How does the range compare?

Yeah I'm not going to beat that dead horse. Like an owner of any other asset, I am only concerned about my cost across the entire timeline of (my) ownership. If an educated buyer thinks that will be less for a twin jet on programs as opposed to a SETP not on programs, I wish them the best of luck.

My Meridian cost me $1000 per hour just in depreciation over my 800 hours. My Phenom has increased in value 60%. Crazy times.

Chip-

Wow, my meridian made me $800 per hr over 500 hrs of use. I doubt my citation will do the same.

That's a lot closer to my TBM than I thought.

To be clear, I said Mustang maintenance is less than the TBM. Year after year. We are having an exceptionally heavy year on the TBM. Part 91 some line items are optional such as the prop overhaul, we already pushed that 1 year.

This expensive year aside, last year was nearly $50k on the TBM vs about $29k on the Mustang (which flew 3x as much). The year before was at least $60k on the TBM, year before I think was around $70k. The parts are NOT cheap on the TBM nor are they necessarily easy to come by new or used.

Scenarios where the Mustang is cheaper even factoring in the engine program:

1. TBM engine grenades
2. HSI is due on the PT6 with findings
3. OH is due

Aside from the engine programs, the mustang line item for line item is nearly equal.

My pitch to prospective buyers is that the Mustang will be nearly the same to own as the TBM and you'll often pay less in maintenance. The difference is the engine programs where you may ultimately end up paying 10-20% more in ownership costs. However for that you get a FADEC aircraft, two engines, G1000, 41,000ft ceiling, 340knot cruise, quieter, smoother, safer, excellent safety record, no need to wear headsets, and I'd argue easier to fly.

To be clear, I said Mustang maintenance is less than the TBM. Year after year. We are having an exceptionally heavy year on the TBM. Part 91 some line items are optional such as the prop overhaul, we already pushed that 1 year.

This expensive year aside, last year was nearly $50k on the TBM vs about $29k on the Mustang (which flew 3x as much). The year before was at least $60k on the TBM, year before I think was around $70k. The parts are NOT cheap on the TBM nor are they necessarily easy to come by new or used.

Scenarios where the Mustang is cheaper even factoring in the engine program:

1. TBM engine grenades
2. HSI is due on the PT6 with findings
3. OH is due

Aside from the engine programs, the mustang line item for line item is nearly equal.

My pitch to prospective buyers is that the Mustang will be nearly the same to own as the TBM and you'll often pay less in maintenance. The difference is the engine programs where you may ultimately end up paying 10-20% more in ownership costs. However for that you get a FADEC aircraft, two engines, G1000, 41,000ft ceiling, 340knot cruise, quieter, smoother, safer, excellent safety record, no need to wear headsets, and I'd argue easier to fly.

What I really like about the Mustang:
1 FADEC. I flew the new M700 with FADEC and really liked it. Easy to start etc.
2. Two engines. AR3 puts you way off shore and while the Pratt is pretty bomb proof, stuff happens.
3. Easy to fly. My SR has the Garmin Perspective. I fly it often and in IMC without hesitation
So I feel comfortable with the G1000. The approach speeds aren’t too high either which surprised me a little. It seems doable other than the insurance. I can get my multi in a few days. It’s not a problem thankfully. I’m going to reach out to my insurance carrier and see what the outlook for insurance is. That will be the first hurdle.

If that looks bad, I can fall back to a 501 and do a bunch of homework on that or put everyone on a serious diet and get an older Meridian to start.

I love reading these passionate discussions. What I conclude from them is that every single airplane mentioned is the absolute best airplane for reasons precisely described by their respective owners.

Don't forget that some people simply don't care so much about what these things cost to own and operate. They want what they want, so they go get it. If newer is nicer, they go buy newer. Textron loves those people. Chip eluded to this earlier with some of his clients that have gone on upgrade binges. For many, the enjoyment of the experience is way more important than the scrutiny of every single cost factor.

When I bought my Mustang 10 years ago, I was originally looking at a King Air. But the Mustang caught my attention because it had the same hourly fuel burn, cruised 100kts faster, flew 11,000' higher, and cost less to maintain. Ten years later, I like it even more. The G1000NXi is awesome. I like it better than the G3000. I came out of a Bonanza, and it's worked out just fine. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to go next level.

I know this is a TBM vs Mustang chat right now, but my Mustang is typically about 50%-70% less in maintenance than my old Piper Meridian

Clint, that’s kind of where I am. I was never considering a jet.I figured they were so far out of my league that I didn’t need to look. The more that I research it, the more it looks like a fun adventure and I need a new project.

When the Mustang was being conceived, it was part of a whole family of airplanes, including two sized singles, two sized coax or combi twins, and a jet. The Mustang was the only one that survived.

Really!

I had never heard this!

Interesting. I have always heard the 510 was supposed to be the beginning of a new line of jets to supersede at least the smaller 525’s.

[quote="Richard Trask"]Getting back to the Mustang….

My path has been PA29->V35B->421->441->MU2->Mustang, with some dabbling with an SR22 along the way for fun. The transition to the Mustang was the easiest of any of those...by a lot. The modern avionics and AP most closely resemble my experience in the SR22, where they are seamlessly integrated rather than bolted on 30 years after the plane was built. I strongly investigated the TBM 850 and loved it, but went with the Mustang for the second engine and flexibility in service ceiling. Some other thoughts...

Speed/ATC/Flight environment - I had already dealt with a lot of these during my steps up, so you may find the initial learning curve a bit steeper, but the Mustang makes the flying part so easy that I doubt you will feel overwhelmed. The simplicity of the actual flying will give you the necessary allowance to focus on these other new elements. Of these, the speed might be the biggest change, but landing speeds are so slow that I don't think it will feel dangerous - just different. Climbing out at 3k fpm in Class B will just take practice and likely true for the TBM as well.

Insurance - I found the biggest struggle was time, not cost. Go spend 2-3 weeks at SIMCOM + fewer mentor hours, or more mentor time after a different training program. My cost was less than the MU2.

Training - Initial was really no different than my turboprop training, but will likely be a big step up from what you've experienced before now. Recurrent is a piece of cake.

Range - this is the biggest drawback of the Mustang vs TBM. During winter, I frequently have to refuel on a 900nm flight into headwinds. That does bother me given the cost of the Mustang, but it sounds like your average mission is more like 600nm. If 600nm was 90% of my flights, I would never sell the Mustang.

Cost - I obviously can't compare to a TBM, but costs have been less than either of my turboprops. I like the engine and parts programs (even though I am sure they ultimately end up more expensive) because it makes budgeting easy. I had several $50k+ surprises each year in both turboprops and would rather overpay for insurance and not think twice about it. Fuel may be the biggest eye opener because I still remember going from the Bo to the 421 and it took me a while to get used to that. Plus, FBOs like to charge you more for a jet just because.

Unknowns - I bought the Mustang rather than an M2 or P100 because I was very nervous about all the unknowns of moving into a jet, so I wanted to dip my toes into the water with the baby of the family. It has been so much better than I expected. I won't go back. Knowing what I know now, I probably would have gone for the M2 instead because I frequently have longer missions that would benefit from that range, but 2x the cost vs a few extra refueling stops is a tough math pill to swallow.

Confidence - If I go a month without flying, I have 0% nerves walking up to the Mustang. I couldn't say that about the MU2 or even the 441. By the end of Initial, I felt more comfortable in the Mustang than I did after two years in the MU2. And if conditions are IFR, I feel way better than I would have in the SR22 despite the amazing technology and get out of jail free parachute card.

I don't think you should shy away from the Mustang just because it's a jet. You've probably read all the posts by Tarver & Co about the simplicity of jets and it's all true - and I assume even more so for the Mustang because it was built with owner/operators like me in mind. I can't envision a scenario where you move up to the Mustang and regret it. I wish I had gone straight from the Bo to the Mustang and saved myself the steps in between.

/\/\ this very closely resembles what we hear from all of our Mustang clients.