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.

The notion that an older/cheaper aircraft will cost more to run than a newer/pricier one is an OWT. It may be the case in some specific set of circumstances, but not as a general rule.

How's your airplane restoration going? :-)

Mike C.

BTW I love that thread.
I learn a lot from you guys - thanks!

That's where we are Adam. Our '76 C90 is about 40 to $60,000 a year in maintenance. After next March, it will be fully depreciated on our books (not for taxes). From that point on, we have no capital cost and fly for that maintenance cost, hangar, training, fuel etc. Quite different than having a huge capital investment in a plane we constantly worried about and worked to pay interest on or beared lost opportunity cost on. I can walk away next March. Now, if I needed better, newer less downtime for business use, completely different discussion. And it's still highly reliable. The engines just haven't ever had an issue. We have had a GCU go out on a trip and an oil pressure gauge fluctuate. We have had other avionics, AC, etc. but nothing else that has affected getting home from a trip.

Like I said to Jason, takes longer, but is cheaper..

Don't ask me to account for my hourly cost and the times I've lost not having a plane, because then it could get real hairy...

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.

Ya. The smell of a new plane :P

They'll sure cost more per mile.... and if one flies a lot they'll cost a lot more. Fuel alone can be the biggest expense.

Try an old Lear 23 or 25.. or Jetstream.

Range is relative to your mission. If you need a 700nm range, then that's what you need. That's the criteria the OP laid out with the occasional 1,000nm trip. If you need a 2,000nm non-stop range, then that changes everything, and we wouldn't be discussing Mustangs. So, if TPs beat jets in range, it might not have relevance in many cases, such as mine.

I thought I was going to buy a C90, which has a range of 1200nm, burns about 420pph in cruise at 260kts at a max altitude of FL300 (12,500' cabin). Not bad at 0.62nm/lb. However, the fact is you fly the C90 at FL250 for the lower cabin altitude, and you're doing 270kts at 450pph, which is 0.60nm/lb. Also, it doesn't always get you above the weather.
Then, I started looking at the Mustang, which has a range of 1200nm, burns 500pph in cruise at 330kts at a max altitude of FL410 (7,700' cabin). Even better at 0.66nm/lb.
When comparing reserves and maintenance costs, the C90 gets even more expensive. So, when you say, "The new jets can't beat the old TP when it comes to these things", I think they can, at least in this case.

4 to 500 miles or more is where the jet certainly starts to cost less cents
Jets generally work when going higher, faster and farther.

l
Range is relative to your mission. If you need a 700nm range, then that's what you need. That's the criteria the OP laid out with the occasional 1,000nm trip. If you need a 2,000nm non-stop range, then that changes everything, and we wouldn't be discussing Mustangs. So, if TPs beat jets in range, it might not have relevance in many cases, such as mine.

I thought I was going to buy a C90, which has a range of 1200nm, burns about 420pph in cruise at 260kts at a max altitude of FL300 (12,500' cabin). Not bad at 0.62nm/lb. However, the fact is you fly the C90 at FL250 for the lower cabin altitude, and you're doing 270kts at 450pph, which is 0.60nm/lb. Also, it doesn't always get you above the weather.
Then, I started looking at the Mustang, which has a range of 1200nm, burns 500pph in cruise at 330kts at a max altitude of FL410 (7,700' cabin). Even better at 0.66nm/lb.
When comparing reserves and maintenance costs, the C90 gets even more expensive. So, when you say, "The new jets can't beat the old TP when it comes to these things", I think they can, at least in this case.

They can't beat the new turboprops either.

But I'm still gonna get one.

Time is not worth the same thing to everyone. Time is the most valuable commodity in the world to me.

Why can you buy a 747 for $500K?