Just getting broken in!

Here's where I need a dozen posts stating, sure you can! I do it no problem!!!

Short body is a solid 6 place airplane with lots of baggage space. I've had 6 grown men in mine a few times, and carried enormous amounts of stuff.

Long body is a family hauler. Limousine. About 10-15 knots slower, more fuel, but you won't find that cabin at those speeds at those operating costs anywhere else.

All planes in this class are going to have recurring training if you have insurance. The MU2 is different in that it is an FAA requirement. The insured private owner operators were minimally affects by the SFAR, basically some minor tweaks in the course curriculum. A recurrent is 2 days, no big deal.

Insurance is not higher. Last 9 years of exceptional safety record has allowed prices to fall. My insurance is $5400/year hull on $600K hull value, $4000/year for $5M liability.

The TPE331 airplanes are simply a LOT more economical to run than the PT6. Both less fuel and less per hour HSI/OH costs.

Loud is true. Long body is not too bad in back, short is noisier. I have Zulus for every seat.

The hard part with an MU2 is finding one to buy. The good examples are cherished and don't appear on the open market all that often, trading hands invisibly. I have 3 people on my "call me if you sell" list for my airplane.

I am flying my MU2 for what a 421C costs per mile, at much higher speeds, at much higher reliability.

Mike C.

I have watched this thread and others like it for a while with some amusement. Everyone has their own decision variables, own value sets and own needs for confirmation bias. The various machines everyone owns and recommends are all great in their own way and in the missions they are designed for. I think there are some things that relatively inexperienced owners / aviators can be led astray about unless they know where the "bodies are buried" in ownership / operating cost statements.

You can indeed fly a turbine for a per-mile cost that is lower than a cabin piston twin. There is, however, a set of assumptions that goes with that statement that are not brought forth in any of the posts I have seen. Sometimes unit costs can be achieved at certain scales and not at other scales, such as manufacturing 1,000 widgets usually results in a much lower unit cost than manufacturing 100 widgets, IF you can sell 1,000 of them AND have the capital available to build the facotry, etc... If you are only going to be able to sell 100 - you can't beat the hand-made version. Each mile in a 200 hour / year MU-2 will probably be lower than each mile in a 60 hour / year 421. But at 100 hours /yr or less I would bet is quite the opposite.

I used to operate a Merlin IIIB for less per mile than my cabin pressurized piston twins.... but that was at a utilization of at least 350 hr/yr, and disregarded capital / opportunity costs. It also disregards that at any given time (regardless of how it amortizes into the costs), I could walk into the hangar and have a $200,000 engine issue (on any turbine....doesn't happen very often at all, but when it happens to you it is what it is). The worst surprise I am likely to ever have at any one time in my piston twin is a $50,000 melted engine.

I sometimes notice people will disregard lifecycle cost of major components in their analysis -a 5400 hr tbo set of engines that has 2,000 hrs left will most likely never need to be overhauled during your ownership - but unless you are on MSP or such, you absolutely are at risk for very expensive (if rare) events and will see a devaluation from hours used when you go to sell. If have also noticed over the years, that the FAA and manufacturers have a much different assumption of the owners' ability to absorb expensive SB's and AD's on turbine equipment.

I operate my Aerostar at about $60k a year, including debt service, expensive DC area gas, and expensive DC area hangar. That's about 100 hrs. That's $3.00 / mile based on my average mathematical blockspeed (conservative). My mission is mostly my family of 3 or us and a couple of friends going long distances. If I were carrying more folks I'd get a 421. If you can show me how to accomplish that flying profile in any mulitengine turbine for anything within 10% of that (including financial bomb risk, such such as an unanticipated T-wheel failure), I'll go shopping today.

Having operating (both commercially and personally) piston twins, pressurized piston twins, turboprops, and jets, I have found there is a basically unavoidable geometric progression in the real amortized cost of each progressive step up. Nobody rides for free. Usually claims to the otherwise have hidden assumptions that aren't highlighted.... Our Falcon 10's were less per mile than our Citation I, but only over stage lengths above 600nm, and only when run 50 hrs / month. Otherwise the comparison ran hard the other direction. We could lease 727's at a price that if our utilization was under 300 hrs / month, they made sense - but why do the airlines all spend $60mm on new jets when a good 'ol Seven-Two can be had for $500k? because at that utilization the ops costs savings is more than the capital recovery.

There is zero question that the turbines deliver a better experience and safer and more reliable in every measure. It comes with two price components;

1)the marginal financial cost of the turbine vs piston - which may or may not be within your tolerance. Unless you fit a certain usage profile and are OK with the cash flow swings underneath the amortization, they are more expensive. Period. Most of the time substantially so. To suggest otherwise not accurate.

2) Your ability to operate the more substantial machine - which is no small statement.

I am so envious of Erwin's Merlin because I remember fondly what a fabulously capable machine it is - but he is the rare case of a C182 pilot that can go straight in to one of those and be remotely safe. It can and is done - but you had better be a naturally good pilot with an awful lot of training and extremely serious attitude toward your proficiency (you also had better be flying absolute minimum 100 hrs / yr to even begin to be non-hazardous, AND going to full simulator recurent every year..) If I could afford Mike's MU-2 that's almost certainly what I would buy right now (although the cabin of that Merlin..... wow..).

To the OP's question, I am just suggesting that it is not a sober representation to suggest that older turboprop twins are genuinely the same overall costs to fly what is likely to be the GA pilots normal profile when you include all financial variables - some of which are merciless and capricious. Barons, Dukes, 340's, 421's, and even Aerostars have their appropriate place.

Doesn't mean I am not envious as he** of Erwin and Mike.......

All good points above.

Only thing I'd say is that the availability of economical used/rental engines makes the turboprop engine problems easier to mitigate than pistons that crump.

Good post Steve. I am on Propulsion International engine program for $100 per hour for the pair, so I consider myself protected against otherwise financially troublesome engine events. To date, my engines have not so much as had a hiccup in nearly 500 hours that I have had them.

There are a lot of expensive items on an aircraft such as a Merlin or simaler, which is why I did a costly and thorough prebuy along with buying the best one I could (not) afford!

Since getting the Merlin I have gone to numerous places that I did not know exist beforehand. Now for this you can either credit the Merlin or discredit my grasp of geography!

Steve - Great post..

The bottom line is that owning and operating aircraft is a very expensive hobby, business tool or luxury. I would be willing to bet every single member on BT looks at ownership cost, exposure and mission profile. If you are lucky enough to utilize an aircraft for your business and have a tax right off then your very lucky and have an advantage over those that just own a plane for fun... I also hear a lot about TP ownership is cheaper than recip Twin but I just can't buy into it..

I think the short version is this:

-A 425 can indeed be cheaper to run than a 421, if nothing goes wrong (particularly with the engines) and you fly it at least more than a modest amount.

-Things go wrong less frequently on the 425.

-The 425 is a lot more to buy (4 fold)

I don't think I have heard that its cheaper ever. For me my all in costs for my Baron are around $45k per year. I'm convinced I can run an F model MU2 for $65k-$70k per year.

Steve's point about a $200k unexpected engine event is unnerving but I have verified that you can buy and hang a used TPE331-1 for $55k-$75k exchange.

I've heard it, about 5 times, in this thread alone. Not sure if I believe it, but sounds reasonable enough

I have been to two PROP events and talked with 20 to 30 owners and Mike C. is the only one that has told me they spend less than $100K a year. It could be because I am attending the PROP events on the west coast and most of the owners have to take their planes to the east coast for some of the maintenance and inspections. There is a new shop that opened in Bakersfield that can work on the MU2 since the last PROP.

Vince

I think the F Model has something to do with that as well. It's MUCH cheaper to fly and maintain than the others.

Mike has a K model, IIRC. He definitely has -10s.

Thanks everyone- especially Steve for the great post.
My annual budget would be approx 50k plus or minus a little. I typically fly about 100 hours per year. I see Steve flys an Aerostar. I've looked at the useful load and performance/ economy of the superstars and they are impressive, but I am assuming it will be too cramped for my family of 6. Unless my financial fortunes change, and they may, I don't think I can justify twin turbine money, as much as I would love an MU2. I think a 421 would fit the profile well. I am however concerned that it will be a maintenance hog and dispatch will be poor. I am hoping if I find a well sorted out model with upgraded avionics I should be in OK shape.

In the meantime I will be flying the heck out of our A36 and continuing to train and gain proficiency, especially in instrument conditions. That way when I'm ready to transition, if it is to a twin, I'll be at the top of my game.

Guy, it attacks me about every 6 months. It is normal and expected. Lots of people here that are smart and can either talk you off the ledge or encourage you to jump..........