My point is that a phase inspection, or annual, or maintenance, will not be the same for a plane owned by one owner that flies 150hrs per year, vs a syndicate that flies 450hrs per year. The syndicate will have considerably more expensive annuals. Will they be 3 times as high? Perhaps not, but they’ll easily be twice as high. Most things on turbines are time based, so there’s not great economics of scale to be had.
Purchase price of course, but that I considered outside this discussion. I could just as well make a good case for buying a Silver Eagle – third of the cost of a TBM, but certainly not a third of the performance.
I could just as well make a good case for buying a Silver Eagle – third of the cost of a TBM, but certainly not a third of the performance.
Sure, but that takes us back to the issues with an “old” plane. Also, some will say, one not exactly designed for a turbine.
Not 1/3 of the performance; I agree. But a TB20 is not 1/3 of the performance of a TBM either. Well, on rate of climb it is 
Speed is 1/2, ceiling is 2/3. But that’s meaningless.
Somebody would happily argue that an Aztec can bore a hole through any wx which a TBM or a jet can fly through or more likely above. An Aztec can reportedly carry 10cm-15cm of ice. And you can buy an Aztec for under 20k. Does this mean anything? No.
It’s the extra bit on the end of the capability line which makes the difference. And you have to pay a fair bit for that extra bit. It’s one of the frustrating things about aviation.
The avoidance of syndicate hassle is why you have to
a) follow the factory maintenance programme, preferably with a computerised maintenance management programme
b) have a “power by the hour” style engine plan
c) agree that any defect will be fixed
We do that on our company aircraft anyway, and we don’t believe we pay any more for our aircraft ownership over those who leave no corner uncut.
When a serious aeroplane is sold the pre-purchase inspections are very thorough, and anything deferred ends up being done for the sale. Buyers inevitably reject any deviation from the manufacturers programme, and insist it’s done for the sale to proceed.
We prefer to have the benefit of a fully maintained and working aircraft throughout our ownership.
I disagree.
Split between three owners and I suspect even then the number of hours flown a year will be relatively small, therefore I doubt the annual maintenance costs will be significantly higher – ok if the owner profile does not fit it is a different matter, as might be the case if one owner was using the aircraft extensively for business in Europe.
You might be surprised even with an SR22 in a well synidicated and well off owners group how relatively little the aircraft is used.
I agree that TBM is a step up from an Aztec, which is a step up from a TB20. There are plenty of occasions you would take the Aztec and not the TB20, and plenty of occasions you would take the TBM and not the Aztec, albeit the Aztec would cope, but not in comfort, whereas the TB20 would be a positive danger.
I think there is a huge gap betweent the two in terms of capability and, perhaps more importantly, comfort.
BTW I had a quick look for some numbers and
http://www.n700vv.com/costs.php
while US $ based and iI am not certain how old these numbers are, it would be interesting to see how far apart this is form a current UK scenario.
I wouldn’t call an early 700 new either. You’re probably going to have to sink $100K into a panel update straight out of the gate to attract the fickle “new” crowd who only want to see glass. A single steam gauge in sight sends them screaming for the hills. 
A 700 is fine with usually reasonable glass and systems. It isn’t G1000 but many people cope without that. Adam, pot calling the kettle black no regarding “newness”?
Jason – I’ve never been a proponent of glass for primaries, but I think the crowd who would be interested in this certainly are. It’s the natural step up for the Cirrus crowd. Is that what you were alluding to?
You’re probably going to have to sink $100K into a panel update straight out of the gate to attract the fickle “new” crowd who only want to see glass
It would be the older EFIS-40 model, probably with 2×GNS530W or similar.
G1000 came in with the TBM850. Socata charged $400k for a G1000 in a TBM700
EFIS40 is fine. Unsupported by Honeywell but then so is just about everything else in GA made by them… you buy overhauled parts in the USA.
I would not have essential engine instruments in “glass” either. Too many eggs in one basket.
Peter wrote:
would not have essential engine instruments in “glass” either. Too many eggs in one basket.
Many hundreds of business aircraft fitted with Garmin 1000/3000, Primus, Proline 2, etc, and even more Airbus and Boeing airliners, prove this to be an overly conservative approach, some might say Luddite
Once you get to turbine equipment a change in mindset is required. In general support is better, reliability is better, as well as capability. Unfortunately the costs reflect this.
I’m sure some of the posters on EuroGA who fly for a living can tell us how often they get stranded due to broken down aircraft. In our 20 year experience of operating company aircraft it has never happened to us, although our hours are small compared to AOC ops.
