The TBM is at the top of the single engine turbine category. The Mustang is at the beginning of the twin jet category.
Both are fantastic planes with different missions.
Better to compare what capability you get spending 3-4 million. The TBM might not look so good then.
Snoopy wrote:
The TBM is at the top of the single engine turbine category. The Mustang is at the beginning of the twin jet category.
Both are fantastic planes with different missions.
Better to compare what capability you get spending 3-4 million. The TBM might not look so good then.
Exactly.
If I remember correctly the costs for flying Mustang is about twice the PC12 … ok, if money doesn’t matter …
denopa wrote:
The Cirrus jet will change that conversation because people who would not look at the Mustang will check the Cirrus, and then the value of the Mustang will be much clearer.
The Eclipse500 didn’t change conversation in the end either.
Jason, have you been disappointed with your C510 in any way?
Have you succeeded in entering performance data in autorouter? If yes could you share ?
What where you looking for when you decided to change?
More speed, range or comfort? A bathroom? Where you ashamed of flying the smallest jet of the apron 
?
If I remember correctly the costs for flying Mustang is about twice the PC12 … ok, if money doesn’t matter …
You are right, but you can have your C510 operated by an air carrier.
You can’t have a TBM operated by an air carrier, although it’s now allowed to fly under part CAT with a single turboprop aeroplane, operational constraints are such that it doesn’t seem to be a viable option.
Digression 1
I know that several companies fly clients under part NCC through an ad hoc legal arrangement to circumvent part CAT requirements, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable with any of them
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1448739/Carrefour-billionaire-named-as-air-crash-victim.html
http://www.webtimemedias.com/article/hostelry-death-diane-barriere-desseigne
and of course Emiliano Sala
Digression 2
Companies operating single turboprops aeroplanes under part CAT must demonstrate that for each flight, an airport is accessible in case of lost of power almost at any time during the flight.
So they have to train their pilots to make approaches and landings without power, and without external visual reference. What technique can achieve that?
dejwu wrote:
If I remember correctly the costs for flying Mustang is about twice the PC12 … ok, if money doesn’t matter …
That isn’t correct. Do you have any data to back it up?
Piotr_Szut wrote:
Jason, have you been disappointed with your C510 in any way?
Have you succeeded in entering performance data in autorouter? If yes could you share ?
It is what it is. A very light jet – but not in the way that the Eclipse or Cirrus are. It isn’t the fastest out there of course, but it is very comfortable and its range is perfect for Europe. The cabin feels very large compared with a SE turboprop excluding the PC12 (but that is slow). It is not ideal for crossing the NAT but better that single engine anythings.
I have a proper toilet now but still don’t let anyone use it.
Achim has Mustang data in Autorouter.
I needed substantially longer range. I can now do Canada to the UK direct and tanker fuel to Germany. But for travel around Europe the Mustang is a great aircraft.
The basic thing is that if you fly recreationally (as well as possibly for business) and want to go to places like Zell am See and you want to fly at FL300 or so, and all over Europe in one leg, there are only few options and a TBM is a good machine for that, with a good build quality.
A Jetprop gets you close to that capability, for about half the running cost and a much lower purchase cost (not comparing like for like of course since a TBM can be bought new).
If you fly mainly for business and your operations profile places you between decent size airports then a jet cannot be beaten.
There is some overlap e.g. a CJ4 gets airborne in 300-400m and stops in a similar distance (I’ve been in one doing that). But that’s not a low-end jet…
For many, the consideration is paperwork (licensing) and you could get into an N-reg TBM with just a PPL (and an IR practically speaking), no extras, and you hired a co-pilot to teach you how to fly it and accompany you on trips, for the first year or so. For many TBM owners I have known, this was how they worked. This translates to a much better accessibility. That’s why I did the FAA route, starting in 2003. It’s an argument like the FAA IR versus JAA/Euro IR… “everybody” can do the latter, like “everybody can do the 14 ATPL exams”, but that’s missing the point for so many individuals who are cash-rich and time-poor and are willing to pay to minimise the crap in their lives.
In fact “crap minimisation” is a major activity among self made millionaires; most of them don’t throw money around for fun but most of them will throw it at something which makes their lives simpler.
JasonC wrote:
That isn’t correct. Do you have any data to back it up?
I do, it was a business plan TCO calculation to decide for an enterprise. On the projected use for traveling Europe it was almost exactly twice. The project was never realized though, they went for on demand with NetJets, solely due to stakeholder management.
dejwu wrote:
I do, it was a business plan TCO calculation to decide for an enterprise. On the projected use for traveling Europe it was almost exactly twice. The project was never realized though, they went for on demand with NetJets, solely due to stakeholder management.
Based on a new aircraft including depreciation?
Peter wrote:
The basic thing is that if you fly recreationally (as well as possibly for business) and want to go to places like Zell am See and you want to fly at FL300 or so, and all over Europe in one leg, there are only few options and a TBM is a good machine for that, with a good build quality.
For many, the consideration is paperwork (licensing) and you could get into an N-reg TBM with just a PPL (and an IR practically speaking), no extras, and you hired a co-pilot to teach you how to fly it and accompany you on trips, for the first year or so. For many TBM owners I have known, this was how they worked. This translates to a much better accessibility. That’s why I did the FAA route, starting in 2003. It’s an argument like the FAA IR versus JAA/Euro IR… “everybody” can do the latter, like “everybody can do the 14 ATPL exams”, but that’s missing the point for so many individuals who are cash-rich and time-poor and are willing to pay to minimise the crap in their lives.
