Chuck is a new car guy, and he and Mike will never be shopping for the same plane. They are both clearly ecstatic.

I’m also not a new plane guy. My point is that NO new plane guy is going to consider a 50yr old jet, so let’s not use a new plane as a comparison point. Let’s use the oldest most runout TP we can find, because the other side is an old run out jet. THAT is the real decision that’s happening in the minds of people reading this.

I is also think the cost is closer than people realize - esp Mike C. He puts his V at almost free compared to the M600 (cost of V operation = cost of M600 capital), but I don’t think he’s using the right numbers. When you use apple to apple numbers, I think they’re much closer. Saying he spent $700k for his plane is misleading, and he’s done it more than once.

Prove it by showing us your last annual squawk sheet with zero entries.

Mike C.

Not sure where you find this 27,000 foot ice you speak of. I got ice once up to 27,300 and went to 28 and out. But in the CONUS ice at FL270 is near unheard of and when present due to the very cold air is trivial.

Today. Max ice and ice at FL270

Ok. Been playing around with ForeFlight and different aircraft a LOT as this 501 VS TP is where I am at right now.

While reading through this thread I am checking out all aircraft in routes that I would fly. Some are easy but

I found one tonight that puts a MU2 Marquis ahead of a 501, both in flight time and fuel burn.

Yea Mike C, your 560 would beat the MU2 but only by 18 minutes but almost double the fuel.

Seems like flying lower with the TP to stay under the winds helps and doesn’t burn much more fuel then staying high.

Problem with flying lower is weather.

I have been flying FL350 as I have been single pilot a lot lately and hate my mask. There is weather at those altitudes and in some cases I plan for 35 and have to climb and put my mask on to get out of it. If I couldn’t climb I would be stuck in the crap. Makes a trip so much longer working around weather.

Nothing like getting over all the Crud and smooth sailing. Also lot more traffic in the mid 30’s.

So having the choice to go to FL430 is so nice.

The other amazing thing about twin jet is climb rate. I climb so fast that we get out of the bumps and ice so fast.

Fuel burn alone is just one metric. And I am glad to pay for more fuel to get better performance and ride.

Mike.

Traveling the last two days, doesn’t look like I missed much.

Totally agree with you Michael about the weather and having the ability to top it, but here when the wind is blowing hard (and today isn’t really that bad) it is clear.

Yeah good point. When there are major winds it’s mostly clear up there.

I use Foreflight performance profile to plan trips. I care more about fuel burn than time. It’s pretty much always less fuel up high and generally not that much slower. Many times the wind is less at FL420 than FL320.

I Am always surprised by the fuel and time calcs. Does not always make sense to me but it works.

Mike

When I purchased a share in a M600 in 2018, I compared it to a Mustang. The price assumption was $2.9mm for the M600 vs $1.5mm for the Mustang. I included every cost including cost of capital and depreciation. For the first five years, the total cost of the Mustang was less than the M600. After five years, the lines crossed and owning the M600 was less expensive.

Now five years later, my math was pretty close. I do not believe that an average owner pilot can buy a $1mm legacy jet and have a total cost experience that is materially less than a relatively new $3mm single engine turboprop over a 3+ year period. It’s possible depending on mission, fuel costs and luck but probably not. At least not enough to matter.

Having the knowledge skill and experience to manage operating costs of a legacy jet skews the decision in favor of the jet.

There’s two factors that I find interesting when looking at aircraft comparisons and the associated cost.

One is that no matter how much you dislike a particular aircraft because it simply isn’t for you, it’s important to remember that someone invested tens of millions of dollars and untold man hours to design and build it, and then people actually bought it. So it was / is viable to some group of people.

I think back to the criticism of the Cirrus SF50, well that criticism looks pretty silly now. I get that it isn’t for everyone, but it’s apparently perfect for a lot of people.

Secondly, for the most part these markets are self-leveling, meaning that with the amount of turbine aircraft buyers in the market today, there’s constant buying pressure for business class aircraft, the buyers are readily available and the aircraft will sell for what the market will tolerate. If an aircraft has a weakness, such as age, range, cost of operation, parts supply issues, and the like, you will see prices trend down and availability of inventory increase.

I also believe the recent surge in activity has been a reset, some markets were out of whack, I know because we’ve historically taken advantage of them, the King Air 350 is a good example, that market was depressed and from 2015 until 2021 and we made numerous really good buys for clients who originally wanted a King Air B200. The 350 was a lot more airplane for a slight difference in acquisition cost, now that delta is huge. The Citation V is another example, when you look at the capabilities of the aircraft versus the acquisition cost, it represented a tremendous value. The market pressure woke those depressed markets up and that’s why 90’s vintage Citation V’s and King Air 350’s have increased in value by a million dollars or more.

The Mustang was another undervalued aircraft, interesting enough the prices have gone up but no where near a million bucks, I still think Mustangs are an excellent value in this market. There are other aircraft that went up in value but have already trended back down, some of them pretty drastically, in some cases they went up too much based on lack of supply (Phenom 100) and in other cases values are dropping because of lack of parts / support. (fill in the blank)

As long as the airlines stink and we don’t see a major financial disaster, I don’t see the demand shrinking, how that demand will be met is going to get interesting.

I’m guessing the market will do what it does, level itself out.

Prove it by showing us your last annual squawk sheet with zero entries.

Mike C.

Prove it by showing us your last annual squawk sheet with zero entries.

Mike C.

Lot of good answers. At least we’re back to common ground.
To me: mission. And that entails a lot more than the trip. Which entails a lot. Eg. the weather. From a business aspect this is big. The Baron has severe limitations in this regard. Mike C, well Mike T, have both had TP’s. Both went to a great, maybe starter, jet. BTW. I’ve followed the Meridian for a long time; it sounds like they hit one out the park with the M600. But….

Rest of the mission: learning. The essence of Life really. Costs arent relevant really. Where to start? Simplest, safest.
And as pointed out I, like others, going to treat this plane just like my others as far as maintenance because I want to learn, at the basic levels, the systems.

Does that apply to everyone? Of course not. Chip provides that service that does the basic leg work for those that aren’t going to want to spend the time, and energy to do it. He, his clients, aren’t concerned with the minute details of all the maintenance. They just want a safe reasonably purchased, plane.

And Charles wants the shiny new deal. All in all: YMMV. I appreciate everyone’s input. Now plans can be arranged. Of course my personal plan/dreams can always be over-ruled. That’s a given.

What, exactly, do you think that "one thing" is?

Making a 180 HP primary trainer? Or a 600 HP pressurized turboprop? Or a piston twin? Or all the other models they sell?

Mike C.

The 501 is not a very good performer. My 560 has about the same fuel efficiency in still air despite being so much larger and faster, and in a headwind, can do better. My plane can do that due to more efficient engines and better wing design than the 501.


The MU2 is always going to win the efficiency battle against a Citation. The MU2 is among the best turboprops out there in that regard. If using less fuel for my missions was the only criteria, I would not have sold my MU2.

A factor not addressed in your analysis is whether you are in weather at 16,000 ft, and if you are in turbulence. Those issues can make the "fly low" tactic less desirable. Mid teens are prime icing altitudes a lot of the time, too.


You can win with that strategy. For my MU2 M model with dash 10 engines, the break even point was about 100 knots. Less than 100 knots headwind, it was still somewhat less fuel to fly high. Over 100 knots, then it was less to fly low. As you got over about 50 knots, the fuel penalty for flying low became low enough that the higher speed was worth it (you used more fuel, but saved a lot of time).

If your sole objective is to burn less fuel, don't get a jet.

My objective was to get the most airplane for the total money impact. I got a Citation. It is less total money impact than an SETP like a Meridian, TBM, or PC-12 due to the capital costs. It is not less impact than an older twin turboprop like an MU2, Commander, 441. A King Air doesn't make the cut due to poor performance and high cost.

Since getting my Citation, my passenger loads have increased. I've flown with 9 once, 7 a number of times, and 6 very commonly. The times I have flown it solo can be counted on one hand, extremely rare. In terms of passenger safety and comfort, the jet wins hands down over any turboprop, single or twin. Ultimately, the protection of my passengers is more valuable to me than my fuel bill.

My MU2 would cost today about $800/hour, my 560 is running about $1300 per hour. My MU2 cruised at about 290 KTAS, my 560 about 400 KTAS, both operated in my usual "efficient" mode (not max speed, higher altitudes, to save fuel). Net result is about 20% more per mile for the 560. I find that to be a surprisingly low premium for the upgrade, I expected it to be more like 50%, though the penalty is higher for short flights. Part of this is that my 560 inspection intervals are vastly longer than the MU2 under the LUMP program, and another aspect is the local maintenance which helps keep costs down, and yet another is the vastly larger ecosystem of the Citation allows finding cheaper options for parts, upgrades, etc. My fuel costs are way up, my other costs are down.

If I had to downsize for economic reasons, I'd be looking very hard at 441s. I would have bought one instead of my MU2, but they were very pricey 15-20 years ago, and still are to some extent. I stretched financially to buy the MU2, to skip over the piston twin step. Very nice airplane, probably the best twin turboprop there is.

What I have noticed is that every time I make a big step up in airplanes, my business performance has increased noticeably. Is this due to the airplane providing better value to the business? Or due to my motivation and drive being increased? Probably a bit of both, but what I can say is that my business performance since buying the jet has been outstanding. Obviously, I need to buy a Gulfstream next.

Mike C.