Then why not fly a PC12 or TBM850? I understand (but am no expert here) that you can take the whole family with all your friends on the trip while still flying reasonably fast and far?
I wouldn't mind longer legs on the CJ1 with 3-4 pax, but that's what the CJ2, 3 and 4 are there for!
Then why not fly a PC12 or TBM850? I understand (but am no expert here) that you can take the whole family with all your friends on the trip while still flying reasonably fast and far?
I've flown the PC12 and the TBM700 and they're both great machines. The fact that they have only one engine - albeit a hugely reliable PT6, is still an issue for some people.
The two advantages of a jet over a turbo prop are speed and altitude.
In a jet you will be able to get up into the high FL300s or maybe the low FL400s and will be above most of the weather. At FL280 in a turbo prob, you will often be bumped around a lot more.
Aren't there other factors in favour of turboprops e.g. no need for a balanced runway calculation even on an AOC operation?
If that is correct, it would dramatically expand the # of places you can go to.
However EASA is now proposing to force the balanced runway for all jets even on private ops, which would wipe out jet ops at (according to AOPA) close to 1000 airports in Europe.
Some bizjets get to FL550 or so, although they are in an, ahem, different price league to the Mustang 
I also hear that as the Mustang is not very fast the controllers tend to put them "out of the way" of regular traffic?
If it was I choice I would have to make .. my choice would be a PC12 over the Mustang anyday..
Huge cabin which seats 6 to 8, cargodoor, supercockpit on the NG and you can land at almost any airport .. including Courchevel etc.
Aren't there other factors in favour of turboprops e.g. no need for a balanced runway calculation even on an AOC operation?
Propeller driven aircraft must also apply a reduction factor to the runway length for commercial operations. Only the factor is different: 60% for a jet and 70% for props. But the single engine tuboprops mentioned above can not operate commercially in this part of the World anyway, at least not under IFR.
The only advantage of a turboprop, fuel efficiency aside, I can think of is that on some airports there are no night flying resrtictions (e.g. at my home base).
But the single engine tuboprops mentioned above can not operate commercially in this part of the World anyway, at least not under IFR.
That restriction is about to fall, there are already AOCs operating on exemptions in Switzerland and Finland. It's quite sad as the best SETs are European products: TBM850 and PC12. Once this restriction goes away, the price of things like Cheyennes will plummet.
Aren't there other factors in favour of turboprops e.g. no need for a balanced runway calculation even on an AOC operation?
If I wasn't certain that I could accelerate to one knot below V1, abort and then stop before the fence at the end of the runway, I'm not sure that I would be happy operating from that runway.
This is one of the few EASA rules which makes absolute sense to me.
If I wasn't certain that I could accelerate to one knot below V1, abort and then stop before the fence at the end of the runway, I'm not sure that I would be happy operating from that runway.
This is one of the few EASA rules which makes absolute sense to me.
This is not an EASA rule! What Peter meant by "balanced field length" is actually "factored field length" (i.e. applying a safety factor to the landing distance stated in the AFM) and was introduced by JAA over ten years ago. Balanced field length is a technique for calculating V1 on takeoff and has been in use worldwide for many decades. BTW: takeoff distances are not being factored, neither by JAA not by EASA.
Taking the price as well into consideration, I get a feeling that flying the TBM850 or a Meridian is cheaper than a Jet? It is just a 'gut feeling'? And yes, I do fly regularly to Courchevel in winter time and can't land there with a jet, but can with the TBM850 or PC12.
