Huh?? There are some reasons that one may want to move (not upgrade) from a TBM to a Mustang. But never heard of op costs being a reason. Have had friends make that switch and have said the Mustangs op costs are higher. Whether its worth it, depends on mission. The TBM is almost as fast, handles high hot and contaminated runways better, has more range so the Mustang is different but not a clear upgrade path.

From what I’m gathering here, the Mustang and the TBM will be nearly equivalent in ops cost.
If I had to bet, I’d bet that the mustang is cheaper.

TBM is great, but it’s a single, and it isn’t a jet.

It’s a matter of engine programs. If you account for engine reserves on the TBM maybe it is close, if not, there is no world in which the TBM is more expensive than the Mustang. And for whatever reason the TBMs don’t trade at a discount regarding engine time unless they are within about 1,000 hrs of OH and even then not at the true hourly expected cost.

Huh?? There are some reasons that one may want to move (not upgrade) from a TBM to a Mustang. But never heard of op costs being a reason. Have had friends make that switch and have said the Mustangs op costs are higher. Whether its worth it, depends on mission. The TBM is almost as fast, handles high hot and contaminated runways better, has more range so the Mustang is different but not a clear upgrade path.

That hasn’t been our experience. It’s real hard to spend more than $50k a year maintaining a Mustang, and we see that number as a low water mark for the TBM and some years can be eye-watering.

I do agree that the value isn’t effected by engine time, but that will change once the current overhaul cost are common knowledge.

Again, not knocking the TBM, it’s less to maintain than a Pilatus or King Air, it’s just that the Mustang is very economical.

$500 x 125 hrs = $62,500 for engine programs alone. Thats a lot of TBM maintenance. Pretty sure the twin jet will burn a little more fuel. What is recurrent at FSI compared to in airplane for the TBM? Probably more time and money. Hangar for a Mustang probably more than a TBM… I just fail to see any area that is less besides (maybe) annual direct out of pocket inspections.

Want to take a peak on the quote for our upcoming TBM maintenance? Granted, it's a 10 year / 6 year / gear / oxygen mask / prop year and I can save the owners a little money by getting the smaller items and masks locally.

The TBM is one of our least flown managed planes and is consistently more annually in MX than most of our jets.

Now do a 5 yr mx outlook compared to a mustangs 5 yr mx + ($300k+ of program costs)…..

And just to be clear, because this is important for prospective buyers, you are saying even when accounting for the mustang engine program, over let’s say 3-5 yrs of ownership, the TBM will cost more than the mustang.

That is literally the most expensive inspection to do outside of HSI. Seems all your high time items came due at once.

The 501 is a great fit and leave a ton of money in your bank account. You could buy a good 501, do the full Garmin panel, paint it, and you still might not be at $1M and you'll have a great airplane.

The savings on the capital expense would cover your operating expenses. $1.5M saved is $150K/year at 10% return. Don't be blind to capital costs. Higher hull values also drive up insurance and taxes.


The 501 hull value is low enough you can self insure if you want to, but I think you can get insurance for it. There seems to be a line at about $1M hull value where things get harder, so if you can stay under that, it will be easier.


That seems backwards to me. If you put the engine program payments into investments, in just a few years you are ahead and have a slush fund to pay for any unscheduled events. If you have no events, which is typical, you are now way ahead.

Given you have a $2.5M capital allocation, you have plenty of buffer for an engine event in the unlikely event you need it.


My rule is never buy a plane you are qualified to fly. I did that once and regretted it.

The type rating is not particularly difficult and a good exercise. It will be a little overwhelming at first, but it becomes easy after a while. Number one thing is to be sharp on instruments and flying by the numbers. If you can't do that, then turbine airplanes are not for you. Flying your SR22 very precisely is good practice now.

If you don't already, go get your multi rating. Easy to get. If that proves hard, then you might want to reconsider the upgrade path.


Both are another level higher than a 501 when all costs are considered.

The twin jet safety is WAY higher than any turboprop, twin or single. If you care about the safety of your passengers, then a twin jet is definitely the way to go. Passengers will like the jet comfort, smoothness, quiet.

Mike C.

Same thing I keep telling Mike, if you are comparing a program airplane vs an airplane with no engine reserves, that is not an equal comparison. Every hour you put on a -66 Pratt cost (someone) $342... period. There is no escaping it.

The Mustang burns less fuel than a TBM and it is faster.

Why more for a hangar? Aircraft are roughly the same size, maybe an FBO charges more because it is a jet... but can't be much.

Insurance is typically cheaper on the Mustang.

I know these numbers, trust me when I say the Mustang is as cheap if not cheaper. The only expensive gotchas on the Mustang is windshields.

You sound like a good candidate for the Eclipse. Plenty of owners have stepped into them from a piston single, including a sizeable handful of Cirrus owners. You can get a very nice one for around $2M, and it would be within your operating budget. A very comfortable 4-person plane, but tight with 5 unless 1 or 2 of them are small. (Most owners leave the middle 2 seats out most of the time, which leaves enough room for the 2 passengers in the back seats to to fully stretch their legs. Seats can be installed or removed in less than 5 minutes once you get the hang of it). Not sure if you're familiar with the Avidyne R9 panel that went into a few late-G2/early-G3 SR22s, but the Eclipse panel is very similar to that. 30kt faster than the Mustang on 60 gal/hr, and parts and support the best they've ever been under most recent company ownership, and getting better.
I managed and flew one for about 5 years. Glad to talk if you're interested.

You sound like a good candidate for the Eclipse. Plenty of owners have stepped into them from a piston single, including a sizeable handful of Cirrus owners. You can get a very nice one for around $2M, and it would be within your operating budget. A very comfortable 4-person plane, but tight with 5 unless 1 or 2 of them are small. (Most owners leave the middle 2 seats out most of the time, which leaves enough room for the 2 passengers in the back seats to to fully stretch their legs. Seats can be installed or removed in less than 5 minutes once you get the hang of it). Not sure if you're familiar with the Avidyne R9 panel that went into a few late-G2/early-G3 SR22s, but the Eclipse panel is very similar to that. 30kt faster than the Mustang on 60 gal/hr, and parts and support the best they've ever been under most recent company ownership, and getting better.
I managed and flew one for about 5 years. Glad to talk if you're interested.

How does the range compare?