Only Ag planes, like Thrush etc as far as I know. Although the yet to be certified Kestrel is using the -10.

Not really any Garett singles from factory. Mostly just mods to older airframe where the garret was fitted.

The older airplanes can look pretty good if they have the right Options.

Here are some Commander photos.

Bottom one is my Commander.

Steve, how does the cabin noise level compare between the commander and the 421?

Not a discernible difference.

I have upgraded to the hartzell Q-tip prop which drops the noise level several DB so I have been told.

My commander, as do most, has insulation in the walls for sound deadening.

My family does not wear headphones in the Commander.

Loved that 421!

Epic LT. Not certified yet (if ever). Their advertisement has specs that meet the criteria.
Several for sale on Controller, but experimental.

My experience is that a yearly average for my 850 in cruise is 302-304. Sometimes 310 plus sometimes ISA + 298ish.[/quote]
Very nice! TAS or Block?

Chip-[/quote]

TAS

My plane, MU-2M with -10 engines, is 1200 lbs, flown 1200 nm, 1 hour reserve, 290 knots, zero wind, FL280, ISA.

I am operating my plane 100-150 hours/year, for about $750/hour. Includes maintenance, fuel, hangar, insurance, taxes.

Market value roughly $500K.


My plane will not do 1200 nm in any headwind.

You'd have to specify the strength of the headwind to define who is in or out.

The 441 and top end Commanders add more fuel, so they will increase the range beyond 1200 nm, but you have to check payload.

For a 441, 10,400 lbs gross (VGs, etc), 6400 lbs empty, you can load 1000 lbs people, 3000 lbs fuel. At FL330, that will go 304 KTAS, and go for 1850 nm. It could still 1200 nm even in a 100 knot headwind.

Mike C.

For 60 GPH, you can fly the 441 at FL340, doing 309 KTAS at mid cruise weight, go for 2060 nm (VFR reserves), 1800 nm (IFR reserves), and carry 800 lbs.

If you off load fuel to 1200 nm IFR range, then you can carry 1600 lbs cabin load.

If you ask yourself "can a twin can fly as fast on the same fuel flow, carry more, and go further than the TBM?", the answer is yes.

The root cause of this is that TPE331 engines are just much more efficient than PT6.

Mike C.

They were using the -14, the big block engine, much more power and cost than the small block engines.

Not clear the project is moving.

Mike C.

I see we are voting along party lines, so I will say...

MU2

I dont really want to fly an old 30-40 year old legacy aircraft.
I live 1 hr from any major mx facility. I use the plane for business.
When I go I want the plane ready and everything working.
I had 100% dispatch reliability in my previous 700C2 the last 4 years and I expect the same on my 850.





For 60 GPH, you can fly the 441 at FL340, doing 309 KTAS at mid cruise weight, go for 2060 nm (VFR reserves), 1800 nm (IFR reserves), and carry 800 lbs.

If you off load fuel to 1200 nm IFR range, then you can carry 1600 lbs cabin load.

If you ask yourself "can a twin can fly as fast on the same fuel flow, carry more, and go further than the TBM?", the answer is yes.

The root cause of this is that TPE331 engines are just much more efficient than PT6.

Mike C.

I've done KIKK to KBZN 1100 miles .....albeit wind was weirdly light going west. Always make it east non-stop. Full fuel useful in my C2 is just about 900 pounds.

The presumption here is that "old" = "unreliable".

I have not found that to be the case with my airplane. I use it on business, and I am 30 minutes from maintenance by air, 2.5 hours by car.

Old means the faults are well known, have well established cures/treatments, have a lot of field knowledge on how to avoid. Old also often means simpler, less complex systems. If there is a weakness in an old airplane, often there is an STC or mod to address that. For example, lead acid batteries instead of the finicky NiCads, -10 engine upgrade, etc.


8 years, 1000 hours, I've had one flight delayed overnight due to bad landing gear switch (return trip from meeting). I had two flights delayed 2-3 hours for storms (airlines also delayed).

If I had been flying commercial, I would expect 20% of my flights to be late, and 2% of my legs to be canceled, so I am far more reliable than the airlines.

Overall, 99.86% dispatch reliability, 100% mission reliability. I've never scheduled a meeting or event that I failed to attend due to weather or mechanical problems. I am confident to schedule, well before the weather is known, a meeting at 10 am in a city 2 hours away and fly in that morning.

I know people with brand new airplanes who have had less reliability than I have. The main issue seems to be lots of fancy avionics that develop problems, particularly faulty sensors.

An old airplane can be very reliable if you maintain it properly and fly it regularly.

Mike C.

I would agree with what Mike says, except the question is not "old" vs. new, but rather supported or unsupported.

There are plenty of discontinued airframes that continue to have good support and which can provide a reliable means of transportation. I flew a 30 year old Cessna 340 that we kept to Part 135 standards, flying for business 2-3 times per week for several years and not once did I have to cancel a trip for anything other than weather. Mitsubishi reportedly still provides stellar support for the MU-2 and parts availability is not an issue. OTOH, I know a gentlemen in Mexico who made the "mistake" of buying a still in production Avanti P180 Piaggio, and his ownership experience has been nothing short of a nightmare.

So the question posted is:


I asume you are talking owner flown (SP) options. How much money do you want to throw at the "problem"? Do you want props or fans? A new KA (250/300) should come close to meeting these expectations if you don't mind spending 3-4M. If money is no object, I would go for a jet with my choice being a Phenom 300 or CJ3/4. If money is an issue, then there are several TP options already mentioned which should meet these requirements. Several legacy Citations also do what you are looking for. If you decide to go with an older airframe, looking closely and carefully under the hood during the pre-buy process becomes paramount to a good or bad experience.

Since I see everyone rallying behind party lines, I'll give you the CJ pitch. The CJ/CJ1/CJ1+ should come close to meeting these requirements for between 1.5-2M (depending on avionics, P&I and conditions) and costing about 950-1050 per hour (with the current Jet-A prices). The CJ is extremely quiet and smooth, and will fly 1300 nm if you throttle back. The numbers on my plane are as follows:

BEW = 6480#
Full Fuel = 3220#
MTOW = 10400#
FF range = 1300nm with IFR reserves and a 700# payload

At MCT (go fast rather go far mode) you'll travel at between 370-380 ktas at altitudes that will put you above most of the weather. The other thing that has been a dream is Cessna's 24/7 support network. I can drop off the airplane at 10 pm at a Citation Service Center on a Saturday night for a compressor wash and minor maintenance, and it will be ready to go the next morning. Any part that is not locally available is less than 24 hours away.

Did I mention how quiet, comfortable and vibration free the cabin is?

Depends. When performing research for my CJ, 3 out of every 4 unscheduled MX problems I saw on the logbooks of airplanes I looked at were in fact avionics related. The issue, however, was mostly older legacy systems like the Honeywell and Collins boxes which are expensive to service and replace. When I installed the G1000 on my CJ, Cessna dropped the hourly rate of Proparts by a significant amount due to the fact that they wouldn't have to service all that old, heavy and expensive junk.

The new fancy avionics are actually a big leap forward in reliability - not the other way around. Plus cost of ownership, at least with the Garmin gear, is very low.