There are so many OPINIONS in this thread. Can we not stick to simply talking about what we KNOW to be true rather than math based on theoretical numbers you’ve read on the internet?

All the discussion about pilot time invested in training not coming back in aircraft performance misses a major point.

Your passengers will enjoy faster performance.

If the only thing you want to measure is the pilot's time, then sell your plane and fly on the airlines.

Being a pilot is a time investment. You put in hundreds of hours getting your license, getting your instrument rating, training, reading, learning, and studying. If you got something better to do with your time than be a pilot, then don't be one. People who complain about training aren't pilots. If you view all training as negative hours you have to make up, then a jet is clearly not for you.

For me, being a pilot is an avocation that is central to my well being as a person and the time I have invested in doing so count as some of the best times of my life. Becoming a jet pilot will be an achievement I will cherish. That day when I am flying at FL430, 400 knots, cruising in near space, I won't miss those training hours one bit. I'll think, instead, of just how amazing it is that I get to fly my own jet, and the benefits I am providing to my passengers from my efforts.

Mike C.

Haven't you spent that many days related to fixing your Commander?

Granted it wasn't all in ONE year...

I'm not trying to rub salt in that wound, just pointing out that we all invest time in various ways to be pilots that we don't get back in aircraft performance, and you have done so as well.

But when you get to fly, it was all worth it.

Mike C.

My passengers don't pay.

Taking the airlines is a better use of my time? No idea how you're coming up with that.

I enjoy training and being a pilot. But purchasing a SP jet for the "time savings" over a Pilatus or other long range TP is a big lie. There are too many variables that affect "time" and one of those would be 18 days of initial training in one plane that is not required in another.

I love the jet and will do it but I do think it will end up costing me more time and $$ than the Pilatus does. I fly in and out of a lot of airports that I wouldn't be able to get into in a jet. There are many more variables to this flying game than just top end speed air FL430. The variables are what allows BT to exist. If it were as straight forward as driving a car we wouldn't be here discussing it.

As I get older, time gets more precious. The sweet spot for me is a good balance between performance and training commitment.

Says the man with 21,000+ BT posts.

The time you've spent posting about jet training would have gotten you a type rating by now. Maybe two.


I'd be curious to see a list. I suspect it is less often than you think. Some jets have pretty short runway requirements.

Access to shorter airports is a feature of a turboprop, but realistically, when I look at where I actually fly, the number of times a jet won't do it is quite small, sometimes none in a single year. I'm not as worried about short runways, my travels don't take me to many, as I am about contaminated runways. Rain, ice, snow will have more impact than they do now.

The shortest runway I have used in the last 6 months is 4727 ft. Not an issue for a jet, assuming no snow or ice, which none of runways I used had. Even wet would still be okay, runway long enough to account for the adder when wet. The US is blessed with a very good collection of airports with long runways.

To be fair, there are times the runway has snow or ice, or is short enough that wet is an issue, but that's maybe a handful over my 10 years of turboprop flying. I'd then have to use another airport with a longer runway if the trip is essential. That is a rate of occurrence I can accept to fly a jet.

Mike C.

My passengers don't pay.

Says the man with 21,000+ BT posts.

The time you've spent posting about jet training would have gotten you a type rating by now. Maybe two.


I'd be curious to see a list. I suspect it is less often than you think. Some jets have pretty short runway requirements.

Access to shorter airports is a feature of a turboprop, but realistically, when I look at where I actually fly, the number of times a jet won't do it is quite small, sometimes none in a single year. I'm not as worried about short runways, my travels don't take me to many, as I am about contaminated runways. Rain, ice, snow will have more impact than they do now.

The shortest runway I have used in the last 6 months is 4727 ft. Not an issue for a jet, assuming no snow or ice, which none of runways I used had. Even wet would still be okay, runway long enough to account for the adder when wet. The US is blessed with a very good collection of airports with long runways.

To be fair, there are times the runway has snow or ice, or is short enough that wet is an issue, but that's maybe a handful over my 10 years of turboprop flying. I'd then have to use another airport with a longer runway if the trip is essential. That is a rate of occurrence I can accept to fly a jet.

Mike C.

Then why you flying them around on an MU2?

It is the best plane I could afford when I bought it.

My passengers are much happier now than with the Cessna 210.

They will be even happier in a jet.

Mike C.

When I typed in the B300 (10-2005 ) it was 9 days 16 sim, went back and did the 350 (school came with the plane)(10-06) it was 14 days because of the ProLine 21... if it is 17 days now I guess they needed more time with the proline. EMB 120 school was 28 days (9-05) 27 hours sim, C525 17days 16hours sim. All Flight Safety (between ATL, ICT , cj4 recurrent at MCO.
If one has never seen Proline 21, it can take up a lot of time getting used to it.
I had someone ask if I thought he could do a ferry trip in a 350 ProLine 21 without going to school. I told him I would have serious doubts. Yes, it can be run in green needles.

Proline or kln90b. What would be harder? Lol.

If the Collins was not so integrated, I would say that damned KLN90B....
Sure could do a lot with it though. That was the best the KA 300 I flew had.
On second thought I had ForeFlight and an I Pad...!

17 is EFIS 85. Think Proline is longer.

Mission radius under 500 nm, 2400 ft runways, VFR departures.

You don't have a jet mission profile.

Mike C.