife and three kids plus baggage come in right at about 560lbs but those kiddies are growing and that weight will be going up a lot in the next 5 years as they are 8, 10 and 12 right now)
I believe that the NBAA IFR range of 800 nautical miles will be achieved with a 950 lb payload which is 4 adults plus luggage and that works.
If we start including the 2 child seats (90lbs max each) then I agree that the range might drop to 650 miles but that still works for the south of France.
I believe that Cirrus looked at all Mustang flights in the USA over a 2 year period and found that more than 75% of flights were less than 400 n. miles so it fits the bill for those shorter missions.
It is very hard to speculate, but lets see when the numbers are announced in the next few months.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
I agree that the range might drop to 650 miles but that still works for the south of France.
That is if you start in the North of France …. 
ps: sorry, couldn’t resist
AdamFrisch wrote:
Why does everyone ignore TP twins when they do this comparison?
For the most part, the discussion was about new machines (as the subject is a brand new type), or few years old used ones (still in production with factory support). Which is already apples and oranges. And there aren’t that many TP twins in production. 30+ years is a different ball game. One disadvantage SETs have in this respect, is that they’re generally a newer development. You can’t find a 30 year old TBM or PC-12, they were not manufactured back then.
Putting that aside: With a TP twin, you fall into the same complex soup as with a jet (rules won’t be exactly the same, so it’d require a closer look). The only turbine powered aeroplanes that avoid this are TP singles (with some conditions: <= 5,7 tonnes, <= 19 seats, < 2 pilots, from memory). Is EASA type rating course for a Commander readily available? I don’t think it’s even in EASA’s list of type ratings and endorsements and you can forget about finding an OEB report. King Airs in particular got their behinds kicked by the Pilatus. There is probably a good reason. Ignoring for a moment that a PC-12 (and Kings Airs) is really out of place in this discussion, it’s substantially more expensive and build for a very different mission. Generally, they depreciate faster (Avanti might be an exception, I haven’t looked, but that’s a much more expensive toy; at least you get some speed for carrying that second engine). Granted, that’s not that relevant if the discussion shifts to old machines (actually, it can shift to an advantage as acquisition cost is lower). That’s all I could think of at the moment, there’s probably more.
That’s one nice Commander. (PS: Who thought of putting that expensive standby instrument down there? Makes no sense to me.) When it comes to older machines, I have a weakness for the Falcon 10. One hell of a performer (but expensive to run, of course, like one expects an old jet to be).
Peter wrote:
All the options are severe compromises IF your mission profile includes low level flying (below FL200 ), sightseeing and getting photos. In fact in that case there isn’t a solution with one plane.
Too true.
Martin wrote:
Putting that aside: With a TP twin, you fall into the same complex soup as with a jet (rules won’t be exactly the same, so it’d require a closer look). The only turbine powered aeroplanes that avoid this are TP singles (with some conditions: <= 5,7 tonnes, <= 19 seats, < 2 pilots, from memory).
The EASA regulation was changed last minute to exclude TP twins from the complex regime. The argument was a convincing one: why declare the boring, slow and harmless Cheyenne a complex aircraft and a fast FL310 killer machine like the TBM 900 fall under non complex?
Cheyennes are extremely boring except for the monstrous 400LS. That thing outclimbs, outruns, outflies all other TP’s. Even the Avanti gets it’s ass handed to it by that one, at least in climb. A brute.
Now back on topic – the oldest TBM’s are now nudging on 25 years of age. I’m very happy to hear they have captured the imagination of so many to be still considered new. But they’re not. I think there’s a prevailing mindset assuming them to have less maintenance etc because of this, but that’s most likely a fallacy. A distant friend owns (I think), serial number 7 of a TBM700, so a very early model. Whilst not unreliable by any means, I see him in at the shop as often as I do the 10 year older King Air.
