Why the obsession with TBM's and PC12's, when a Mustang is much cheaper?

For me it is a practical necessity since access to one of my home towns is restricted to a single well maintained grass strip.
There is certainly added risk and some accelerated wear and tear on parts of the airframe exposed to grit and loose debris thrown up.

During the dry season it is a dust bowl, and during the monsoon it can flood leading to no go days. If I had a choice I would prefer it to be tarmac just from a dispatchability issue.
However having said that, each landing and take off is a pure buttock clenching adrenline rush that I consider one of the highlights of my flying here in Asia.
E

achimha wrote:

The Mustang is a nice aircraft but for me (and most other private owner pilots) it would not be very useful. You need a very specific mission profile for that aircraft while the TBM is a miracle in speed, range and airfield accessibility. The price tag reflects that.

Achim, your love for the TBM is well known and admirable :). I think the utility point is overdone and for most TBM owners a Mustang could work just as well. Your mission profile is a bit different from most.

1. I think handling may be higher for a Mustang but usually both would fall into the 3-4t range and pay the same.
2. some people don’t like the idea of type ratings and Part NCC. But the Cirrus Jet wil require both and in practice they are not particularly onerous.
3. Passenger comfort is much better in the Mustang.
4. TBM has better range.

PC12 is in a different world and not really comparable.

I think the price people are prepared to pay for a TBM is astonishing.

JasonC wrote:

I think the utility point is overdone and for most TBM owners a Mustang could work just as well.

You forgot runway length in your list and for a good reason — that’s where the TBM shines. You can go to virtually all airfields a piston aircraft can go to which adds a lot of “recreational” value for owner pilots. Those owner pilots tend to buy TBMs.

And yes, operating a jet under EASA rules is significantly more hassle than operating a SET or MET.

Here’s another question.

Why buy a PC12 when for the same money you can get a KingAir 200

Neil wrote:

Here’s another question.

Why buy a PC12 when for the same money you can get a KingAir 200

Operating cost

achimha wrote:

You forgot runway length in your list and for a good reason — that’s where the TBM shines.

No I just wasn’t very accurate and you are right. I wonder though how many times owners actually use grass or dirt strips? I assume very few. Of those solely on tarmac, I also wonder how many regularly land at strips with LDA below 1000m.

JasonC wrote:

I also wonder how many regularly land at strips with LDA below 1000m.

Probably in 75% of the cases where I fly for recreational purposes.

Also don’t forget that people buy cars/planes not for what they are going to do with them but for what they could do with them

Neil28-Aug-17 07:51 #25
Here’s another question.

Why buy a PC12 when for the same money you can get a KingAir 200

When the RMCP acquired the PC-12 they also undertook extensive safety analysis before choosing the PC-12 over the KA.

achimha wrote:

Probably in 75% of the cases where I fly for recreational purposes.

Yes but I don’t mean you as the typical owner.

Also don’t forget that people buy cars/planes not for what they are going to do with them but for what they could do with them

And this indeed is very true.