BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 11:39

The SF50 is a step up from the SR22T and to some extent the meridian/jetprop DX. I dont think anyone is comparing it with the PC12.

I think PC12s will be flying long after we are all dead. They wont have their snazzy interiors and be filled with packages from Amazon.com.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 11:41

Username Protected wrote:

The SF50 is a step up from the SR22T and to some extent the meridian/jetprop DX. I dont think anyone is comparing it with the PC12.

I think PC12s will be flying long after we are all dead. They wont have their snazzy interiors and be filled with packages from Amazon.com.

Without pilots...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 12:00

Username Protected wrote:

The SF50 is a step up from the SR22T and to some extent the meridian/jetprop DX. I dont think anyone is comparing it with the PC12.

I think PC12s will be flying long after we are all dead. They wont have their snazzy interiors and be filled with packages from Amazon.com.

Without pilots...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 12:57

Username Protected wrote:

M2 - 10,700#'s
SF50 - 6060#'s

The M2 cruises just shy of 400kts, the SF50 just shy of 300kts. What's the surprise here? More weight, more thrust, more speed, more payload. Isn't this the way it's supposed to work?

Every time I see that SF50 I want one. M2, not so much. Has to do with mission obviously, they are both awesome planes that probably shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

We're not comparing M2. We're comparing MUSTANG. Big difference

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 13:08

Mustang MTOW 8642#/2920 # thrust

340 kts cruise

Cirrus SF50 MTOW 6060#/1800 # thrust

300 kts cruise

The Mustang is less weight, less thrust and speed than the M2, but the numbers still make sense compared to the Cirrus. No smoke & mirrors here.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 13:13

Username Protected wrote:

Why is the Cirrus jet with 1800lbs of thrust virtually the same speed as a Mustang with twice the thrust divided over 2 engines?

40 kts is alot of airspeed to consider the same. That would make my Bonanza into a 172, ouch!

Not twice the thrust either.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 13:31

Username Protected wrote:

These are all valid discussions regarding the fuel burns of newer equipment versus old, but I'm always amazed at how critical folks can be of higher fuel burns when fuel is really just a percentage (sometimes very small) of overall operating cost (direct & indirect).

How much do you think it cost to operate a PC12 per year, all in? Capital costs, insurance, hangar, mx, etc. Lets see what the % of overall costs fuel really is.

After all, we are talking about a group of pilots who probably don't drive Prius's and stay in the Motel 6. I still dump fuel into a Citation 550 on a regular basis and have never thought it burned "alot" of fuel, but I guess it's turning into the old Lear 20 series category faster than I think. I guess it will fully make the transition when the 20 series are gone forever next year. :sad:

Completely agree. I'm seeing nice Citation IIs for under $1MM. That's a very capable plane. Most need avionics, but one can spend a lot for fuel and higher maintenance and be in cheaper than purchasing a $4MM gee whiz plane when they look at the full ownership cycle. To properly evaluate, one has to look at purchase, capital, operating and exit costs (full turn). The exit will have some big assumptions.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 13:40

Username Protected wrote:

These are all valid discussions regarding the fuel burns of newer equipment versus old, but I'm always amazed at how critical folks can be of higher fuel burns when fuel is really just a percentage (sometimes very small) of overall operating cost (direct & indirect).

How much do you think it cost to operate a PC12 per year, all in? Capital costs, insurance, hangar, mx, etc. Lets see what the % of overall costs fuel really is.

After all, we are talking about a group of pilots who probably don't drive Prius's and stay in the Motel 6. I still dump fuel into a Citation 550 on a regular basis and have never thought it burned "alot" of fuel, but I guess it's turning into the old Lear 20 series category faster than I think. I guess it will fully make the transition when the 20 series are gone forever next year. :sad:

Completely agree. I'm seeing nice Citation IIs for under $1MM. That's a very capable plane. Most need avionics, but one can spend a lot for fuel and higher maintenance and be in cheaper than purchasing a $4MM gee whiz plane when they look at the full ownership cycle. To properly evaluate, one has to look at purchase, capital, operating and exit costs (full turn). The exit will have some big assumptions.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 14:03

Username Protected wrote:

Dave, you can find a nice Citation II with 1000 hours left on the motors for 500-600k, maybe less. This would be considered muddy waters for many, but if you do your due diligence and find the "right" plane they are great. Maintenance history drives this market. One plane may be worth 600k, the other 200k. People will squawk about the older airframes, but statistics don't backup any claims from a safety perspective.

Exactly what I'm hearing. The Phase V is the bad boy, but like anything, just needs to be included in your numbers. Almost bought one, but it had limited cycles on impellers. I am still comfortable going over TBO as part 91, but can't ignore specified cycle life. So, I pulled back. Have a demo flight when I get back from the Bahamas in one. Financing there is for me, so, I just want to take my time and find a good one. The SP is what I'm going up in, but lean toward a straight II because of the extra MGW which will allow me to carry a bit more fuel (or payload). Several on the market, but I also have a fella that knows where a lot of them are and will make some calls when I give the go ahead.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 14:13

Be careful going past TBO just because it's part 91. The Citation II is a FAR 25, so I don't believe you have the leeway without an extension on the engine, which shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's on a good mx program.

The SP's will cost more also, for no good reason now that you have to do the PPE anyways. You can get the MTOGW increase on the IISP, just can't fly it single pilot when it's over (cough, cough).

When you get the plane, do your type in the plane (great experience) and then go to the SP recurrent at the sim. Saves time and money if you are doing the 4050 exemption and is a better education IMO.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 14:14

Username Protected wrote:

Mustang MTOW 8642#/2920 # thrust

340 kts cruise

Cirrus SF50 MTOW 6060#/1800 # thrust

300 kts cruise

The Mustang is less weight, less thrust and speed than the M2, but the numbers still make sense compared to the Cirrus. No smoke & mirrors here.

Mustang is 13% faster, which by itself would require 45% more thrust (1.13 ^ 3).
Mustang has 62% more thrust, which when you account for the 45% more thrust required for the speed, gives you 12% more thrust available. (It's geometric, not arithmetic.)

The Mustang is 42% heavier, and we all remember from private pilot ground school about induced drag (the drag created as a by-product of making lift).

That basically accounts for the difference. Most of it is because the Mustang is notably faster than the SF50.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 14:55

Username Protected wrote:

40 kts is alot of airspeed to consider the same. That would make my Bonanza into a 172, ouch!

Not twice the thrust either.

Seriously? C'mon man. 40 knots is a small percentage of 300. It's not like adding 40 knots to a Cessna 172. 40 knots is nothing when comparing 300 to 340. Are you trying to be difficult?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 14:57

Username Protected wrote:

That basically accounts for the difference. Most of it is because the Mustang is notably faster than the SF50.

13% = Notably faster? Really?

And on 2X the fuel burn?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 15:08

Username Protected wrote:

That basically accounts for the difference. Most of it is because the Mustang is notably faster than the SF50.

13% = Notably faster? Really?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2014, 15:11

Username Protected wrote:

So is 300 to 340.

Notable doesn't necessarily imply chalk and cheese difference, but a plane that's 13% faster is worth noting that on a spec sheet.

"Speed costs money; how fast can you afford to go?" is a common phrase in the pits. Not that different in aviation.

It's not "notable" in mine if you take into account the fuel flow required to get the extra 40 knots and considering the Mustang has 1000lbs more thrust.

I'm using the argument you made earlier. Now you're changing your position. You've done a total 180.

That PC12 is biiiiiiiig.