I'd still vote for getting the turbine the OP wants, and hiring a copilot until getting the required time. Accomplished the goal, and the copilot will probably be cheaper than the transition plane... and still may require a copilot, and then repeating everything with the turbine.

And the turbine is easier to fly.

That's the cheapest way to go...... no doubt.

Managing my PC12 is much easier than the Bo. Turning it on....... that's a different story.

If you're into MU-2's, talk to Tom Johnson.

He runs Airpower Insurance (BT Sponsor) and is an MU-2 owner. He'll give you the straight poop on insurance.

+1!

One of my most enduring pet peeves in aviation is this common insurance practice of making a turboprop into some gawdawful, difficult, scary, transition whereas they view a big cabin class piston twin as the easier, safer, step-up. That is 100% balderdash!

Let's see: Mixtures and ROP/LOP operations, "shock cooling," cowl flaps, abysmal SE climb performance...all apply to a piston twin, none to a twin turboprop.

True story: I once had a long-term King Air owner-pilot to whom I had given recurrent training for years. Sharp guy; good pilot. I got a call from him telling me that he'd sold the KA and bought a Duke -- he'd owned two previously on the "way up" -- because he had just turned 70 and his insurer nixed his continued KA flying, so he went back to the Duke.

A couple of weeks later I get another call from a very happy Duke owner whom I had trained, happy because he was finally moving up to a KA...the very one my previous caller had sold. He wanted to schedule his Initial Ground and Flight Training. (Which we did, and he did great.)

And now, per Paul Harvey, for the Rest of the Story...

The second caller was 72 and had no previous turbine experience. Different insurers, different stances.

Drives me nuts!

Actually Tom - pound for pound but in aircraft speak hull value for hull value piston twin insurance is rated far less favorably than the turbine. I hear what you are saying and agree 100% with you and Larry moving right into the Turbine is the way to go in lieu of buying a 'transition' piston twin. Just piston twin holding costs alone for a year or two and depreciation would more than eat up any additional premium in the turbine first year - or additional cost born by hiring a mentor for 3, 6 or 12 months.

I cringe when I hear fellow brokers tell prospective turbine buyers they should consider a twin piston instead of stepping up to a turbine. Who the hell is an insurance broker to make that call anyway? ANYONE can be insured in a turbine - it just takes the right approach with mentor time and formal school to make that move safely and satisfy the underwriters.

Gentlemen

Very good points....

I generally agree. I stepped up from a Cessna 182 to a Cessna 340 to the MU2. And learning systems was not a big deal.

What I noticed most about transitioning to the MU2 from the 340, actually, is how much faster things happen on departure. Approaches are actually fairly similar in speeds, etc, so they aren't that big a deal (a little planning ahead on getting the airplane slowed down, though in the Mits that's not all that hard). But the thing climbs more than twice as fast while moving at least 50% faster. That makes task management during departure a fair amount busier.

So... I think that training is the key. To make a big jump (e.g. from a single piston to a turboprop, especially a twin transition simultaneously), you need to be a competent IFR pilot in the first place, you need to train well in the sim on systems management/failure and engine out procedures, but most of all you need to get used to going faster. Departure is where I find that the rubber hits the road.

But I will say that flying the C90A ... is more airplane than the B55 or B58. I'm glad I had a bunch of 55 and 58 time going into the C90A.

Jason ... you don't have the feeling that the proper transition would be PC12, TN-A36 do you?

I should add that my previous post I was agreeing with the limited point that systems challenges are not that different between turboprop and piston twins (especially pressurized twins).

I would not have been ready to fly the MU2 coming out of my 182 without several years of flying the 340 and its attendant recurrent training. Not that the 340 was the magic - the increased training and being used to flying longer/faster/higher was.

I think a single piston to MU2 transition would be a challenge. To meet the challenge would require a very well thought out plan of training and mentoring. Do-able, but definitely not hop-in-and-go.

I have a Navajo 310. Love it. Burn 16 a side at 75% about 175 knots cruise. I am 6feet 3 and plenty of room up front. A 1000 miles range? Like Larry said, that is pushing it. I'd agree with others, get another insurance company.
With the economy the way it is, I have seen several Navajo owners downgrade to smaller planes, after all it costs about $1300 just to fill it up! You can't give them away right now. A guy 2 hangars down from me just bought a Panther Navajo for $100k!

Remy

+1

I talked to him at PROP 2012 and he assumed me I was insurance at 800tt with cfi and 150 hrs in a Malibu

The other thing I would add: set out to dictate the transition plan by impressing the insurance company, not just falling at their mercy. If you want an MU2, do the initial either at Simcom or in the plane. Wrangle 25-50 hrs flying right seat for other owners then go back to Simcom. Then find your plane and start shopping for insurance.

The mu2 community is very right knit and they know how to make transitions. You want their support/expertise. With that done, insurance won't be an issue.

Remy,

A Navajo panther at $100k is a killer deal, even with high time engines. A great plane. Miss m Navajo, but it was a party plane and the Baron is much better for my mission. Same speed, much less fuel and maintenance.....

However, can't fit my wife and girlfriend in the Baron ....

How do the Navajos deice the windshield for FIKI certification? They all seem to have window-wipers and no hotplates. Do they just heat with air from the inside or do they have an embedded heating layer like many jets ?

They and the Cessna 402/414/421 have a heater element embedded in the glass, just like the King Airs and jets. IIRC some non-FIKI twin cessnas have plexiglas windhsields. A couple TS I flew has a vertical hotplate thw whole length of the windshield, but I dont remember if it was FIKI or not.