06 Nov 2025, 19:29 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 13:32 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/21/17 Posts: 62 Post Likes: +52 Company: Rubi Aviation, Inc. Location: Dallas, TX
Aircraft: CE-560 (V)
|
|
|
Chip,
For me, it's just stating the obvious! Cost delta is total dependent on trip length. Short haul trips (Dallas to Houston, ect) are easy & cheap in a turboprop....not so much the V. Now, go from Dallas to Boston and we have a totally different set of numbers.
High altitude, long range cruise....going non-stop, WINS every time in the V.
Trip length matters in arriving at the correct answer.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 13:39 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/05/16 Posts: 3151 Post Likes: +2294 Company: Tack Mobile Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You'll have to exclude any TPE331 powered aircraft from these little exercises because they'll blow all the others away in cost savings. It's not even close.  It sounds like they are focusing on aircraft produced after Reagan was president
Are we excluding legacy citations produced prior to 1988? If this website focused on the 90s and newer it would have about 10 posts on it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 14:24 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11049 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It sounds like they are focusing on aircraft produced after Reagan was president
Are we excluding legacy citations produced prior to 1988? If this website focused on the 90s and newer it would have about 10 posts on it.
I’m just giving one example which is a 1990 V vs a 1990 King Air… because they started making V’s in 1989
You can do the same thing with a 1976 501 vs a 1976 King Air 200.
My buddy John is correct, the length of the trip matters, a lot… all of this was in response to some false assertions that a Legacy Citation could be operated cheaper than a Piper Meridian, that dog don’t hunt. The difference in maintenance, cost of engines and fuel burn kills the Citation.
But, to make the point that I am not at all against Legacy Citations I wanted to give some real examples, without suppressed operating cost, of how a jet can stack up quite nicely against a turboprop.
I actually learned this selling Learjets, they are expensive to maintain, burn a lot of gas, but go really fast, the speed matters. Hourly op cost of a jet is high, cost per mile is actually pretty low.
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 14:43 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 10/04/19 Posts: 658 Post Likes: +410 Company: Capella Partners Location: Alpine Airpark, 46U
Aircraft: P35, TW Pacer
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I haven't forgotten, just busy, I've run the numbers and I just need to set down and type it all out.
I'll start off with the King Air B200 vs Citation V
I'm quite sure there will be a ton of "but this one is better" and "your numbers are BS"
I'm just making a direct comparison of two airplanes, both built in 1990 and of similar value. The V cost more to maintain, the engine reserves are higher and it burns a lot more fuel... but when you factor in the extra speed most of the difference goes away, the Citation does in 140 hours what it takes the King Air 200 miles to do, the annual numbers for the same number of miles flown get pretty close, but when you factor in that the Citation V has one more seat and you look at cost per seat mile, it wins. AND... that's without fancy math, leaving engine reserves out or owner involved maintenance. It doesn't factor in the LUMP program either.
It's also important to note that things like engine HSI / TBO are further out because of the speed, and airframe hours don't accumulate as fast. The Citation is over 25% faster, so if you flew 3 million miles in both, the Citation would have 7800TT and two engine overhauls... the King Air would have 10,800TT and THREE engine overhauls!
Note- I am doing fast math here, I'm going for speed not accuracy, so I apologize in advance for any mistakes! This might begin to be useful if you plugged (all the) actual numbers into excel. This inexhaustive and inexact stream of consciousness is not actionable to anyone. Clear calculations with well-explained assumptions from someone with the ability to do the former and the experience to know the latter are the necessary medicine. You claim to have this medicine, so it's confusing to everyone that your signal to noise ratio is so deafeningly low. I'm sitting here shaking my head that you would start this thread without having done any of the necessary work to make good on any of your informational promises in the OP. I simply do not understand what is happening here. -J
_________________ PPL AMEL @jacksonholepilot on instagram firstlast@gmail.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 15:04 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11049 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I haven't forgotten, just busy, I've run the numbers and I just need to set down and type it all out.
I'll start off with the King Air B200 vs Citation V
I'm quite sure there will be a ton of "but this one is better" and "your numbers are BS"
I'm just making a direct comparison of two airplanes, both built in 1990 and of similar value. The V cost more to maintain, the engine reserves are higher and it burns a lot more fuel... but when you factor in the extra speed most of the difference goes away, the Citation does in 140 hours what it takes the King Air 200 miles to do, the annual numbers for the same number of miles flown get pretty close, but when you factor in that the Citation V has one more seat and you look at cost per seat mile, it wins. AND... that's without fancy math, leaving engine reserves out or owner involved maintenance. It doesn't factor in the LUMP program either.
It's also important to note that things like engine HSI / TBO are further out because of the speed, and airframe hours don't accumulate as fast. The Citation is over 25% faster, so if you flew 3 million miles in both, the Citation would have 7800TT and two engine overhauls... the King Air would have 10,800TT and THREE engine overhauls!
Note- I am doing fast math here, I'm going for speed not accuracy, so I apologize in advance for any mistakes! This might begin to be useful if you plugged (all the) actual numbers into excel. This inexhaustive and inexact stream of consciousness is not actionable to anyone. Clear calculations with well-explained assumptions from someone with the ability to do the former and the experience to know the latter are the necessary medicine. You claim to have this medicine, so it's confusing to everyone that your signal to noise ratio is so deafeningly low. I'm sitting here shaking my head that you would start this thread without having done any of the necessary work to make good on any of your informational promises in the OP. I simply do not understand what is happening here. -J
I have a real job!
I do run a company with a half dozen employees, contrary to popular belief it's not me just sitting around playing on the computer!
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
Last edited on 13 Oct 2023, 18:56, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 15:08 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11049 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
|
But seriously, all of this stuff is subjective. We use Aircraft Cost Calculator as a base and then adjust for real world numbers, hours per year, actual fuel cost, etc. and provide nice professional reports, for our purposes here I’m just demonstrating that it is possible.
I will share more detail, just don’t have the bandwidth right now, it’s 4th quarter, we’re slammed and I have a granddaughter making an entrance this weekend!
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 15:16 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 06/07/19 Posts: 476 Post Likes: +1018
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm sitting here shaking my head that you would start this thread without having done any of the necessary work to make good on any of your informational promises in the OP. I simply do not understand what is happening here.
-J
Hopefully you saved your receipt and can seek a refund. Sorry you feel cheated.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 15:22 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 09/05/09 Posts: 4462 Post Likes: +3353 Location: Raleigh, NC
Aircraft: L-39
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have a real job! well, then I'll pile on. we might as well do the low-end comparison for the owner who, for example, may be in a partnership on a SETP like a TBM, but is considering making the leap to legacy citation. even at the measly 345KTS, I still think i'd be better in the jet than the TBM. and the fuel i could buy with the leftover capital. (i'm pretty sure it still burns less than the L39).
_________________ "Find worthy causes in your life."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 16:26 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 10/04/19 Posts: 658 Post Likes: +410 Company: Capella Partners Location: Alpine Airpark, 46U
Aircraft: P35, TW Pacer
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here’s what I can do, I can demonstrate that a Legacy Citation is as economical to own and operate as any turboprop, save the JetProp/ Meridian and maybe the Piaggio or Eclipse. What’s more is that I can do this without stacking the deck, I’m talking similar acquisition cost and identical maintenance standards. None of this comparing a $600k jet with a $2.6M turboprop or claiming a Phase 5 on a Citation V only cost $30k… real numbers. Apples and apples. I feel like I'm in an episode of the twilight zone where the word " demonstrate" has been redefined. -J
_________________ PPL AMEL @jacksonholepilot on instagram firstlast@gmail.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 18:36 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11049 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Nobody forced you to start this thread and make the promises you did at this time in your business and life. Mazal Tov on the new granddaughter btw. It's objectively odd behavior to aggressively promise something and then just drop it immediately after immeasurably small effort.
-J DUDE! I just started the thread yesterday! Cool your jets. You wouldn't believe how many boring conference calls I end up on, listening to attorneys talk or whatever. I can multitask, keep up with the convo and play on Beechtalk. What I can't do is set down and type up the details of a comparison, even though it won't take long, I still have to be able to focus to do it... and I'm not going to ignore my phone just to get it done. I don't make my schedule, my clients make it for me, some days are more taxing than others and the last couple have gotten crazy. The whole purpose of this thread is to talk about fair comparisons and what that looks like, not give detailed op cost, there's another thread that is doing a great job of that. Also, I have to use safe numbers and set reasonable expectations of what a normal operator pays under normal circumstances. Some will say it's too high and invariably some will say it's too low. But, it will be apples to apples. BTW- I'm going to give an hourly that shows maintenance, engines, fuel burn for a Citation and a King Air... that's it, I don't want to build this into being something it isn't.
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 18:41 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 06/28/09 Posts: 14423 Post Likes: +9555 Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: BTW- I'm going to give an hourly that shows maintenance, engines, fuel burn for a Citation and a King Air... that's it, I don't want to build this into being something it isn't. That's all obvious and readily available. The trick is adding up all the other factors.
_________________ http://calipilot.com atp/cfii
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 19:02 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 8503 Post Likes: +11049 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: BTW- I'm going to give an hourly that shows maintenance, engines, fuel burn for a Citation and a King Air... that's it, I don't want to build this into being something it isn't. That's all obvious and readily available. The trick is adding up all the other factors.
Agreed, and it's those other factors that are often left out. I want to talk in detail about what all of those factors are and what they look like, and how they differ from a turboprop to a jet.
_________________ We ONLY represent buyers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 20:28 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/27/11 Posts: 428 Post Likes: +184 Location: Virginia
Aircraft: MU-2 / Cessna 421C
|
|
|
I think the 1989+ removes the only group of turboprops that might dissuade from this argument. Any of the TPE331-10 twins would probably be the outlier (in the positive sense), but I dont believe any were produced after 1989. . .
Not trying to poke holes in it - but I do think in a cost to own/operate argument - that that might be one that would win this argument.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop Posted: 13 Oct 2023, 20:37 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 05/05/09 Posts: 5300 Post Likes: +5292
Aircraft: C501, R66, A36
|
|
|
500/501/550/560 Facts based on having owned 80+ of these and written every single check with my own hand, parted out 15+, rebuilt 50+ engines and done countless Phase 1-5s.
Engines: -A midtime used 1A or -4 with a fresh hot is 200-250K to buy now, usually exchange -A midtime used -5A is $350K exchange -A freshly hotted timed out on condition motor is $150-175K with good blades -No one is overhauling anymore but it's $300-450k to overhaul at an ITI/Hale sort of shop. -Impeller is $60K to replace -A disk of on condition blades is $75-100K -An overhauled HT stator is $20-30K outright -You can regrow short blades for $497 each (71 blades) -It's 20K to remove and redisk a high turbine disk. -It's about $2000 a piece to weld a small exit duct, large exit duct and combustion liner -It's 10-17K to weld a cracked up high turbine stator -A clean hot section is about $25K now, a really dirty one needing blades could be $150K. Absolutely no difference in quality between a Standard Aero and a quality independent shop, just the price. -Ignitor box, $2500-5000 -A new to you front fan is $10K
Airframe: -Replacing a front or side windshield costs $7500 for the part and about 25-35 hrs each -Replacing a back window is $900 and takes about 5 hours each after interior removal -An air cycle machine costs about 12K used and is 15-17 to overhaul -Air cycle machine turbo is about 5K and is usually the failure -Freon system pretty easy to repair, usually a motor or compressor running 2-5K -Pressurization controller 5K -Engine gauge, $2,500 -Never see corrosion issues -Actuators costs about 2-5K -A Phase 1-4 takes two men about a week to do properly -A Phase 5 takes two men about 10 days to do properly -Paint is about 45K -An interior is 60-80K -A Phase 49 is about $1000 -oxygen hydro $100 -Nitrogen hydro $175 -Fire bottles with new squibs about $800 -New nitrogen bottle, $7500 -New oxygen bottle, $2500 -Brakes, $1750 a side -Tire, $1300 each for mains, $900 for nose -Wheel, 5-7.5K -Antiskid sensor, $2500 -Fix antilock brake motor, $5K -replace TR actuator or speed brake actuator, $2,500 -Anti-ice valve, $2,500 -Deice boot, $7500 installed for a wing and $3-4K for a tail boot. -Deice boot ejector valve, $1000
Avionics -Replace RVSM computer, usually $500 unless you have a Shadin system then it's $5K -HSI/ADI, $2,500 -Inverter $800 -ASI, VSI, etc. $1000 -An RVSM check is about $1,500 -Autopilot rarely breaks, a computer is 2-5K, a servo is 2K -Install two 750s, $60Kish depending on the shop -Install full Garmin panel, Under $300K -Lighting inverter, $500 -Autopilot preselector, $2,500 -Standby gyro, $1,500 -Generator control unit, $2,500 -Starter gen, overhauled, $1800 -Pressurization solonoid valve, $5,500 -Ailerons, flaps, and airframe parts are cheap -10K hour inspection, $15K, much much cheaper on the 560. -Broken Step, $5K
Operating/Owner Costs
-Fuel 150 GPH for a 501, 165 for a 550, 190 for a 560, BLOCK -120, 140, 180 respectively max power cruise altitude -90, 110, NO idea for the 560 long range cruise -Maintenance, me, owning a shop and having near free parts, under 10K a year -You, basic shop assuming $100/hour, $25K a year -You, Gold plated sort of shop, $60K a year -Insurance, 10-30K a year depending on YOU and the plane
--------------------- Narrative: I think you're going to find that these airplanes are extremely well made and rarely break. They are built like little airliners. They like to be flown and do not like to sit. The parts cost I outlined are for serviceable used parts. I haven't found the parts to cost more than any other brand of aircraft and I find they consume less parts on average than a pressurized twin recap. They aren't finicky machines.
Most common squawks I see AND don't see on these:
1) anti-ice idiot light system is complicated. Everything heats but the lights don't extinguish. The solenoid valves can fail if not flown regularly. 2) Rarely see pressurization issues 3) Freon systems are usually neglected on ALL airplanes, including these, usually an expansion valve, leak or receiver dryer 4) Rarely see autopilot issues, it's usually the preselector 5) Missing digits on engine gauges, most live with it 6) Rarely see boot issues, almost never 7) Battery lasts 3-4 years and then fails a cap check, $3,500 8) Oxygen systems can leak, unplug your masks and leave on crew when shutdown 9) Missing placards, $500 for the kit 10) Virtually never see any corrosion of a serious nature 11) Frayed accessory control cable, $1000, rare but I see it. 12) lots of relays and can lose one occasionally; under $1K to replace usually 13) Stator valve (engine), $2,500
--------------------------------
Whatever it costs, it's totally worth it. They are smooth, fast, quiet, safe and enjoyable. If the possibility of any of these numbers scares you then it's not for you. When I see an airplane with a bunch of squawks, it usually means the owner didn't care and ran it into the ground. Now, I am seeing a lot of time and love going back into these machines.
Dip your toes in the water, it's nice.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|