13 Nov 2025, 05:20 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?  Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 18:40 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11068
Post Likes: +7097
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 706 built. just FYI.
Yup. My bad.
I think you meant left 
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 18:41 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think you meant left There are 2 or 3 left according to Flightaware. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 19:59 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/15/15
Posts: 11
Post Likes: +4
|
|
|
For the price point mentioned, I've always liked the cheyenne 400ls. 330+kts at fl410.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 20:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I would bet just about everybody here operating a Commander does it cheaper than a PC12.
. Steve, what's your hourly on your commander? I looked very carefully at a 900/1000........I really, really liked those airplanes. Felt that going with an airplane in current production offered more options from service to parts to ongoing 'stuff'. When I reviewed total cost of ownership the PC12 won by a hair (my spreadsheet, maybe not reality).
I am not one of those guys who have the numbers in a spreadsheet.
I will try it off the top of my head
I fly about 150hrs a year maybe a little more but let’s use 150 it will be more conservative.
Per hour costs
Ins $50
Hangar $48
Fuel $250
MX $125
Training $33
Prop tax $60
Total $566
What am I forgetting?
My props are coming due that will be 12k every 5 years and my gear needs inspecting every 5 years at 15k to 20k. Those two items could be added for $42 per hour for both.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 20:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20743
Post Likes: +26208
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You can get a great Cessna 441 (Conquest II) for 1.3 Million. If I had that much to throw at a plane that’s what I would be flying.
310 knots
2000 nm range
FL350
miserly fuel flow
What a machine Every machine has its weaknesses, and the 441 is no different. It lacks adequate pressurization for FL350 (cabin altitude 11,000 ft) and FL350 is exactly what you want to use on long flights. It is somewhat lightly built (maybe that's everything out there relative to an MU2). It is punished by Cessna's inspection program. But, even so, it is one heck of a machine, I think the best turboprop out there overall. Speed, range, looks, cabin, etc. Can someone give me a ride in one? I really need it. I'm recovering from a dream crushing demo ride in a Citation SII and have started looking at 441s as my next airplane. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 21:02 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/07/08
Posts: 5636
Post Likes: +4374
Location: Fort Worth, TX (KFTW)
Aircraft: B200, ex 58P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm recovering from a dream crushing demo ride in a Citation SII and have started looking at 441s as my next airplane.
Mike C. Tell us about the Citation SII.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 21:24 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4468
Post Likes: +3359
Location: Raleigh, NC
Aircraft: L-39
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don't think that is as far in the future as you think. The Denali and PC12 XL are going to push the prices of late model PC12's down. Not if they cost $5MM+ new they won't. If the new SETP's can get more speed they can charge more for them because they will eat more into the small jet market than they already are. If they aren't upgraded in any way then you're probably right. That's an 8000+ hour bird you posted.
and it's in India. there would be a lot of tape inside that thing.
_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 21:34 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20743
Post Likes: +26208
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I wish we could compare a 2018 year model 441 with a 2018 PC12.
If only. The 441 was way too embarrassing against the entry level jets for Cessna to leave that in production. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 21:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20743
Post Likes: +26208
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm recovering from a dream crushing demo ride in a Citation SII and have started looking at 441s as my next airplane.
Mike C. Tell us about the Citation SII.
Here's what I wrote on the CJP web site:
---
I'm back from taking a look at a Williams converted SII at KSDL.
To make along story short, I didn't put a deposit on it, and I am questioning my strategy.
The good:
The plane looked pretty good. No significant corrosion (spot here or there seemingly not related to TKS system), decent interior, nice panel equipment (G600, GTN750, GTS33DES ADS-B transponders, etc).
Engines are only 540 hours since new in 2010 when the conversion was done by Sierra. Total time was ~7000 hours which is fairly low for this type.
The performance was outstanding. We operated with 7 people aboard, about 1000 lbs under gross (15,100 lbs is MGTOW). The acceleration on takeoff was amazing, I've never felt that in any other airplane even when those were well under gross. Climb wasn't done at best rate but it went up to FL430 without difficulty. We did speed tests and at FL430, ~390 KTAS at 800 lbs/hr. At FL350, we got to 415 KTAS, ISA+5, and we still had engine left as we hit some sort of speed related rumble (mach buffet?). Basically we were at Mmo without using all the engine power. Fuel burn was around 1100 lbs/hr in this mode.
The records were unbelievably organized. In nice files, with indexes, everything back to the day the plane was born, including all the German and Canadian records for when it was registered overseas. All the records were in English (German maintenance done by US owned service center).
The engine log books were microscopic. They had one oil sample at 300 hours. That's it. They just work.
The bad:
My passengers (3) despised the engine whine in the passenger cabin on takeoff and climb to altitude. One passenger, my brother's wife, said she would rather fly in my MU2 without a headset than in this SII, which is pretty damning (they flew in my MU2 to the demo). My brother, an engineer for Textron, said it was by far the noisiest Citation he had ever been in (which included 560, 525, etc). To top it off, this airplane was claimed to have a "soundproofing" package installed recently.
In cruise, the whine eased somewhat, but the air noise was pretty loud. It required somewhat elevated voice levels to hold a conversation to a person next to you. It was definitely louder than I had expected and that may be due to pushing the plane through the air at mach 0.70 or so. I am left wondering if this is what Citations are like generally, or just SIIs, or just Williams conversions, or maybe just this serial number.
Another disappointment to me was the cabin. It seemed tighter than I was expecting, felt smaller than my MU2 in terms of cross section. The entry door ladder was not easy to use and would be much harder for elderly or people of limited mobility to get in. The dropped aisle, a spar hump, and other floor bumps and steps made it quite difficult to get to the back seats. Getting to the rear potty room was challenging for me, and would be nearly impossible for my father, which negates some of the reasons to have it. Entry and egress from the pilot seats was pretty cumbersome, too, and once seated, not much room to move about. The seats didn't seem to adjust quite right, but perhaps that would be solved with my experience on my part.
My last major disappointment was reading the logs. I only read from the Williams conversion in 2010 to the present, representing about 540 hours total flight time, about 70 hours/year average. Yet, this took 3 volumes of 4 inch binders, a foot of shelf space and took me 3 hours to read through. The conclusions are that this plane was in the shop a lot. I don't think there was a 6 month span that it wasn't in the shop, and in some cases, it went practically every month for something. Further, there were a lot of recurring chronic problems. Among this list were nose gear (shimmy problems, actuators, R&R at least 4 times), fuel leaks (main tanks resealed twice and it still had seepage when we visited), pressurization (a multitude of valves, controllers, replaced), seat controls (the tilt, up/down, etc controls seemed always to be broken and that was true at the demo), main battery (5 of them in 7 years), FD/AP issues (unable to engage, bad behavior, weird stuff), FADEC faults (at least 20 recorded in the logs), brake issues (inop, leaks, etc).
By reading the logs, I sort of vicariously lived what it would have been like to be the owner of this plane the last 7 years. It was not a pretty picture. Above all else, I need a reliable plane so I can make plans and count on it. If the last 7 years of this plane foretell the next 7 years, it's not for me. The 1000 pages of logs over those 7 years correspond to about 50 pages for my MU2.
The plane gives off a sense that it hasn't really been shaken out since the Williams conversion in 2010 and the Garmin panel in 2015. For example, during the flight we noticed that the AP did not turn aggressively enough to follow the nav path, suggesting the roll gain in the G600 is setup wrong. Or the pressurization system isn't quite debugged. Just a bunch of little things like that.
Conclusions:
I didn't put a deposit on it. Just not sure this example is the right one, not really sure a Citation is the right thing either. I can't really tell if the airplane I saw had "good bones" and just needed proper flying and care to become truly reliable, or if this was just intrinsically a lemon, or if I was being overly sensitive to the problems it was having.
I came away with renewed appreciation of my MU2. Easy to get into for passengers and pilots, reliable, inexpensive, seemingly way more robustly built. It has been a great airplane for me.
I'm opening up my search space somewhat. Now I am considering V, 501SP Eagle II, and a 441. The 441 is starting to sound better as an option due to low operating cost, good performance, and I'm told by my passengers, quieter than the SII we just flew. It certainly would be the smallest hurdle to get operational for me. The big negative is the pressurization isn't really up to a FL350 ceiling (cabin altitude 11,000 ft due to 6.3 PSI diff). That will lead to fatigued folks on board on a long flight.
For the V and Eagle II, they won't have the range to do EVV to BFI in winter headwinds but if that saves me one shop visit, that's net positive over a fuel stop every now and then.
The Eagle II would perhaps be a good choice. SP out of the box (saves commercial rating, SPE initial, SPE recurrents, works internationally). I at first disliked the potty near the door for privacy reasons, now I see that's better for passenger access than the rear room in the SII, particularly for someone like my father who was limited bladder duration and limited mobility (he can sit near the door and potty). I do like the Williams power, and the EEC on the FJ44-2A engine is nice to reduce pilot workload similar to a FADEC. I need to get a ride in an Eagle II to see if the noise issue is also present in that conversion.
The SII with Williams is not off the table either. Maybe I need a ride in another one to figure out if noise is a problem fleet wide or just this serial number. I also wonder if the Clifford conversion (a competing SII Williams conversion) is materially different or better. As far as I know, there are only 9 SII + Williams in the world, some Sierra, some Clifford, so not a large population to draw from. 4 of them are for sale right now, which tells you something, too.
Anyway, that's the story as it stands. I appreciate any commentary on the above, particularly how your experiences either match or contradict what I wrote.
PS: I got tailwinds going west to AZ and a slight headwind coming east on the return. That's very odd in December. I wonder if the wind gods are trying to tell me something.
Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 22:17 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/24/11
Posts: 530
Post Likes: +349
Company: Keeling Schaefer Vineyards
Location: P33, Willcox, AZ
Aircraft: 1960 BE33 CD160 470J
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’m still too busy...  That's probably a good thing!
_________________
BPT Tucson 1-24, FR, IPC with Ron Zasadzinski
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 22:17 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/20/09
Posts: 2660
Post Likes: +2234
Company: Jcrane, Inc.
Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I wish we could compare a 2018 year model 441 with a 2018 PC12.
If only. The 441 was way too embarrassing against the entry level jets for Cessna to leave that in production. Mike C.
All joking aside, this could have been a scenario where two engines cost less than one.
_________________
Jack
N441M N107XX
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
