Maybe per seat and maybe for a PT6, but I doubt that's true for a Garrett engined TP.

Very true, the more popular and "rare" the airplane the tighter the market. We see it in the more popular TBM models, always in PC-12's, and then the jet market is odd... models get hot and then cold... It's as much when to buy as what... Cessna is the number one variable in late model values.

By that logic, everyone should buy a Honda Civic and avoid a Ferrari.

Slower airplanes will be over represented since they spend more time in the air.

Being popular in commercial operations (which is how you get a lot of flights on Flightaware) doesn't necessarily mean a good thing for owner operators as the support focus may not be aligned with less utilization.

Flightaware only reports flights that aren't blocked. The more a plane is used for private transportation, the more blocked N numbers there are.

I don't think Flightaware tells you very much about which plane fits YOUR mission.

Mike C.

I think the best way to evaluate your operating cost is to run the cost per trip for a few of your typical trips. Run your engine/airframe hourly and fuel burns using fltplan.com. That brings some reality to the situation. 80% of our trips are 250nm or less. The delta between using a jet or TP starts to increase on those shorter trips and decrease on the longer trips.

If you exclusively use hourly or exclusively per NM or seat per NM for your cost calculations, you are only trying to come up with numbers to support the plane that you want to buy.

By that logic, everyone should buy a Honda Civic and avoid a Ferrari.

Slower airplanes will be over represented since they spend more time in the air.

Being popular in commercial operations (which is how you get a lot of flights on Flightaware) doesn't necessarily mean a good thing for owner operators as the support focus may not be aligned with less utilization.

Flightaware only reports flights that aren't blocked. The more a plane is used for private transportation, the more blocked N numbers there are.

I don't think Flightaware tells you very much about which plane fits YOUR mission.

Mike C.

I think the best way to evaluate your operating cost is to run the cost per trip for a few of your typical trips. Run your engine/airframe hourly and fuel burns using fltplan.com. That brings some reality to the situation. 80% of our trips are 250nm or less. The delta between using a jet or TP starts to increase on those shorter trips and decrease on the longer trips.

If you exclusively use hourly or exclusively per NM or seat per NM for your cost calculations, you are only trying to come up with numbers to support the plane that you want to buy.

If you're buying a Citation Mustang for the same reason people buy Ferrari's, pick a faster airplane!

Jason's right about the utility factor, it's a very small percentage that go buy a jet for the "wanna go fast" aspect

I agree Alex - I was referring to the direct operating costs only when comparing the 'trip cost' - but even if TP numbers are lower for the shorter or longer trips; it doesn't mean a TP is better. There is another factor - the value of time and that is different for everyone.

An interesting thing the numbers showed me without taking the value of time into account, is that dollar for dollar, the CJ is cheaper to operate than a comparable TP on this type of mission profile - something that was counter intuitive until I ran the numbers.

This is why Adam's point intrigues me. I have heard that Garrett engines are comparatively a bit more economic than a PT6, but I wouldn't think to the point of making the numbers flip in favor of a TP in my analysis - but I may be overlooking something.

A point being missed for some is range.

TP beats the light jets in range.

Range = options when things go bad, less stops in bad weather, arriving at alternate with more gas, easier Flt planning, less worries when dropped down to a low altitude early.

Range is king!

Don't forget stopping, that the 2nd thing that's TP do much better.

This is like the twin vs single argument. It's been going on for years. What's interesting is the new jets can't beat the old TP when it come to these things.

Define "comparable TP".

CJ is among the most economical of jets. King Airs are among the least.


In the "300 knot" TPE331 class, we have Commanders, MU2s, Conquest II. They go faster, burn less fuel, and require less engine money than a King Air.

Faster means less cost to maintain per mile for everything, not just engines, since maintenance is driven a lot by flight hours.

Burn less fuel is significant, about 20% less for same HP.

Less engine money is big. A pair of PT6 will cost about double in engine reserve, per hour, over a pair of TPE331-10. Then you get more miles per hour making the difference even more.

Makes a big difference when added all up. It means that the twin TPE331-10 airplanes fly for about the same cost, if not less, as the single engine PT6 planes like TBM or PC12.

If you need a newer airplane, then your only choices are SETPs like TBM or PC12, or King Airs.

Mike C.

Just basing it on engine and fuel costs. A TPE runs on 20% less fuel per hour, and it costs about 30-50% less to overhaul for the same hp. The Dash 10's are $250K to overhaul for 5400hr. That's $46/hr. Any PT6 I've ever heard of in that power range will be a cool $350K for 3600hrs (my TBM 700 friend paid over that, even). That's $97/hr, more than twice as much per hour. TPE's do have one more hot section, and they tend to be more expensive than PT6's, so that's why I estimate the cost difference to be about 50% more for the PT6.

Now if we look at fuel burn, a jet will easily be 2,5-3x in fuel burn higher than a TPE. But it won't be 2,5-3x faster and it won't carry 2,5-3x times more people.

I can see that a jet compares to a PT6 penny for penny in overhaul though, as they're also around $350K to do. Jet will burn more of course, but probably carry more and go faster, so it's possible it works out per seat mile there.

I can stop the C90 in under 1,000 feet from wheels down easy. I think I've made 700 at my home field where there are no obstructions on final. Hit the displaced threashold lines and off at the first taxiway at Addison. Actually added a bit of power to taxi off. Differential power can really help when traction is poor. Those little wheels on jets would scare me on some rougher fields.
It's all what you need.

TPE331-10 engines have one mid life HSI at 2500, OH at 5000.

This can be extended to 3500/7000 depending on SB compliance level of the engine.

In other words, a runout PT6 is potentially half life for a TPE331-10.

Mike C.

It will cost more in time, but not in money. But it's just like the old cars vs new one debate. You always here "I had to get rid of my old car as it broke down and started to cost way too much". That's because people want that to be true, because it's nice to have new things. But it's nonsense. An old car will always be cheaper than a new one, no matter how much it breaks down. New is a suckers deal, financially. I get it, I also like new stuff and buy it all the time, but why can't we just say "I like new things" and not try to rationalize it financially? That would be more honest.