Well, that's the problem - All things aren't equal! For example, in your case you have significantly more capital tied up in your plane than I do.

I like the Citations a lot, but the "it just costs a little more" logic gets us into a Gulfstream pretty quickly...

Robert

This is wrong. I've flown both and know this.

I think the weather benefits of flying a jet are extremely overblown. In the last 2000 hours, I can only recall stopping once for Weather, and that was an intense squall line from hell that went all the way from Canada to Mexico, and even the airliners were diverting and stopping short. That was a wall up into the 40s. Yeah I spent the night in St. Louis, had dinner with the family and watched some incredible fireworks with my plane safely in the hanger. Even many times when the jet guys think that the weather below is terrible and they’re on top top, we turbo props are flying in between layers in smooth air. This was last week going into Denver at 29,000 feet. There were puffies going up 27/28,000 feet, which was the only reason I was at 29. Tops were in the high 30’s. But I was in clear, smooth air with reported, moderate mountain wave and moderate front range turbulence.

Sunday there were Sigmets, not Airmets for severe turbulence, 18 to 41 and surface to 18,000. But I found smooth air at 26. There was impressive bellyaching from the jet crowd, the whole way from Denver to Santa Anna.

For me, it doesn’t matter how high the head winds are. My fuel burn is so low, that the extra fuel burned is a rounding error.

Getting my popcorn out...hilarious statement.

Getting my popcorn out...hilarious statement.

As above, I’m still trying to figure out how this Jets gonna get me places more reliably from a Weather standpoint than a turboprop. For every trip that I could’ve made in a jet, I bet I’ve made five that I couldn’t do in a jet due to constraints. Whether short field constraints, high and hot constraints, or snow and ice contaminated runway constraints. I stopped short on one flight in over 2000 hours of flight time that I can recall. And I have never been in a situation that made me uncomfortable if it’s dangerous I’m not doing it. On a convective day, we all have to deal with convection in and out of the terminal the same exact way. So we’re basically just talking about enroute weather. There is not much weather of concern in the upper 20s. You’re mainly just talking about convection, and with minor changes in timing, and routing there is almost always a way around that.

Generally true, though perhaps not always for any given flight.

My example flight above in strong headwinds used 438 gallons. I bet a King Air 200 would use as much if not more, and it would be a much worse experience being in the precip and turbulence than on top in the sunshine and mostly smooth air.

You fly more in headwinds than you do in tailwinds. What that means is the faster airplane is better at fuel usage than it appears because it cuts through the wind much better.

My MU2: 290 KTAS at 70 GPH at FL280: 4.14 nm/gal

My C560V: 400 KTAS at 165 GPH at FL400: 2.43 nm/gal

A KA200 (estimate): 265 KTAS at 100 GPH at FL280: 2.65 nm/gal

It is pretty close, it won't take that much headwind to for the jet to be about the same.

Mike C.

I disagree and feel that just about every part of what you said is false or incorrect. Im sure others will chime in, but I went from Meridian, to Mustang, to Ultra...the jets can do all of the missions the turboprop did and many the turboprop could not. The weather considerations are vastly easier to deal with in many, many ways and the comfort level, weather concerns or not is far superior. Why do people need to try to make the case that what they have is "THE BEST". If I could afford a Gulfstream thats what I'd be flying. I can't, but I fly the best airplane that reasonably fits my budget and mission. Im not going to spend hrs of time typing pages of rationale trying to say that my Ultra is better or more capable than a Gulfstream...give me a break. Who are you kidding?

Perfect analysis for my strategy with the MU2. When the winds picked up to about 50 knots, then you could fly lower with less penalty. At 100 knots, there wasn't any penalty.

Mike C.

I used to believe that.

No more.

Icing, IMC, enroute weather are mostly non existent at FL400+.

Yesterday was a good example. A turboprop would be solid IMC, in precip, in turbulence, for a solid 1.5 hours. I was in sunshine, no precip, and mostly smooth.

When you get into the low 40s, you can often find gaps in lines of storms. The air can't be lifting everywhere, so the tops of storms tend to separate at that altitude. And you can see them generally, not like being embedded in the 20s and relying on you weather systems.

Even in the terminal area, the ability to climb crazy fast gets you out of stuff quickly.

Lastly, a 100 nm diversion in a jet is very tolerable if you have to do it. Speed gives more options, including a larger radius for alternates, too.

Mike C.

You win on fuel, no doubt. I suspect if you had flown it "for real", your time would have been ~2:40 and fuel ~1500 lbs since we were not direct and not given unabated climb.

Also, can it do it with 1200 lbs on board? That was my cabin load, 6 people and baggage. I suspect it can since the trip wasn't particularly long range.


Piaggio is unique and impressive.

I wonder if other costs, like inspections, will erode some of the advantages.

Mike C.

I don't own a jet. I've never flown a jet. I haven't even flown a jet on MSFS. I sat in one with Chip recently - that's about as close as I've been. I've topped several lines of weather in the B200 and have been able to go VMC between the buildups in many more.

And yet I am solidly in the "If there's weather to deal with, I want a jet" category.

It's just common sense.

I've been at 21k in the PC12 picking up so much ice that the plane won't climb anymore and my only option was descend or just slog on. I had a flight like this a few weeks ago. This happens fairly rarely, but when it does I'd much prefer to be in the jet.

I fly 425's, 441's, and Citations. If there is significant weather I will take the Citation any day. Until you've had the peace of mind that a jet gives you in that instance, it is hard to compare. Jets just handle weather better, no questioning that.

Sounds like Chuck is just trying to talk himself out of how nice a jet would be. Haha.

No way I want to be down in the weather instead of over.

Last night we came in and flew in a layer for the arrival. When we landed my family commented that was crazy as we have not been in the clouds much this year.

Mike