I have owned 3 MU2s, an N, a Marquise and, currently a Solitaire. The performance of the short body airplanes is considerably better than the long ones (same wing, same engines but 1000lb lighter.). I would think long and hard about whether you need the extra cabin volume of the long body airplanes. The cost per mile will most likely be less than the C421. A MU2 will outperform the 421 single engine by a large margin. Annual training is required by the FAA as well as most (all) insurance companies (essentially it’s an AD on the pilot)

The MU2 is a relatively simple airplane, cable controls, electric gear and flaps, unpowered brakes. I bought my first one , the N model, when I had 400hrs all single engine, with a commercial certificate with instrument rating. Flight Safety was the training provider at the time and required a multi rating before I could enroll in their initial training program. So I got my multi in 7.5hrs in an Aztec and went to pick up my MU2. Flew with the broker for a few days then down to flight Safety in Houston. I required the standard amount of time to, train to proficiency. I tell you all this to convey that it is not some big deal to learn how to fly a MU2 especially with your C421 time. It’s easier to fly a turboprop than a piston because there is no leaning or other engine management. You just keep torque and temp below the limits

Like anything, there are ways to screw it up.

$3,000,000+

Guy -

As always, lots of varied opinions here!

I was in the same situation and decided to go with a King Air E90 with -135s. I've been very happy with my decision and there are a couple of threads here that document my journey. The King Air is a truck - VERY well built, just doesn't break, and is a very large and comfortable cabin. You'll miss the nose and wing locker storage from the 421, but the amount of stuff you can put in the back of the King Air cabin is shocking. The King Air isn't fast compared to its peers but it's very comfortable and very very well supported. Sort of the Toyota Camry (or perhaps the Tahoe) of the turbine world.

I currently fly 441s and Citations, and have a little time in the 425.

Love the 441, but they are out of your budget. $1.5mm at a minimum for a decent one today. They are shockingly efficient, doing 275-300kts on 500-600#/hour and have ridiculous range. Loud inside, and frankly not a great first turboprop for newer turbine pilots, but overall good airplane. Maintenance does require some specialized knowledge as they are a rare airplane, but I don't think we've had many parts issues.

Love the Citations too, but the 501 doesn't do my mission due to range limitations. They consume fuel at a pretty prodigious rate, but are definitely quiet and easy to fly. The cabin in the 501 is tight especially for tall people, and I don't find the cockpit particularly comfortable. As you've seen Tarver has a stable full of CE500s and you can definitely get a 501 in your budget. Unfortunately, with your lack of turbine time I think you're stuck with a 501 since you don't have the turbine time for a single pilot waiver for a II (except a 551 I suppose). I also think the turboprops are better on contaminated fields which is an issue for me (live in Dallas, but travel to upstate NY fairly often). There's also not a newer autopilot yet certified for the 501 - Garmin keeps talking about it, but hasn't happened yet. Quite expensive to go full glass compared with a King Air or 441.

The 425... I don't have a ton of time in the 425, but in many ways it's a 421 with PT6s on it. Faster than a King Air 90 on the same fuel, and you have the nose baggage. However, the build quality just isn't there compared to a King Air and there are some funky systems (the inertial separators, for example - They are driven by an electric motor with no backup, and the motors are expensive).

If my hangar collapsed and destroyed my E90 what would I do... I'm honestly not sure, but part of that is that we don't know what our mission will be in a couple of years. Another King Air would definitely be on the list - It's a REALLY hard airplane to beat. But... I do ofter flight plan similar trips in Citations just to see.

Robert

As a newly minted MU2 pilot coming from a P210 and 421, I’d like to share the following:

For me, the decision would be between an MU2 and a 501. Not always an easy choice since each has its own up and downsides. We all have different circumstances, depending on mission needs, partners' needs (if that is part of the equation), and the aviation environment (e.g., maintenance availability, travel distance to facilities, runway length, available avionics on the field, parts etc.).

I would not want to take an MU2 to a shop unfamiliar with it. Shortly after buying ours, we found a mechanic at a nearby field (a 30-minute drive and willing to travel to us) with over 10 years of experience working for an MU2 charter outfit in British Columbia, this favours the MU2 a lot for us. However, this is a unique situation. Unless you live on the East Coast, maintaining an MU2 is likely to involve a fair amount of travelling, which can be a ha$$le for busy physicians. In my opinion, the 501 comes out ahead in this regard, as many more shops are familiar with it than the MU2.

Regarding maintenance costs: After reading various threads on the 501, I’m convinced that if you follow the Mike C and T path, it won’t cost much more to maintain than a -10K short-body with three-blade props, which again is similar or less than maintaining a 421. But some of us don’t want to be that involved and will just hand the plane to a good shop, in which case I think the MU2 comes up ahead. Personally I enjoy being involved up to a point, ie I will never fly in something that I turned wrenches on. I am a doc and not a mechanic after all.

Another important aspect is ease of flying. The MU2 is more challenging to learn and maintain currency in, at least in my limited experience. While not insurmountable, I would compare flying the MU2 to flying a taildragger: it is harder to learn initially and requires constant attention, but once you get the hang of it, it’s manageable and even a joy. However, if you don’t plan to fly it close to 100 hours a year, I don’t think it’s the right plane to consider. For example, whenever we get our F model back, I’ll likely spend at least two days with an instructor for a refresher. Even though I’m signed off and legally able to fly the MU2, it will have been 2–3 months since my last flight in it. In contrast, I wouldn’t hesitate to jump into the 421 after a similar break as a new pilot, and I’m sure the same would apply to a 501.

Lastly, there is the issue of noise. The MU2 is definetely louder than a 421 and, I assume, much louder than a 501. A good set of ANR headsets helps with both, and the four-blade MU2 was significantly quieter to me compared to the three-blade. This difference is probably not due to decibel levels but rather the lower RPM and different noise frequency of the four-blade model.

Overall, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy an MU2 if I were in your shoes. In fact, we are seriously considering purchasing a second one, especially since our home base runway is only 4,000 feet.

Such good advice all around. How do calendar maintenance schedules compare between the MU2 and 501? Seems like jets have dozens of phases from some of the YouTube videos I’ve seen, this one in particular has scared me away from the 501
https://youtu.be/XiKL5F7atSw?si=_xirjufn83NYM6jy

I was considering a citation but the calendar Maitenance was prohibitively expensive for low utilization owners. I often fly somewhere, stay two weeks or more, then fly somewhere else. You don’t get a lot of hours that way. Similarly, the Williams engine program has a 150h minimum which is a lot of travel at 400kts

Jets may have low utilization maintenance program

Regulations require you the operator to select an approved maintenance program. Most
Just go with the factory, there a private (bacon) and factory approved alternative schedules for low utilization operators. This is one of the difference in jet or twin engine turboprop vs SETP and single/multi piston powered planes.

My personal upgrade from my aztec in your similar budget would be in order of 501 king air mu2 Cheyenne.

I daydream your scenario a lot I feel like an expert!

Curious on your thoughts on the bolded part Robert...do you feel it's more challenging than the 421?

I wouldn’t draw any serious conclusions on Citation maintenance from a 20 year-old kid’s YouTube channel? I’ve owned a pressurized piston twin, Eclipse Jet, MU-2, have sold over 120 citations, and personally fly/own a 501. I’m an ATP/CFI/A&P.

Maintaining my 501 to squawk free level is less work than maintaining my Baron to the same level. On the low utilization plan the phase 1 through four (think 1 Baron annual in work) Is due every three years, the phase 5 (think 2 baron annuals of work) Is due every six years.

The Mitsubishi has a much heavier and more difficult to accomplish maintenance schedule. The block fuel burn at full power is 125gph, full power cruise is 110gph. At Mitsubishi speed it burns 90 gph. And more importantly, you are way above icing conditions, which is not the case for any of the other airplanes we’re talking about. That’s a huge deal.

Haha yes good point about 20 year olds and their penchant for click-bait videos.

In all seriousness, is there a thread or resource that could show what the average costs are to fly say 150 hours per year? (2 of us flying) if you have the time to show me a back or the napkin type calculation I’d be most appreciative.

Also; what’s the shortest sea level runway you can realistically get one in and out of?

Plan on $600 an hour in fuel, 25,000 a year in maintenance, And whatever your hangar and insurance cost. Let’s just call it around $1000 an hour all in. I routinely go into a 2900 ft strip at 4,400 foot elevation. 3000 feet is super easy at sea level.

Great info thanks
What does the initial type rating look like in terms of time/cost?
Any idea how many hours of dual time someone like me would need before being PIC?

Guy - didnt you go down this path like 5 years ago ? I saw some posts from you on the Mits forum from several years ago as well .. . we went through this decision process just recently as well.

our points are as follows - and why we ended up with the Mits.
The King Air calendar items were just too punitive for our use of about 100-200 hours per year. We currently fly about 175-200 hours, but expect based on that to be around 125-150 in a higher speed plane. but we've also heard that we'll use it even more - so lets just say 150 hours for round numbers.

Again, the calendar year things on the King Air doesnt make sense for us unless we were flying 400 hours.

The Commander was a good option. But neither of us liked the cabin layout. Compared to a solitaire - sure, but the Marquise definitely won out for us on that one. We frequently have 5-6 pax - and well, it gets tight in the solitaire. And you cant get a decent commander 840/980/1000 without it going over 1m. Also the commander maintenance is a bit heavier than the Mits. But the commander has 150 hour / annual options over the 100/200 that the MU-2 is.

Citation 501SP (or some variant), I love the idea, and its a solid 80-100 faster and gets up higher. Our field is 3200ft, so with TR, it would be fine, but without it gets in to a not so great decision. Especially hot and full tanks, and we didnt want to leave at half tanks and refill and then go. It isnt cost effective for us at that point as our trips are usually 2+ hours and not leaving with full tanks wasnt really an option. Fuel burn based on talking to people was comparable to the Mits. It burns more, but is faster. So works out to close to even on longer trips - and less favorable on shorter trips.

441 - love this plane. Love the range. Coming from a 421 - it made a lot of sense except for the price premium. A decent unit was 1.5m.

425 - didnt want to deal with the PT6. Great engine, most costly and less efficient fuel wise. Plus 280TAS sounds much better than 250TAS. Though the 425 has two blackhawk options, but that would price it out and you could be in 441 land.

Piaggio - this would win on every case except for price, and short field.

We did not consider any of the Piper Cheyenne and its variants or the merlin.

We are east coast - so we like to fly in to a lot of the 3k airports (Virginia, North Carolina, and our home field) and the Mits easily does this.

SFAR/Type N training - really a non issue. If you go to the citation - you have annual recurrent anyhow. So its 6 or 1/2 dozen.

The MU-2 is a pilots airplane. needs lots of trim and constant. It's a great mix of being a pilots plane AND a jet as it needs to be flown by the numbers. but it brings a smile to your face when you start her up and fly it. Its like getting in to a sports car with a personality.

There are limited training spots for the MU-2 (I think its 4). I did mine at Howell. Jerry/Marty/Maggie are top notch, first class people. Jerry/Marty are laid back - and really just want to get you to be comfortable and safe flying the airplane. I spent a week (7 full days) flying with them as I prefered to be doing exercises and dual rather than minimum training and mentor piloting. I'll still have someone come along for the first few flights, but getting more dual time was great. Highly advise using them if you get a Mits. Maggie will arrange their van to give you a car when you're staying in Smyrna to get around. Jerry will fly and train you at his home field - which he gets special fuel pricing from. It'll literally be 30-40% cheaper in fuel. We burned 1250 gallons in a weeks worth of training. The initial is usually only 3-4 days, but as I said earlier - we did 7.

Drop me a line if you want to know any more information, but we literally went through this exercise.

Congrats Edward and thank you for summarizing your decision making process.
We have two main destinations, FL and Western NY where the field length is 3200ft, so exactly the same situation you are in. Half tanks work fine for the return trip to MD from NY but not sure about landing there without TR. Then we take a few cross country- I mean west coast trips each year too. Still learning.

Yes we did go through this process a few years ago and landed on the 421. It has fit the mission perfectly for our family and it fit in our hanger where none of the other options listed would. Once we move on from the 421 we are in corporate hangars. Also at the time one of our partners was an experienced AP/AI who would maintain it to a high level of dispatch reliability. His situation as changed and so must ours as well.

You’re going to spend about $1000/hr, on a $250k/person budget, this is a bit nonsensical

I’d want less partners and/or more capital to make this plausible