You can keep a small aeroplane such as a 182 for picnics at grass strip in the summer and other things you like to do in a small aircraft.
Indeed, but then you end up with two planes and poor currency in both of them 
And 2x the airport politics… which for many is the key challenge in aviation. I was once examining the TBM option and have looked into this quite a bit – e.g. here.
Many TBM went down obviously due to poor pilot training
Well, actually very few TBM have crashed. There have been some, but there is no obvious correlation between “poor pilot training” and the other stuff. Most people who crashed because of pilot error, in a highly capable plane, did so due to poor currency on type, poor knowledge of aircraft systems* etc, not because they didn’t sit a load of exams which in Europe are at least 90% bollox. I know my plane very well but I still found the JAA IR process extremely tedious and totally pointless. Today, except for derogations, the N-reg / FAA PPL/IR route for a TBM has a limited shelf life; most owners are either looking at doing the EASA FCL compliance stuff, or packing it all up.
* This is rarely stated because of the inevitable “elitist” branding in less moderated forums, but a lot of people aren’t bright enough to understand something way beyond a C150, but they may still have the money to buy even a jet. I used to know one exactly such; in the end he climbed all the way back down the ladder, having spent millions. He is still alive however.
All aircraft have their mission. My point isn’t that the Mustang is the best aircraft, but nor is the PC12 or TBM. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. In general I think people underestimate the cost of operating SETPs and overestimate the cost of jets. They also ignore that used jets are essentially cheap compared to TPs from an acquisition price perspective.
Our TBM is now 2,5 y. o. and reached 800 hrs. Some bigger repairs took place recently. All covered under warranty. No extra fund for that. So there’s at least some plus side to buying new and taking depreciation.
Last summer I flew with my wife and kids, complete kitesurfing gear, a bicycle and luggage for two weeks from Ostersund in Sweden to Suwalki EPSU in the Masuria. It is 600m grass and nearest proper airfield is 3h by car. Not many planes can do that and oh, the satisfaction I had!
Flying 1630NM from Easter Island to Robinson Crusoe (900m?). Don’t think a Mustang would do that either.
Courchevel? No.
So it all depends on the mission. If you’re travelling for work around major European cities, I’m sure a jet is comfier, faster, better.
For my recreational use the TBM is still super sweet.
They also ignore that used jets are essentially cheap compared to TPs from an acquisition price perspective.
Used C510 Mustangs are coming down in price and essentially they are moden designs compared to all the old “cheap” jets on offer so far. But the real question for a private owner is how expensive is the maintenance if flown 100h/year with no programms and maintenance on condition? I somehow feel not many people have tried that yet and there is probably no experience yet how this would work out.
It depends on what sort of facility you can assemble.
Most aircraft owners are stuck with some company, or 2 or 3 of them, with variously good or bad or useless people in them… Read EuroGA for a year and you see the endless stories of people tearing their hair our.
It is clearly better in the TP/jet world – probably because there is a lot more money floating around. I was hangared for ~10 years in a TBM/KA service place and I think every time a TBM was “looked at” it was 5 figures, and the cost was rarely questioned. Everything was done per the entire MM, no “Part 91” stuff. Every box was ticked; I saw it.
I know, or used to know (haven’t been there for years) an operation involving two nice jets, not low-end, in the UK, with an A&P/IA “living” in the hangar and maintaining them very tightly. He worked for nobody else AFAIK. Somebody with knowledge assembled this set-up for himself or maybe with 1 other owner.
Probably the worst scenario is an old decrepit jet, or an old decrepit TBM, and having to use a company to look after it.
I visited the Daher TBM factory in Tarbes on a short weekend trip somewhere in September 2015 together with my wife. It was a visit to Tarbes with a factory tour thrown in. I had some experience flying a Jetprop with its owner and looked forward to the factory tour.
What impressed me most about the TBM was the build quality of the airframe. The leather seats in the back also looked very nice. The pilot door was great and when I was allowed to take a seat in the cockpit, I could feel my body temperature rising (figuratively speaking).
What worried me a bit was the low clearance available for landing on anything but paved runways, but that argument was waived away by my wife. Seemingly she loved the looks of the aircraft as well.
Now I was recently introduced to the Cirrus Jet. I had already read about its bad payload but loved the aircraft once sitting in it and could see myself flying one of these (if it were not for the long waiting list to get one apart from the finances). The endurance, payload and other questions about the SF50 were blurred once I sat in one. I just loved the cockpit, the seating arrangement, etc.
My point is this: are decisions to go for one aircraft or the other really all based on rationale, financial and/or technical data? Is it so important that one aircraft flies a bit faster and higher? Or are some of us (or most?) drawn to one aircraft of the other because of its “sex appeal”? I think that I would just love the looks plus mission profile (as advertised!) of a specific plane, then would think how cool it would be to fly one and then the decision or preference to go for that plane is justified with some arguments to support it.
Sebastian_G wrote:
Used C510 Mustangs are coming down in price and essentially they are moden designs compared to all the old “cheap” jets on offer so far. But the real question for a private owner is how expensive is the maintenance if flown 100h/year with no programms and maintenance on condition? I somehow feel not many people have tried that yet and there is probably no experience yet how this would work out.
I can understand going naked on proparts the airframe parts program. I would be very wary of taking the engines off program. But at the right price, if you have liquidity to be able to pay up to $120k or so per engine at hot section time, it could be financially better to buy a plane that is off programmes. Essentially you will get it at a bigger discount than the buy in cost to the progammes.
The 510 is pretty economical to run. Up high it will burn less than a twin TP. I can not see it being 2x as much as a TBM. The dirty little secret is that any big bore PT6 engine (-6x series) will cost close to $600K to overhaul. You could probably overhaul both the Mustang PW615’s engines for not that much more. So the engine reserves, either via program, or going at it alone, will be in the same wheelhouse (as they say here). Maybe JasonC can tell us what the hourly engine program cost was for the Mustang?
AdamFrisch wrote:
Maybe JasonC can tell us what the hourly engine program cost was for the Mustang?
It was $109.70/hr for Proparts (airframe parts) and $112.26/hr for each engine.
Sebastian_G wrote:
Used C510 Mustangs are coming down in price
Is this what you mean ?
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/23330433/2009-cessna-citation-mustang
