Yes

I don't think they'll go lower than they are now.

JOOC, what drives the 2x mx cost of an F90 over a B200?

Older, legacy, parts

Older, legacy, parts

Have been through a very similar exercise multiple times over the last couple years.

I came into flying with a belief my goal was to ultimately buy a pc-12 once I was ready and sufficiently experienced to fly one. Things changed, my priorities changed, my comfort with locking up millions in a plane or financing millions and being exposed to that potential depreciation or sudden loss in value changed...

Multiple, multiple iterations and my search brought me to a turbo commander 690A with -5 engines for under $500k for a very nice plane with a full glass panel (dual G600s and a gtn750/650 stack), which will happily cruise 265-280kts, with 10+ years of heavy personal flying left (200 per year) on both engines before they are due for overhaul.
There is an argument that -10 engined birds are cheaper despite higher upfront costs, they can fly higher and faster for sure. I think the running costs for both the -5 and -10 engines make them financially competitive relative to the other options.

I would add the Turbo and Jet Commanders to the range of possibilities if I were you.

Edit: or not. I understand that some of these no longer in production aircraft might not be everyone's cup of tea.
Edited again: I typed the wrong price for the plane I'm intending to close on... Whoops. Corrected

Why not include the short body MU2 and also the Commander, as well as the TBM 700.

Worth noting something from a financial analysis perspective and to make a type agnostic comment - seems to me that there is some possible double counting of costs when you start modeling depreciation in as a fixed figure.
It seems to me with certain types not on engine programs that there is a component of the declining market value which shows up in some of these numbers which is just engine usage. If you model TBMs of a specific vintage, for example, I'd expect the fleet will decline in value every year from a theoretical perspective by the amount the engine utilization. The fleet of that vintage will also depreciate some other amount (ex-engine decline in value due to reduction in remaining TBO). Because the selling price year over year is less and that is really the single data point you have, you don't know how much of the year over year decline is depreciation versus amortization/utilization of the engines. If you treat engine reserves as a separate operating cost and you count annual depreciation, then you may be double counting. I'm not sure how the data you are using deals with this.

You do get to a certain point in depreciation of the aircraft that these birds trade for plus or minus the value of the engines. TBMs, PC-12s, Meridians... are a long way from this point; older King Airs, Commanders, MU-2s are likely there. For this portion of the GA fleet the distinction between depreciation of the asset and amortization of the value of the engines due to less time to TBO is sort of irrelevant due to the fixed and variable operating costs being such a high percentage of purchase price.

No need to go long range cruise, recommended cruise will give you 280 kts and 1000 nm any day on any TBM 700. Depending of your load and mission you may need a 700 C2 if you want to carry anything legally.

Also for 950k you get an older A model, a TBM B is more around $1.2m and they dont depreciate $70k per year.
Mine is still worth about the same price I paid for it 4 years ago and I put 700 hours on it.






Matt,
According to Avex a TBM authority long range speed for A/B models is 242 knots and from what I've heard with radar you lose a couple of knots

From price new to several years later all the TBMs seem to depreciate a good healthy amount but in terms of buying used... that C2 does seem to be a sweet spot due to the capabilities of the aircraft. I have spent a long time hoping for them to get cheaper.
Edit: and I keep being disappointed that I can't get one for a good deal less.

Also, using any calculation of the last few years of historical depreciation is informative but far from predictive. What happens to all these values in a few years time if that new Cessna single is awesome? Or some other unexpected event happens?
I'd say this is an ok approach to calculating recent ownership costs but who knows if the future resembles the past? So, I'm not sure I'd make any projections based on this framework.

That could be said for anything in life.

If the new Cessna SETP is the size of a PC12 or larger it's not going to be cheaper. But no doubt will affect the market. I don't think it will affect what I paid for my PC12 as I didn't buy a brand new one.

I am using the same logic when it comes to making a move to the jet world. So many new jets coming online. They're gonna get cheaper and cheaper. There's only 1 new SETP TALKING about coming online. Who knows how long that will take?

Patrick, there is certainly plenty of variance to be expected with future depreciation but it can't be ignored as a significant contributor to cost of ownership. Recent observed is probably better than just a flat percent, at least for the short term.

However when you start to go out more years I wonder. I think it would be foolish to guess a PC12 has 0 depreciation over a longer ownership period. As you say, there is probably a big down move coming when something more efficient comes out. The question is is it in 13 years or 3? My guess is the further your time horizon the worse observed recent depreciation and the better flat percent does.

Patrick, there is certainly plenty of variance to be expected with future depreciation but it can't be ignored as a significant contributor to cost of ownership. Recent observed is probably better than just a flat percent, at least for the short term.

However when you start to go out more years I wonder. I think it would be foolish to guess a PC12 has 0 depreciation over a longer ownership period. As you say, there is probably a big down move coming when something more efficient comes out. The question is is it in 13 years or 3? My guess is the further your time horizon the worse observed recent depreciation and the better flat percent does.

I couldn't agree more.

The PC12 price holds if you look back in time. They started delivering them in 1994. The didn't just hit the market.

A new 2016 PC12NG is $4.9MM. That's a lot more than I paid for my 2008 NG.