BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 04:45

Tj speaks truth!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 10:08

Username Protected wrote:

In a lot of places the hangar you have defines the airplane you have and the ramp up in hangar volume is a serious issue.

PA46 wingspan is an issue in that regard, won't fit many T hangars.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 10:22

The market has spoken. The number of sales of SETP’s eclipses (pun intended) the sales of light jets for owner pilots. And poeple spending millions of dollars on planes aren’t stupid. Less fuel, fewer ramp fees, less complex, easier to fly, easier to hangar, lower maintenance bills, better high, hot, short contaminated runway performance. Less hassle. Easier to own and operate. Your jet works for you, but it would not work for me.

You could easily fly a jet prop for $50,000 a year all in, most years and get great utility out of it. Not going to do that with any jet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 10:33

Baby steps!

Getting someone to buy a jet prematurely can ruin them on aviation forever.

“Can you write a check for $100k and not lose sleep over it?”

If not, take the next setp. I mean step.

Or maybe sej.

It’s also important to understand that it’s really hard to go backwards, once you fly a jet you’re going to want to fly a jet. If you decide to go back to a turboprop for economic reasons, what would have been an exciting and logical next step is then a painful step backwards.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 11:37

Username Protected wrote:

It’s also important to understand that it’s really hard to go backwards, once you fly a jet you’re going to want to fly a jet. If you decide to go back to a turboprop for economic reasons, what would have been an exciting and logical next step is then a painful step backwards.

I don’t think everybody gets jet fever. Much of what people appreciate about the jet, weather capability, reliability, comfort, pressurization, and speed (coming from the piston world) you get with a cross country turboprop. I certainly haven’t gotten it. But then I tried Coke when I was in high school, because seemed like the cool thing to do, being young and dumb. Made my nose numb and my head spin, and absolutely no desire to that again, to which I am grateful.

I have seen on some of the aviation boards more and more people going from light jets to SETP’s. The main reasons being range, payload, runway performance. Watching the journey of one fella going from a Phenom to an Epic. On the other hand, one fella went from a VJ, to a TBM, and then quickly to an M2. Didn’t work for him. Lots of people on MMOPA in Pipers now that came from the jet world, and lots of people in jets that came from the SETP world, so goes both ways.

I spent a week left seat in a C510, dropped it off in Greenbay then commercial to pick up an M600 in Vero Beach the next day. Absolutely no difference in comfort, and I really appreciated the ultramodern avionics in the TP. Had to cross a line out of Florida with tops higher than the M600 or C510 could top, and was actually glad to have the better weather systems in the M600 crossing that line.

This was a legacy M600 with the GWX70 radar, with NEXRAD and NEXRAD lightning left panel, and onboard radar with stormcope lightning right panel. The trip was Vero Beach Florida to Tulsa OK for some cheap JetA, for one stop back to Utah, with up to 100 knots on the nose. Can’t make that trip non-stop in most light jets. Tops were FL450, so nobody topping the weather that day.

The pics, in the line at FL280, nice glimpse of the weather on the other side, and smooth sailing to Tulsa, albeit with some gnarly headwind.

Attachment:

IMG_7037.jpeg

Attachment:

IMG_7038.jpeg

Attachment:

IMG_7042.jpeg

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 11:37

Username Protected wrote:

And poeple spending millions of dollars on planes aren’t stupid.

That's definitely not always correlated.

Quote:

fewer ramp fees

Ramp, facility fees are almost never paid in a jet. Overnight parking can be more. It hasn't been much more than my MU2, though.

Quote:

less complex, easier to fly

Depends. Have an engine failure at 200 AGL and the complexity for an SETP is extreme, and almost non existent for the jet.

Also, have icing or storms into the 20s, the jet is avoiding all that so weather is much less complex in a jet.

The actual flying of the machine is relatively easy.

Quote:

better high, hot, short contaminated runway performance.

This is a bit apples to oranges since jet takeoff numbers are ALWAYS with an engine failure. I doubt your runway performance is better than mine when doing the same mission, all engines. If we do it with one engine out, your numbers are, well, much worse.

My jet is fantastic at short runways and has minimal adders for wet, snow, ice with TRs.

Quote:

You could easily fly a jet prop for $50,000 a year all in

How many miles/hours was that? Assuming half is fuel, that's about 5000 gallons, or about 125 hours, maybe 25,000 nm? Works out to about $2/nm or so direct operating cost. My DOC in 2023 was $3.24/nm. Definitely more, but not as much more as one would imagine given the capabilities of the two airplanes.

I publish my numbers, including the raw spreadsheet showing every expense. Can you do the same?

The DOC numbers ignore cost of capital. The Jet Prop being about $1M doesn't suffer too much from that, maybe $60K/year in present times, but even that is more than your other expenses. If you are looking at a Meridian, then cost of capital becomes a larger factor.

The Jet Prop will be cheaper to operate than a small jet, but the difference is a lot smaller than it appears when looking at cost per mile and including cost of capital.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 11:53

Mike, not one person in this thread, or nearly any of the other threads mention the cost of capital in their aircraft purchase.

It seems like you use this to justify your highly inefficient fuel burn in the V. It works for you, great. Not for everyone. There is a substantial difference in operating cost of a jet prop vs a legacy citation.

Yesterday I met with a client to purchase a CJ2+, he could easily accomplish the mission with a CJ2 for $1M less, and a V or ultra for $2-3M less. But the CJ2+ is what he wants, and most of the clients I work with want that caliber aircraft with less fuel burn. Money is not an issue, they are very smart people.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 11:54

Username Protected wrote:

I have seen on some of the aviation boards more and more people going from light jets to SETP’s. The main reasons being range, payload, runway performance.

That's what defined my mission. I got more range, more payload, and essentially no loss of runway performance over my MU2.

Quote:

The trip was Vero Beach Florida to Tulsa OK for some cheap JetA, for one stop back to Utah, with up to 100 knots on the nose. Can’t make that trip non-stop in most light jets.

KVRB to KSLC (1750 nm) with 100 knots on the nose is not doable in my jet, but 1600 nm would work, so close. But the 100 knots on the nose would be a lot more tolerable since it is under 25% loss of ground speed. When you get into the 40s, the wind dies down somewhat. The strongest winds are usually FL200-350.

Quote:

Tops were FL450, so nobody topping the weather that day.

That's misleading. When there are tops to FL450 and above, they aren't spread over the entire area, even when there is a line of them. So you simply deviate around them a bit and spend the VAST majority of the time in cruise, if not all of it, clear of clouds. Your statement implies the jet would be IMC at FL450 the whole way and that just doesn't happen, they are topping most of the weather and laterally avoiding the rest.

As for weather, I have a 12 inch GWX-75 radar, XM weather, ADS-B weather, so I have all the goodies you can get.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 11:59

Username Protected wrote:

Mike, not one person in this thread, or nearly any of the other threads mention the cost of capital in their aircraft purchase.

That's part of the aircraft ownership delusion. It allows you to not know the true cost of ownership.

Quote:

Money is not an issue, they are very smart people.

For me, money is an issue. I can't afford planes like a TBM, PC-12, CJ2, etc. I can afford to fly my V.

If others want to turn a blind eye to the true economic impact, that's up to them.

Telling me others ignore that aspect is not the same as saying that issue doesn't exist. Cost of capital is clearly a factor in total ownership costs.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 12:46

Username Protected wrote:

Mike, not one person in this thread, or nearly any of the other threads mention the cost of capital in their aircraft purchase.

That's part of the aircraft ownership delusion. It allows you to not know the true cost of ownership.

Quote:

Money is not an issue, they are very smart people.

For me, money is an issue. I can't afford planes like a TBM, PC-12, CJ2, etc. I can afford to fly my V.

If others want to turn a blind eye to the true economic impact, that's up to them.

Telling me others ignore that aspect is not the same as saying that issue doesn't exist. Cost of capital is clearly a factor in total ownership costs.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 14:51

Username Protected wrote:

Yep, but you continue to ignore the fact that if Corey’s client buys a CJ2+ for $4.5M and sells it 1000 hours later for $4.5M the cost of capital is either the interest paid or loss of interest that could have been earned.

$4.5M put into SP500 5 years ago would now be $8.2M now.

If they had a 5% loan, that's $5.7M now.

So their cost of money is at least $1.2M and is likely closer to $3.7M if reasonably invested.

And all of that assumes the aircraft market holds up. The higher priced airplane has more downside risk, particularly one so new it is still suffering the initial market depreciation. A recession hits and maybe your $4.5M plane is now worth $2.5M.

What is the true economic impact of a $4.5M airplane? If you fly it 200 hours a year, the cost of money might trump the operating cost.

Quote:

It’s important to remember that the cost of purchasing something is the difference between what you paid for it and what you sold it for, not just what you paid for it.

There is cost of money either in actual interest paid or in lost investment return.

Quote:

If you buy a Citation V with 2500 hour engines for $2M and fly it 1000 hours it will be worth about $1.2M

That's not happening for me. My plane has more than doubled in value since I have owned it. That's the benefit of buying a lower cost airplane, you are more likely to experience value increase than decrease.

With a lower hull value, I am far less exposed to market downside risk. My plane could go to zero and I still lost less than your CJ2+ owner *even* if they sell for the entire purchase price in 5 years.

Quote:

So the cost of capital on the V is interest plus $800k

Not in my case. You put your foot on the scale to make it work. The numbers are actually backwards, the $1.2M V is now worth $2M.

Quote:

When you consider all of the factors, your argument fails.

It is clearly working for me, and documented. I'm happy to compare, find a CJ2+ owner willing to share their numbers like I do and we will see how it worked out in the end.

I could sell tomorrow and have flown my V for free, all expenses included.

Your customers may delude themselves into ignoring the cost of money, but that doesn't make it go away.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 16:49

Username Protected wrote:

You did not ask for a comparison with the Meridian but any discussion of JetProp must include the comparison.

JetProp is a great airplane with plus and minus versus Meridian. The JetProp is based on the small case PT6. The physically smaller engine allows the front baggage compartment to remain which is a big advantage. The smaller engine burns less fuel for a given amount of torque. Both the Meridian and JetProp/35 are similar speeds. The lighter JetProp climbs very fast at lower altitudes. You can pull 4000 fpm if you wish.

The physically larger Meridian engine fills the space so there is no front baggage. The engine is capable of more power but is limited/de-rated to 500hp so it can make full rated torque at virtually any altitude and temp the aircraft is allowed. The JetProp is limited to FL250 both in certification and as a practical matter by how much power it can make at altitude.

The Meridian holds more fuel but the difference in burn means the JetProp can go farther. That said a JetProp with full extended range has a useful load of about 300 lbs depending on the specific aircraft. If you own a JetProp you basically resign yourself to flying a bit over gross even with two people and bags. If you leave out fuel to make the range equal to Meridian the two aircraft hold about the same cargo. The JetProp has a front cargo compartment but no weight capacity to use it.

The Meridian wing is simply stronger. It’s not just the stronger spar that came with the 1999 and newer Mirage (I think). The Meridian wing has more chord and depth for fuel capacity. It resulted in a stronger wing that rides better in turbulence. The difference is significant.

The JetProp has a typical PT6 air scoop for ram air. When you open the ice door Ram air goes away so you lose some torque when you need it. The airplane still climbs well into the teens. In the 20s with ice door open you lose some performance.

With the derated engine the Meridian can afford to have the ice bypass open all the time which is how and why Piper built it that way. There is nothing to control. The JetProp guys will say Piper left free power on the table by not having ram air but that is not true. The Meridian can already make max power without the ram so there is nothing to gain. Ram air on the JetProp helps because the engine is not making max certified power at altitude without it.

The original JetProp were all the /34 engine. Later they offered the /21 or /35. All three are physically similar. The difference is temp limits. If your mission is in the teens for altitude (think basic med) the cheaper /21 is compelling at those altitudes all three are the same. If you want to fly at FL250 regularly you want the /35.

I am a fan of both aircraft. If you want a 2 passenger rocket that is cheaper to feed get the JetProp. If you want to take four adults and bags with a better ride buy the Meridian.

The JetProp is certified to and is fastest at FL270. In our 1999 -35 variant, we typically see 258-262TAS with 33-34GPH fuel burn.

It’s an outstanding “1-2” person airplane with true 950nm range with reserves. We have the 20 gallon header tank which helps.

All PT6 aircraft should and do (except the meridian & M600) have controllable ram air ice deflectors, not really sure how Piper missed it on this. It’s free power and efficiency at high altitude. Very beneficial to JetProp performance with the -35.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 17:12

Username Protected wrote:

All PT6 aircraft should and do (except the meridian & M600) have controllable ram air ice deflectors, not really sure how Piper missed it on this. It’s free power and efficiency at high altitude. Very beneficial to JetProp performance with the -35.

The JP is one of the least expensive to acquire and the least expensive turbine to operate. Can pretty much do it on the operating budget of a modern high performance piston. As to the full time IS, Piper intentionally made the Meridian, knowing it would be many pilots first turbine, the easiest and least complex turbine to fly. Some really nice features like no prop control, no ground/fligth idle, true single lever power, forward go fast, back go slow, go really far back, back it up ;-)

The plane will pressurize itself if the pilot forgets to turn on the enviro or bleed air, and many other little gotcha savers and automated tasks.

I like the full time IS. I have heard but not verified that FOD incidents in the aircraft are less than similar SETP's, as you can't forget to turn it on in icing, on the ground etc. The engine is so derated that it is virtually impossible to over-temp. It will outclimb most of the competing SETP's in icing, because there is no performance hit outside of the effects of ice accretions, and the slight almost imperceptible effect of the boots cycling. The climb in ice is essentially the clear air climb performance.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 17:45

Username Protected wrote:

Fast, efficient’are some pro’s. Cons, not much full fuel useful load, possibly under-supported now that Rocket has slowed down and not doing the conversion anymore. Probably a little under-built for the power. If you could swing it, would definitely consider the Meridian, but JP pilots love their birds. A malibu on steroids.

Joe, fully investigate this before making any commitments. The owner/founder Darwin Conrad is well past retirement age. I forget the specifics, but a couple of years ago something happened and airplane owners could not reach the company for weeks. I believe some of the parts used in the conversion are only available through Rocket, but I cant verify that but I sure someone else can.

I sat in on a JP forum at 2022 MMOPA and quite a few JP owners expressed genuine concern over the long term support from Rocket.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2024, 17:59

Username Protected wrote:

Yep, but you continue to ignore the fact that if Corey’s client buys a CJ2+ for $4.5M and sells it 1000 hours later for $4.5M the cost of capital is either the interest paid or loss of interest that could have been earned.

$4.5M put into SP500 5 years ago would now be $8.2M now.

If they had a 5% loan, that's $5.7M now.

So their cost of money is at least $1.2M and is likely closer to $3.7M if reasonably invested.

And all of that assumes the aircraft market holds up. The higher priced airplane has more downside risk, particularly one so new it is still suffering the initial market depreciation. A recession hits and maybe your $4.5M plane is now worth $2.5M.

What is the true economic impact of a $4.5M airplane? If you fly it 200 hours a year, the cost of money might trump the operating cost.

Quote:

It’s important to remember that the cost of purchasing something is the difference between what you paid for it and what you sold it for, not just what you paid for it.

There is cost of money either in actual interest paid or in lost investment return.

Quote:

If you buy a Citation V with 2500 hour engines for $2M and fly it 1000 hours it will be worth about $1.2M

That's not happening for me. My plane has more than doubled in value since I have owned it. That's the benefit of buying a lower cost airplane, you are more likely to experience value increase than decrease.

With a lower hull value, I am far less exposed to market downside risk. My plane could go to zero and I still lost less than your CJ2+ owner *even* if they sell for the entire purchase price in 5 years.

Quote:

So the cost of capital on the V is interest plus $800k

Not in my case. You put your foot on the scale to make it work. The numbers are actually backwards, the $1.2M V is now worth $2M.

Quote:

When you consider all of the factors, your argument fails.

It is clearly working for me, and documented. I'm happy to compare, find a CJ2+ owner willing to share their numbers like I do and we will see how it worked out in the end.

I could sell tomorrow and have flown my V for free, all expenses included.

Your customers may delude themselves into ignoring the cost of money, but that doesn't make it go away.

Mike C.

jetprop? pro's and con's