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.

We had the A-model M600, SN 38, and it had some growing pains. Was delivered non-FIKI, but additional flight testing and they made some mods, so had quite a bit of work done on it to upgrade to FIKI. Then they came out with a CG kit to move the CG forward for better cabin loading. we did that. Then someone discovered a bad machined rear spar found in a bin, and we had the grounding AD, which in the end did not affect any airplane flying, but still required minimally invasive testing on our bird to ensure the rear spar was spec. Then someone realized that someone had accidentally put M500 rivets in the firewall of some of the M600's and another service event to pull the engine and re-rivet the firewall. I think all that work made our plane a little buggy.

Piper took that one back with a generous trade and we got a B-model SN 98 that has been dialed in and kick the tires and light the fires pleasure to fly. They are now out with the C or D models, which I would like to have, but our plane has been exceptional in reliability so not much pressure for us to upgrade. Having a plane that still has factory support, is still being made, and has more technology in the panel than an iPad can bring is a different experience.

I also think these modern turbines are safer for most GA pilots than to fly than a legacy jet single pilot IFR. Much less to go wrong and has much more robust avionics systems, which is where many turbine aircraft accidents start. I flew on the same day that this Citation had in in-flight break up in SLC after the pilot just left a safety conference. Were pretty benign conditions by Utah standards. Was loss of some aspects of his mix and match panel resulting in LOC killing him and his wife. This doesn't happen in an M600 for so many reasons. The redundancy is over the top. There are 3 large glass panel AI's, 4 if you hit reversionary mode, 3 ADC's, 3 ADHR's, 3 electrical busses and a backup on its own power supply, the rock solid digital GFC700. Even if he tried to roll it over the ESP would kick in and prevent the plane from exceeding bank angle, if he still tried to do it, the Autopilot would annunciate that it was taking over "Autopilot engaging" and he could have just sat back and took a deep breath, rather than the terrifying moments as he got more and more out of control.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20160118-0

Over 3 years, the extra $2M in capital cost is worth about $480K in cost of money (either interest on the loan, or lost investment income). This is at a modest 8% rate, could be worse. House mortgages are running 7% and aircraft loans aren't that good.

So the legacy jet has a $480K head start.

The legacy jet will likely not decline in market value very much over the 3 years since it is so far from when it was new, and it may increase in value (like mine has, if I sell now, I flew it entirely for free or even made money on it).

A new SETP will suffer the initial market value decline going from new to used. Even if bought "relatively new", it is still on that initial post new value decline. So that is an additional penalty to account for in those 3 years. Let's be generous and say that is only 20% of value, or $600K.

So now the legacy jet is over $1M ahead before we actually fly anything. That's a $350K head start PER YEAR. I just don't see how any SETP could catch that for a typical owner flown profile (~50,000 nm per year). That's about 135 hours in my plane (block speed 370 knots), so I have $2600 PER HOUR head start. Holy batman! I could fly TWO jets for that!

Of course, the market depreciation part of this is fickle and after time, it may fade, and my plane could lose value, so that's hard to guess. Even if we take all that out, we still get $160K PER YEAR head start on the legacy jet, and that works out to $1200 PER HOUR advantage. Still not catching that with an SETP.

How is you think the SETP is cheaper under those circumstances? I just don't see how it can be.

Mike C.

Nice in theory.

But don't discount the issue when George gets it wrong and takes over when he shouldn't. Faith in automation is a great way to get killed. It can help, but there is always a dark side. For example, the SF50 whose autopilot took over incorrectly for a chute deployment process.

Also, don't discount a panicked pilot won't just "sit back", they are likely to desperately try to control the airplane, contrary to whatever the AP is doing, thus negating that feature.

I have 3 power busses, 3 AIs, 4 sources of power, and, crucially, 2 sources of thrust air bleed air. My avionics upgrade uses so little power that my main battery can run it longer than my fuel will last if both of my generators fail. Then I have the battery backed up GI 275 on top of that.

There is no way an SETP will win the redundancy battle over a twin jet.

It is a big leap to say the M600 avionics suite would have prevented the Utah 525 accident given the details of the failure were never determined. One can always ideally say so, but reality is messy.

Mike C.

Over 3 years, the extra $2M in capital cost is worth about $480K in cost of money (either interest on the loan, or lost investment income). This is at a modest 8% rate, could be worse. House mortgages are running 7% and aircraft loans aren't that good.

So the legacy jet has a $480K head start.

Mike C.

Both airplanes have "exposure".


Unlikely, but even so, I get that $480K every 3 years. I'm not having a major engine event every 3 years.

My engines have 20,000 hours and 66 years combined. No major engine events in that time. This is TYPICAL.

My insurance covers FOD. This is also TYPICAL.

The expected value of the engine risk is quite low, well below piston engines.

Do you scare your customers about engine risks by using piston failure frequency with turbine repair costs? Shame on you for doing that!

The biggest "exposure" both planes have is market value. You WILL experience that, one way or another. My downside risk is limited compared to the $3M SETP just due to less hull value.

Mike C.

Not if I followed your advice, that's for sure.

I'm not the only one. I'm not doing anything that special, really. I'm just maintaining it the way a caring owner would do for a Bonanza. That is, be involved and know your airplane. BT is full of these caring people.

Mike C.

RE: Legacy citation vs turbo prop. Is the mustang a legacy citation? Looking forward to seeing the op’s numbers. A breakdown on C 501 vs TBM 700. Should be about 500-1m capX delta between the two. Without a capX delta the conversation seems mute.

Well Chip does it have to be Mike P or will Mike T work? Or will $115 every 6 months portable fire extinguisher check work? Fact is Chip, and completely understandable, you don’t know squat about Legacy Citation maintenance. End of story.

Not if I followed your advice, that's for sure.

I'm not the only one. I'm not doing anything that special, really. I'm just maintaining it the way a caring owner would do for a Bonanza. That is, be involved and know your airplane. BT is full of these caring people.

Mike C.

Both airplanes have "exposure".


Unlikely, but even so, I get that $480K every 3 years. I'm not having a major engine event every 3 years.

My engines have 20,000 hours and 66 years combined. No major engine events in that time. This is TYPICAL.

My insurance covers FOD. This is also TYPICAL.

The expected value of the engine risk is quite low, well below piston engines.

Do you scare your customers about engine risks by using piston failure frequency with turbine repair costs? Shame on you for doing that!

The biggest "exposure" both planes have is market value. You WILL experience that, one way or another. My downside risk is limited compared to the $3M SETP just due to less hull value.

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.

Has a PT-6 ever failed?

Are all M600 on program?

My close friend bought a PC-12 and 6 months after he bought it he ended up with a $500k bill for engine issues.

Can that not happen on other PT-6? Is Chuck out of warranty and at risk of a major failure that comes with major bill? Or do all M600 come with lifetime engine programs all paid?

Chip no we can not all agree, obviously. The one thing we can agree on is you will argue to the end of days your point and never give an inch. What I think we can all agree on is you are unable to learn anything new as you already know everything.

Mike

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone is comparing 30 and 40 year old Citations to new M600s. It's disingenuous. At least compare it to 20 year old Meridians. The capital cost delta goes away immediately.