To pick up on the original question, in my opinion jets like the CJ series are easier to fly in many ways than twin turboprops like the King Air. You need to be very current and proficient to fly either single pilot, normal operations are not the issue, it’s all about when something goes wrong.
There are professional pilots on here with far more experience than me on these aircraft, but for me the King Air is complex and quite hard work on one engine but slows down easily and is consequently versatile in it’s approach and landing phase.
The Citation is much easier in the asymmetric case, and has superior OEI handling and performance. The systems are easier to use. However, like all jets energy management and runway performance needs care, hence the needs for a stabilised approach and a greater emphasis on flying the numbers.
A look at the accident reports confirms this, there are always more runway overruns and the like on jets of all types.
There are professional pilots on here with far more experience than me on these aircraft, but for me the King Air is complex and quite hard work on one engine but slows down easily and is consequently versatile in it’s approach and landing phase.
The great benefit of the turboprops is the the ability to get out of trouble easily with the big brake (or brakes) in front of the engines. It provides flexibility but I agree can lead to sloppy discipline on speeds and approaches because you can always recover it.
The SP jets all suffer from bad range. And JasonC, you travel a lot long distance, I can imagine that will weigh heavily in your decision. The PC12 or the TBM are all really good in this regard, with slight favor towards the PC12. I know a guy here in the US, who regularly does Los Angeles to Atlanta going East nonstop in his PC-12. That’s 1700nm+. That’ll beat any VLJ that will have to stop once in time. And he has a loo too, which most of the VLJ’s don’t.
Here’s his quote:
“Avg TAS 267
Avg GS 289
Total distance 1737NM
Flight time was 6 hours.
Total fuel burn 2350Lbs or 350 gallons
Landed with 350 lbs
Easy flight. Sunshine the whole way. I watched 4 episodes of Breaking Bad. Ate lunch etc.”
EIther way, six hours in an aircraft is not my plan.
One other thing to consider is that obviously due to the maths with a tailwind time differences are reduced. The key advantage of higher cruise speeds is with a headwind. Consider a 1000nm trip with a 50kt headwind.
PC12NG – 4.35 hours
Mustang – 3.57 hours
TBM850 – 3.77 hours
Then with the 100kt headwinds we have had recently here in Europe.
PC12NG – 5.55 hours
Mustang – 4.34 hours
TBM850 – 4.65 hours
Jason, considering the leg length and airspace restrictions in Europe, it seems like the TBM is the clear candidate for you, or do you need the fans to impress? 
I wouldn’t compare the PC12 with the TBM and Mustang. It is significantly larger. However, compared to the PC12, the TBM looks like it was made in China…
Achim, I agree in some senses. The problem with the TBM is luggage capacity and space with 5-6 on board. It is small and same size internally as Meridian.
Servicing costs are also a different order of magnitude.
That’s not really true. I have visited both the TBM and the Pilatus factory for days and the quality is very high in both places. The TBM, while not exactly as well made as the PC-12 is very high quality.
iPhones are all made in China :-)
Achima, you are trivialising a complex decision. There is much more to light jets than just “impressing” people. They are much quieter and smoother for the passengers, faster, fly higher and have better systems. With newer models they are economical and very predictable in terms of maintenance cost; with parts schemes like Proparts and engine plans like TAP.
I have the opportunity to schedule trips using either a CJ2+, cruising at 410kts, or a King Air 250 cruising at 300kts. Which aircraft we use for which trip is usually decided by destination airfield characteristics, and trip distance. Over a trip to Paris, lets say, the B250 wins every time as we can go direct from the UK to Toussus and back without picking up fuel. For Munich we would take the CJ, for time reasons.
All this talk of needing 1700NM range does not affect us, we can do all of Europe non stop and that’s our mission profile. However it is important to get people to our customers, still have sufficient time to do business, and return the same day.
You’re comparing a CJ2+ to a KA 250 here. We were comparing a TBM 850 to a Mustang. Also we were looking at the owner pilot. The CJ2+ is much bigger than the Mustang and carries a lot more fuel. Looking at my mission profile, a CJ2+ or Phenom 300 would be the entry level that would work for me but the cost and the demand on the pilot would rule it out.
Obviously it is good to have both a jet and a turboprop but not a lot of private pilots have that option. I absolutely agree that a CJ2+ has many advantages and the charter market has decided the jet vs turboprop question in favor of the jets mostly.
Sorry for the OT, but
we can go direct from the UK to Toussus
How would you that, when Toussus does not allow non-Schengen arrivals?
