BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 09:57

Username Protected wrote:

I have crawled around a MU2 and I thought it seemed really heavy duty. Thats just my non engineer personal opinion.

My annual inspections on both of my Pipers were crazy and lots of things break during the year under normal use. I was flying more than average at at least 350hrs per year but my 421 flew the same trips less hours and when it went to annual very little was broke or wore out. So in my opinion the Cessna Product is built heavier duty than the Piper product. Thats not a slam on Piper, they have to build lighter planes.

I know Chuck is a fan boy of Piper but he also has only owned brand new Piper products. When you compare legacy Piper to Legacy Cessna there is a huge difference in build quality. Not sure what its like to compare a new Cessna product to new Piper product.

My bet is the MU2 is another level up from the Cessna legacy product. I also think the Beechcraft product is also very well built and a step up from Piper.

I am sure I would be very pleased with the quality if a new $3M Piper single TP, at least I would hope so.

Back to this thread topic I believe a TBM is higher build quality than the Piper product of same value. That being said there seems to be a lot more TBM accidents than M500. The TBM seems more complex and more expensive. But has more payload and heavier duty.

I know a salesman that sold Piper for a long time then switched to TBM he has a lot of experience in both. He thinks the TBM is a more capable aircraft but has more things that can kill you. I have sat in both and the TBM is much larger and feels better built.

So all things being equal I would pick the TBM over Meridian but I would expect to pay more for maintenance. But you get more for your money with range, payload, and feel.

Mike

You can buy a Meridian and operate a Meridian cheaper than a TBM. You get more plane for
your buck with a Meridian. That’s based on being able to buy a Meridian for 750 and in some cases less.

A TBM is bigger and more stout. But again you can find a Meridian at 750K and likely have to spend 1M to get an equivalent TBM. Especially in this market.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 10:03

Username Protected wrote:

I can't afford a PC-12.

I fly a Citation V.

Mike C.

How many hours a year do you fly? Actually miles may be a better indicator seeing that the PC12 is definitely a fair bit slower than the V.

One thing that I have noticed that on shorter trips getting to altitude is not as easy and you burn a serious amount of fuel on take-off.

I'm flying even longer legs now and having speed is starting to be a serious consideration.

Interestingly enough the P300/CJ3/CJ4 all seem relatively similar with regards to fuel burn.

Getting to altitude is damn important.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 10:14

Not just getting to altitude, when they bring you down can also be important. Last time I arrived in the D/FW area from the north in the Citation V, they brought me down to 12,000 50 miles north! Grrr. On some published arrivals, there are published speeds some GA jets may not be able to maintain. In the Citation II, we had to inform ATC we didn’t meet the speed requirement for one arrival they routinely assigned.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 10:29

Username Protected wrote:

How many hours a year do you fly?

Expecting 100-150 hours will be typical. This will be more miles than my MU2, so it accounts for mission scope increase.

Quote:

Actually miles may be a better indicator seeing that the PC12 is definitely a fair bit slower than the V.

At mid cruise weights (13,500 lbs) and ISA conditions:

FL450: 370 KTAS, 860 pph (book max thrust)

FL410: 403 KTAS, 1077 pph (book, max thrust)
FL410: 420 KTAS, 1150 pph (observed, max thrust)
FL410: 346 KTAS, 798 pph (book, long range)

FL310: 424 KTAS, 1598 pph (book, max thrust)
FL310: 297 KTAS, 778 pph (book, long range)

I put in the FL310 to show what a "turboprop" profile would look like flown with the jet. It is obviously not terribly efficient to do so.

Quote:

One thing that I have noticed that on shorter trips getting to altitude is not as easy and you burn a serious amount of fuel on take-off.

4000 FPM climb after takeoff helps limit that exposure. ATC can be an issue, of course.

Quote:

I'm flying even longer legs now and having speed is starting to be a serious consideration.

One factor is headwinds. A 100 knot headwind in a PC-12, which is not all that rare in the winter, is much more of a hit to overall performance than in a jet. You spend most of your time in headwinds, so still air comparisons are not as favorable to the jet as real life.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 11:05

Username Protected wrote:

I'm flying even longer legs now and having speed is starting to be a serious consideration.

I only do a handful of trips a year to Colorado, but on each and every one this year I wished I was in a jet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 11:36

Username Protected wrote:

Not just getting to altitude, when they bring you down can also be important. Last time I arrived in the D/FW area from the north in the Citation V, they brought me down to 12,000 50 miles north! Grrr. On some published arrivals, there are published speeds some GA jets may not be able to maintain. In the Citation II, we had to inform ATC we didn’t meet the speed requirement for one arrival they routinely assigned.

12k’ 50nm out in a V and you’re complaining? At 300kts that's about 10min out. 1200fpm to the runway.

My 501 is based at BLM. Coming in from the west, it’s ALWAYS cross 45nm west of HAR at FL250 (that’s 182nm from destination). Then it’s ALWAYS cross BUNTS at 8000 (75nm out).

From the south I get the WAALK1 arrival. ALWAYS cross WAALK at 8000 (70nm out)

This is what’s known as the northeast Jet Tax. Basing a jet up here is substantially more expensive than almost anywhere else in the country due to the increased hobbs time at ridiculous fuel burns alone.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 11:52

Username Protected wrote:

This is what’s known as the northeast Jet Tax.

Does it work to cancel IFR as soon as you hit 17,500?

That's better than 8000, at least, if weather allows.

Then ATC can deal with a VFR blip getting in the way instead, which is probably more disruptive, but that's the rules.

Ah, the joys of the Midwest, direct routings, unabated climbs, pilot discretion descents.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 11:53

I oversimplified. 50 miles north was a generalization making the point, it’s not just getting to altitude for Michael. We’re not as bad as your area, but I have been brought down earlier than what the published arrival states and at 10,000 and below, it’s not only high fuel burn, it’s speed restricted, often bumpy and more risky.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 12:29

Username Protected wrote:

This is what’s known as the northeast Jet Tax.

Does it work to cancel IFR as soon as you hit 17,500?

That's better than 8000, at least, if weather allows.

Then ATC can deal with a VFR blip getting in the way instead, which is probably more disruptive, but that's the rules.

Ah, the joys of the Midwest, direct routings, unabated climbs, pilot discretion descents.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 12:33

Username Protected wrote:

I oversimplified. 50 miles north was a generalization making the point, it’s not just getting to altitude for Michael. We’re not as bad as your area, but I have been brought down earlier than what the published arrival states and at 10,000 and below, it’s not only high fuel burn, it’s speed restricted, often bumpy and more risky.

Understood. It also forces one to carry additional reserves which obviously affects speed, and payload.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 12:57

Username Protected wrote:

Does it work to cancel IFR as soon as you hit 17,500?

That's better than 8000, at least, if weather allows.

Then ATC can deal with a VFR blip getting in the way instead, which is probably more disruptive, but that's the rules.

Ah, the joys of the Midwest, direct routings, unabated climbs, pilot discretion descents.

Mike C.

Yes and I've done that as well. Obviously the wx needs to cooperate. Even if just the destination is IFR I won't cancel as I know that asking for a pop-up at 3k' from McGuire is probably gonna cough up any efficiency I gained by canceling.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 15:14

If I am VFR and getting flight following, and I start getting vectors, I'm saying "adios."

that defeats the purpose.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 20:54

If you’re flying in or near busy airspace and don’t want vectors when on flight following, don’t call for flight following. Chances are you’ll be getting vectored. (Controller for 16 years). And it’s easier to move the one airplane that shouldn’t be there than it is to move the numerous that should be there. I wish I could leave everyone high and fast, it’s just not the safest operation.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Sep 2021, 21:14

I got an altitude changed flying over Aspen the other day on my way back to Denver. I thought it was odd he just assigned it to me as if I was IFR. I’m happy to help, I think they have more latitude with VFR aircraft so I’m still better off than getting an arrival then getting vectored off of it for a Learjet behind me (although that’s more of a pride thing because in a descent I’m not much slower).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Sep 2021, 00:50

Username Protected wrote:

And it’s easier to move the one airplane that shouldn’t be there

Can you define what "shouldn't be there" means? Is the VFR plane operating illegally? If not, why do you consider inappropriate for it to fly in that airspace?

If you vector such aircraft significantly, then they may stop contacting you altogether. Did that improve safety?

Sometimes planes fly VFR because ATC is less accommodating. If ATC keeps doing that, more aircraft will fly VFR silently. Maybe the right strategy is trying to make things LESS annoying to talk to you rather than more and that would improve safety more than shoving jets down to a few thousand feet 100 miles from destination. That may create fewer VFR blips out of contact zooming through your airspace.

If we can find more efficient and accommodating ways to handle the traffic, it improves things for everybody. Less flight time, less fuel burn, less carbon, less noise, more safety.

Mike C.

$1MM Meridian vs. $1MM TBM