Mooney_Driver wrote:
is the Meridian so restricted? What kind of runway do you need for it to make sense? Zell am See is 660 m if I understand it correctly.
Obiously mission profiles and safety margins are personal but in my opinion anything shorter than maybe 800m in the Meridian needs some carefull planing and depending on conditions you might have to limit the load. To give a few examples:
- In LOKL 620m with displaced thresholds so officially 560m at 2000ft elevation density altitue maybe 4000ft with no wind with 2 crew and a bit over 1 hour of fuel it will roll maybe 400-450m but I would not be comfortable adding much more load.
- LOWL 660m with the old runway density altitude maybe 4000ft I would not add much more load than above. Since they extended the runway to 750m (with displaced thresholds) we had 2 crew and 800lbs of fuel (a it over 3 hours fuel) and it was comfortable, maybe 550m ground roll. It would get out of there at MTOW but I would not be comfortable doing this.
- Around 900m you can fully load it and not worry too much unless the density altitude is really high.
The climb out over obstacles is no problem. Once it flies no matter which speed it keeps accelerating in the climb. The POH is of no great help as it does not reduce the rotation speed based on weight and thus gives rather long ground rolls at reduced loads.
Sebastian_G wrote:
it is no longer a practical form of transportation when you take off with crew and minimum fuel sufficient for a short VFR flight to the next bigger airport only.
Hello Sebastian,
is the Meridian so restricted? What kind of runway do you need for it to make sense? Zell am See is 660 m if I understand it correctly.
Sebastian_G wrote:
I talked about that jet take off with a local instructor from Courchevel and he told me that it was a one off and the pilot apparently got into some trouble from the authorities later on and the airport no longer takes jets.
Heard exactly the same. One off by a pilot from… oh wait, shouldn’t do that.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And a bizjet even more so. No Zell am See or CourchevelDepends. There have been some Citations up there.
I talked about that jet take off with a local instructor from Courchevel and he told me that it was a one off and the pilot apparently got into some trouble from the authorities later on and the airport no longer takes jets.
I have been to the old runway at Zell am See and also Lienz LOKL with the PA46 Meridian . It works out fine but it is no longer a practical form of transportation when you take off with crew and minimum fuel sufficient for a short VFR flight to the next bigger airport only.
That must be the reason why Pilatus sells so many crazy expensive PC12. Those provide amazing travelling capability out of short runways.
Well, yes, I regularly see a CJ4 bet airborne in about 300m, and I was in it once when it did. It doesn’t need much more than that to stop, either, having really good brakes. But it isn’t a type one would routinely use for 500m runways especially if wet, and loaded.
The $9.6k monthly does change the economics…
Peter wrote:
And a bizjet even more so. No Zell am See or Courchevel
Depends. There have been some Citations up there.
TBM’s go Courchevel all the time.
Actually Courchevel works out for many airplane types not normally associated with a 500m runway. Turboprops go there quite a lot, certainly PC12 and also Jetprops e.t.c. I guess the biggest one there was the Dash 7
I reckon a TBM should also be able to do Zell am See quite easily. There is a Citation 500 stationed at Grenchen airport, which is not that much longer so I wonder if there has ever been a Citation there.
One will not be that current flying a TBM by himself if it is only to fill the 10% gap of a TB20, you can get currency by hiring a oilot to fly it tough
But I agree the same resoning can apply to other stuff on all GA levels: have a cheao microlight or tailwheel aircraft for day local and fun flights, save money for ocassional expensive rent of an IFR tourer for longer trips, yes overall you will fly more hours for the same budget…but it does not work very well due to lack of currency on the high end
Interesting posts. In working out the costings I think you’ve missed the monthly service charge at $9,600 which changes the economics considerably. Your 50 hours including this now comes to $4,266 per hour. Perhaps not so bad if you always fly with five others, but still a lot of money.
I think it is a reasonable comparison to make. From the posts I linked originally I was questioning if stepping up to the bigger toys makes sense financially or even practically. Take Peter’s example (I’m sure he won’t mind)… Should he buy a TBM? He likes flying himself and going places. He already has a very capable plane that is perfect for 90% of the trips he wants to make. He wants to make 100% of his trips so thinks about the TBM so he can go further, higher, faster etc. It would cost loads more than his TB20 AND he can still not do all his trips because the local flights now don’t work and you can’t take good pictures. Buying a TBM would involve lots of time in both initial type training and annual recurrancy; time is money too. So my point was, economically, would he be better off keeping the TB20 and using the money saved to pay for NetJets on the odd occasion to rent that extra capability and save all the extra hassle running a TBM would bring?
Sebastian_G wrote:
Probably NJ sells to aircraft owning companies
Some companies prevents their employees even pilots from flying their aircraft (they usually outsource pilots), so the comparison user+pilot does not make much sense as most of their users will never fly their own aircraft
Big companies will have their own “aviation department” or medium ones will have an “approved aviation provider”, as you mentioned to avoid justifying each trip, NJ is well placed and connected for the latter and sole versus fractional share it is just a matter of hours/year and your budget
For business owner & aircraft owner & pilot, I don’t think this will never make sense financially or emotionally !
A few arguments why it still works:
Aircraft “ownership” comes with a high social status. And the NJ customer can say he owns it…
Buying aircraft comes with incredible tax benefits in the US unknown to us Europeans. Those do not apply to charter.
Having a fixed number of hours is great for management as they do not get a high invoice for every trip. Thus they do not have to justify every trip as they would have to with a charter. Take German manager Middelhoff who got in jail for charter flights. On a NJ hour budget that trial might have ended differently.
Probably NJ sells to aircraft owning companies and not to pedestrians. Then owning just a share sounds like a great deal compared to previously owning the whole airplane for just a few hours each year.
