Agreed

My brother has owned a Falcon 50, two Citations, a I and a II, and a Cirrus. He now has the Eclipse because he likes the 370 max cruise and he rarely has more then a two person mission. Most of the time it is just him.

I bought a Bo because I'm a people person. I like the roomy cabin and huge doors. I can get my 90 year old father inside with no problems and he loves to fly. I've had six adults and two small children on a short flight. I love people.

Now I'm not saying the Falcon 50 and Citations were not people planes but they are also not remotely close to economical.

If I could afford it, I too would forgo the jet speeds and settle for a 270 knot Pilatus. I like the room and cargo capacity. They are people planes.

This has been a fun discussion. There's no way I'd ever be able to afford any jet but I think the Eclipse looks cool on the ramp. There are people for whom 2 mil is pocket change, and if I were one of those I'd probably buy one for the fun factor. Once I discovered I couldn't get from Chicago to Denver without a fuel stop I'd probably trade it for something that could.

I think the little V-tail jets (Cirrus and Eclipse) look sharp also. They probably best fit into the category of clown planes but I'd seriously consider if I had the moolah to burn.

Back to the real world, it's BSFC for one of my major criteria.

Can the Eclipse be flown 300hrs a year for less than $1000/hr excluding PP and upgrades?

Not following you Tom. Are you considering return on money tied up on the plane? What's PP?

Eclipse says it can as far as fuel burn and replacement reserves. Insurance would be higher because of the hull value if nothing else. That's what really attracted me at first. Looking at mid 80s KAs, operating cost with fuel seemed to be up around $1,200 per hour. With a newer plane, there should be less to fix than an older KA.

Each plane has pluses and minuses; each is designed for a mission. On my last trip back from NY to Dallas, I had to fly over the top of a major frontal system with icing and high winds in it. Was able to in the 58P, as far as above the icing, but still in the soup and a bit of a rough ride. Mission accomplished, but higher would have been much better.

Eclipse has pretty close to the same range as my 58P if one isn't kept low for a long time (which would happen going into NY, but normally doesn't leaving where I live. It gives many more altitude choices, is quieter, faster, K-ice once upgraded, is VERY quiet, fits in my same hanger as the 58P, new glass panel and avionics. When flying half way across the country, weather is much more of a concern and the faster climb and higher ceiling open up options for me.

OTOH, the history is bothersome as is wondering about future support. Don't want to spend this much and have to fix stuff, especially, if parts and support are issues. Of course, 100LL is an issue some places; especially, when one goes out of the country.

I usually go on 600 mile trips or more once a month. Dallas to Orlando, Greenville, SC, just got back from NY and go to Wisconsin (sometimes San Diego). That's where it would make a difference. I've flown to the Bahamas several times and Mexico. Planing on Rotan island sometime this year. Lot's of over water time. Also want to go the the Brittish Virgin Islands. May have to have a potty, though. We'll see.

Best,

Dave

Here's my theory on that. Little jets do not deliver any "bang for the buck". They exist solely for "sex appeal".

A PC12 can fly from Vegas to Atlanta non stop in just over 5 hours no wind and haul everything you want. What's the downside? It has a propeller and looks funny. You can't do the same flight in a Mustang but for some reason people still paid millions and lot's more to operate them to get less utility.

Now that the economy is in the shitter, everyone has to put their "sex appeal" needs on the sideline and be more practical.

Thanks for the reply. I am one of those who does not put PP and lost opportunity on investment in my aircraft evaluation. If the operating costs are less than a C90 I think it will get a lot of attention. Every middle aged overweight pilot wants to tell pretty girls, "Yea, I fly a jet."


It is hard to find anything with more "wow" factor right now than an Eclipse and that is worth a lot of money!

I'd take a caravan on amphibs.


remember this picture i once posted jason?

That picture is my future. I already have that RR but I can't seem to find a Caravan in that color

See, it's those 2 quotes that counter each other out.

I don't want a PC12 to haul a bunch of stuff but it's there if I ever need to. I want a PC12 for the legs, efficiency, room, everything.

Who cares if the PC12 is bigger and slower than a mustang? It'll still get there without a fuel stop and can haul your friends too and on less gas.

If you want a hot rod airplane, buy an L39. I just don't view VLJ's as "hot rods".

Dave, seems a TBM 700 might work for you if you dont need the potty.

The TBM does have an appeal and I know a fella flying one.

Kinda wondering what's up Beech's sleeve. I've been so satisfied with Beechcraft, it would be nice to find a move up from the 58P besides the KA.


Best,

Dave

See, it's those 2 quotes that counter each other out.

I checked with Controller, FAA, and Wiki (cannot make FAA to look up Barons other than some 58s), and got this:

Pilatus: 53 of 638 (registered) = 8.9%
Baron: 168 of 1961(produced) = 8.3%

Looks like they have about the same number on the market, relatively to the fleet size (obviously the number of registered Barons should be less than the number produced, so their percentage on the market would be higher if I found the number registered).

Come to think of it, it's shocking that the market was able to absorb such numbers of Pilatii, which are single after all and were on the market for a shorter time. No wonder that Vern Raburn thought he could sell Eclipse by thousands, at a quarter price of a Pilatus.

Thanks Pete! Good stuff. When one looks at relative age, it's interesting to see the Pilatus hasn't been around nearly as long as a Baron and has the same percentage of the fleet for sale.

That has really triggered something in my mind about depreciation. What is the new asking price for Pilatus and TBM? In looking at Controller.com, I'm seeing a mid 90s Pilatus for $2.5 million. TBM for mid 90s in the 1.5 million range. I just can't see myself absorbing the kind of loss in price there seems to be in those planes when looking at new vs 15 years old. That would push me to an older plane where the price is lower to begin with and there is less yearly depreciation.

I'd rather put that kind of money in something that could appreciate. Don't use it enough in my business to benefit or use the tax incentives for enough benefit. Even in the highest personal bracket, I'd only get less than 40% back and be looking at possible recapture of some of it later.

Best,

Dave

Here's some info on TBM. Looks like a new 850 w G1000 is more than 3MM.

http://www.caijets.com/tbm_operating.php

Now that I look through this, I recall depreciation of value is why I've stayed away. If a plane drops in value over a million in the next ten years or so, that's just more than I want to absorb; it was too hard to make.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on here. This gets me back to thinking about limiting my investment again to protect against downside. Have to remember, running a business is where I make money. Not to the point I want to absorb the kind of down side I'm seeing in many of these.

This pushes me back to lower priced planes or a partnership with less financial risk.

Best,

Dave