Ironically I was just looking at the V and Ultras yesterday. I am starting with a new client in Miami and needing a faster option than my plane with more full fuel payload. I have been to Miami twice in the last month with more trips coming over the next 2 years.

What could you possibly have against the V?

Encore and CJ3/4 are way out of my price range.

Mike

Ironically I was just looking at the V and Ultras yesterday. I am starting with a new client in Miami and needing a faster option than my plane with more full fuel payload. I have been to Miami twice in the last month with more trips coming over the next 2 years.

What could you possibly have against the V?

Encore and CJ3/4 are way out of my price range.

Mike

V vs Ultra differences:

Ultra has JT15D-5D engines with very pricey HT blades that do not appear to last very long. The -5D gets its increase power by operating at higher temperatures. The HT blades bear the brunt of that despite being different, and presumably built for the higher temps, than prior. There are 71 HT blades per engine, so that can add up real fast.

V has JT15D-5A engines with HT blades that are less costly and are shared with the -4 series engines, so much more readily available. They tend to last better than the -5D engines.

The Ultra presently cannot be upgraded to G700 TXi panels because the autopilot is integrated into the Primus 1000 system, makng the Primus unremovable. If/when a replacement autopilot is approved, this limitation goes away. The V has the analog SPZ 500 autopilot which interfaces with the Garmin panels, albeit with various adapter boxes. Most Ultras have Garmin navigators installed, though.

The Ultra is 16,300 lbs takeoff weight, which is an option for the V as well, otherwise the V is 15,900 lbs. The Ultra weighs more than a V (the Primus 1000 screens are actual glass CRTs unless it has been expensively upgraded to LCDs), so the useful load is not really improved. The maximum useful load is a fully Garminize V with the gross up mod. My V has 1000 lbs useful load full fuel, which is 5800 lbs. I could get that to 1400 lbs with the gross up mod, though it does shorten landing gear life, so I don't do it.

If you Garminize an Ultra, with a modern digital autopilot, you will probably drop 500 lbs and end up tail heavy. The tail heaviness is manageable and operating near the rea CG limit improves performance.

The Ultra will climb to FL450 at gross, the V will not, needing step climbs to go above FL410. This assumes gross weight.

The early Ultras had a vapor cycle air conditioner using R12 refrigerant. At some point, they switched to using an R134a system on the Ultra production line. There is/was a mod to switch the R12 planes to R134a, both V and early Ultra, and my plane has this mod (which was a surprise, the tracking said it was R12).

The Ultra has some interior refinements, more luxurious, but otherwise basically similar to the V.

Ultras also got a improved entrance step at some point. The V has the "ladder" style.

The V and Ultra are very similar planes except the engine tweak and the factory avionics.

Mike C.

Do you think you can run a PT6A on an airplane for 90k hours?

As far as "90,000 hours in the oilfield" I have heard that as well, and I have never been able to find any indication that the PT6 is used in the oilfield other than possibly as an aux power unit running off natural gas. I guess if you bolted the thing to a generator and ran it at a constant speed it probably would last that long, but that is very different from cycles and starts.

Do you think you can run a PT6A on an airplane for 90k hours?

As far as "90,000 hours in the oilfield" I have heard that as well, and I have never been able to find any indication that the PT6 is used in the oilfield other than possibly as an aux power unit running off natural gas. I guess if you bolted the thing to a generator and ran it at a constant speed it probably would last that long, but that is very different from cycles and starts.

That's nowhere near enough info to determine longevity of a turbine.

Is the engine derated? By how much? Is it run at redline? If not, how far off redline is it run? How often is it started, and what power source is used to start it? Does it get to 14% or 30% before fuel is added?

You can put two PT-6s in two identical PC-12s and run them both for 7,000 hours,, and they can be in wildly different conditions depending on how the operator ran them.

Do you think you can run a PT6A on an airplane for 90k hours?

As far as "90,000 hours in the oilfield" I have heard that as well, and I have never been able to find any indication that the PT6 is used in the oilfield other than possibly as an aux power unit running off natural gas. I guess if you bolted the thing to a generator and ran it at a constant speed it probably would last that long, but that is very different from cycles and starts.

That's nowhere near enough info to determine longevity of a turbine.

Is the engine derated? By how much? Is it run at redline? If not, how far off redline is it run? How often is it started, and what power source is used to start it? Does it get to 14% or 30% before fuel is added?

You can put two PT-6s in two identical PC-12s and run them both for 7,000 hours,, and they can be in wildly different conditions depending on how the operator ran them.

Do you seriously think a normal use 3600 hr Pt6 with say 3200 cycles needs a FULL OVERHAUL?

Another option, is to just quit reading it

Ironically I was just looking at the V and Ultras yesterday. I am starting with a new client in Miami and needing a faster option than my plane with more full fuel payload. I have been to Miami twice in the last month with more trips coming over the next 2 years.

What could you possibly have against the V?

Encore and CJ3/4 are way out of my price range.

Mike

I don't think a 650 is a good choice, especially with 2 inexperienced pilots up front. I don't have direct flight time in the 650 but talking with pro pilots that do, it is not a joke, especially if something goes wrong. It has high Vref speed in comparison to the straight wing jets, less forgiving handling with a 27 degree wing sweep, antiquated avionics and cockpit displays. 300 gal/hr average fuel burn.

Ask yourself why they are half the cost of less capable jets and I think you'll find the answer.

The joke a shops that actually work on them about how much they are worth is "How much fuel does it have in the tanks?"

They were overengineered by laid off boeing engineers although they laid the ground work for the ultra-popular and much simplified Excel series.

I wouldn't want to share the airspace with non-experienced pilots flying a 650.

Mike C has said, and I agree, that “chartering a human” greatly reduces the capability and versatility that comes from owning your own plane.

You won’t be able to hire someone full time for only 150 flight hours a year, so you have to find someone for each flight.

Tarver has a fleet, including a 501, so he has options for single pilot ops.

Getting two airplanes is not cheaper than one V.

Operating cost of the 650 will be significantly higher than the V.

The V is not a transcon airplane.

For KVNY - KTMB, 2037 nm, the V will need a fuel stop essentially all the time, east or west. Maybe non stop going east in super winter tailwinds, but that will be quite rare.

For KPVU - KTMB, 1791 nm, the V will need a fuel stop going west, it will be able to go east non stop some of the time, maybe a half?

Even for a 650, the KTMB to KVNY west flight might not be doable non stop depending on winds. It does have the advantage of flying higher which reduces headwind potency.

For these long legs, the extra speed of the 650 will be significant. Avoiding a fuel stop and having the extra speed will cut hours off doing it in a V.

On paper, the Lear 35/36 family has longer range than the 650 and might be an option if you don't mind "chartering the human" for each flight. Smaller cabin than a 650. Also TFE731. I have no idea on the care and feeding of a Lear.

Mike C.

Another option, is to just quit reading it