BeechTalk - BT - A Comparison of the Cost of Flying Various Airplanes

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 07:14

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus. G1 arnav vs. G5 perspective is a substantial difference. PC12 sn 001 vs PC12 serial now ... very similar functionality.

Disagree mate.

Go fly legacy, go fly NG

Two different airplanes.

Cirrus is a great and phenom of an airplane.

Like the PC12 they have upgraded the avionics, the useful load and added a stick shaker and wing leveler.

Both are innovators coming out with a Jet. PC12's will be better

I think Cirrus has done an incredible job innovating. Vans is also killing it on the 'upgrade' front.

An RV10 will equal a Cirri. Find me an airplane that will equal a PC12.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 09:13

Username Protected wrote:

Sorry, to be clear, I recommend a running a sensitivity analysis using a range of depreciation percentages... Use higher figures than recent historical and if you can stomach the cost for an aircraft which fits your mission and you really want to fly, then go for it.
From an extensive amount of time reviewing lots of historical data in aircraft blue book several years ago, my recollection is roughly for most aircraft:
- In the first 5-7 years depreciation is typically meaningfully high, 5-10% of price new.
- after that it then tends to trail off, to say 5-10% of prior year price
- if the market tanks, everything falls
- old stuff is different...
- certain planes are different (pc-12s appear immune to gravity)

This advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Wish I'd bought that PC-12 I was looking at in 2009 or GE or JPM or any REIT or just about anything traded on an exchange...

I understand your point. And I agree. I think the issue is, in comparing airplanes from a cost point of view, to attempt to use as rational a set of numbers as you can reasonably determine from as unbiased sources as you can find. Then, of course, you have to put the meat cleaver away and get out the scalpel.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 09:16

Username Protected wrote:

Here is another way to look at it.
A plane is a set of compromises. When comparing similar mission and capabilities, the same basic trade offs and design criteria will lead to similar constraints.
The result, the price and the operating costs will tend to similar for any design which is successful and stays in production. Any design which sacrifices cost (initial or ongoing) to much when compared to others in the same basic class will eventually get slaughtered by the market.
Therefore, when comparing the aircraft only three things truly matter when doing an apple to apple comparison:
-- Passengers opinion/comfort
-- Pilot flying preference
-- The actual airframes being compared

All the rest is noise.

I wondered when you'd show up!

So, if you don't care about passengers, the group of airplanes under consideration all have a decent pilot seat (flying preference? They all fly on auto pilot right? :eek:

), then it comes down to money. Money is loud so I get that it's noisy.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 12:10

Username Protected wrote:

If you trim capability, then compare the PC12 against a KA250...

Try again.

Tim

Spear, where you been?

KA250 vs PC12 is a not even a contest.

KA250 with full fuel won't even carry a pilot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 20:39

Username Protected wrote:

If you trim capability, then compare the PC12 against a KA250...

Try again.

Tim

Spear, where you been?

KA250 vs PC12 is a not even a contest.

KA250 with full fuel won't even carry a pilot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 20:40

As for where I have been, in NH and soon to be MA.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 22:31

Username Protected wrote:

Spear, where you been?

KA250 vs PC12 is a not even a contest.

KA250 with full fuel won't even carry a pilot.

Do you really need full fuel to go 800 miles? Go back the OP requirements...

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Dec 2015, 10:01

Ok... I'll throw an "oldie" into your mix. It's larger workload...

Fairchild Merlin IIIC.
If I remember right - burns less fuel than a KA P&W engine. Dash-10 engines TBO 5400 hours with 1 hot section, or 8000 hours (if I remember right) with 2. Take a P&W @ 3600 TBO - the hourly cost difference is huge. Also rebuild costs on the 331 is about $100k less than the P&W.

Acquistion cost - is $750k or less. Training will be more.

Cockpit is very loud due to props zipping right next to your head.

Long Range Cruise about 270 KTAS @ 440 lbs fuel flow (FL280).
High Speed Cruise 300 KTAS / 710 Fuel Flow.

If I remember my math they can fly in long range cruise from Aspen to the East Coast.

my 2 c.

of course selling it again might be tough.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Dec 2015, 10:46

Username Protected wrote:

Ok... I'll throw an "oldie" into your mix. It's larger workload...

Fairchild Merlin IIIC.
If I remember right - burns less fuel than a KA P&W engine. Dash-10 engines TBO 5400 hours with 1 hot section, or 8000 hours (if I remember right) with 2. Take a P&W @ 3600 TBO - the hourly cost difference is huge. Also rebuild costs on the 331 is about $100k less than the P&W.

Acquistion cost - is $750k or less. Training will be more.

Cockpit is very loud due to props zipping right next to your head.

Long Range Cruise about 270 KTAS @ 440 lbs fuel flow (FL280).
High Speed Cruise 300 KTAS / 710 Fuel Flow.

If I remember my math they can fly in long range cruise from Aspen to the East Coast.

my 2 c.

of course selling it again might be tough.

Your numbers are pretty close. My cockpit is quiet enough that I often go 7 hours in cruise without a headset.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Dec 2015, 16:29

Username Protected wrote:

If you trim capability, then compare the PC12 against a KA250...

Try again.

Tim

Spear, where you been?

KA250 vs PC12 is a not even a contest.

KA250 with full fuel won't even carry a pilot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Dec 2015, 16:58

Username Protected wrote:

Spear, where you been?

KA250 vs PC12 is a not even a contest.

KA250 with full fuel won't even carry a pilot.

You can fix the load problem on the king air 250 with paper.

You write the check and get the magic paper that makes you legal to carry more.

Or you can just buy a king air 300 or 350.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 01:04

Always a great option!!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 01:49

Username Protected wrote:

Sorry, to be clear, I recommend a running a sensitivity analysis using a range of depreciation percentages... Use higher figures than recent historical and if you can stomach the cost for an aircraft which fits your mission and you really want to fly, then go for it.
From an extensive amount of time reviewing lots of historical data in aircraft blue book several years ago, my recollection is roughly for most aircraft:
- In the first 5-7 years depreciation is typically meaningfully high, 5-10% of price new.
- after that it then tends to trail off, to say 5-10% of prior year price
- if the market tanks, everything falls
- old stuff is different...
- certain planes are different (pc-12s appear immune to gravity)

This advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Wish I'd bought that PC-12 I was looking at in 2009 or GE or JPM or any REIT or just about anything traded on an exchange...

I understand your point. And I agree. I think the issue is, in comparing airplanes from a cost point of view, to attempt to use as rational a set of numbers as you can reasonably determine from as unbiased sources as you can find. Then, of course, you have to put the meat cleaver away and get out the scalpel.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 02:58

Username Protected wrote:

I would add the Turbo and Jet Commanders to the range of possibilities if I were you.
Corrected

Patrick,

I spent a lot of time considering Commanders. They were built here and an old friend of mine's family financed the company in the early days and he once owned a large repair station here. He knows the history of practically every serial number. We also have a great repair facility here. I think it is a fabulous airplane. But after a lot of investigation I decided it wasn't for me. I'm glad it is working for you.

Similarly, I'm not interested in some of the older MU 2's and other older airplanes that have been suggested.

However, most of this thread's exercise was just to look at at the comparison of cost of planes I find intriguing not necessarily ones I would buy. So, I added the Marquise and Solitaire for someone and the Conquest for someone else. When I have time I'd be happy to look at others.

In the meantime my Cessna rep called offering a screaming deal on a 2010 trade in...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 08:01

Username Protected wrote:

Tony, I am worried, though, that you might be raising the bar for the level of civility in BT discussions of the relative merits of various aircrafts.
These seem to generally devolve into personal attacks, long tone deaf lectures on how great the MU-2 is or twin versus single arguments...

Patrick,

Tony is thoughtful and thorough; that is why he has a Cirrus with a chute. No financial analysis was needed to justify that position....

Tim (let's see if we can now start twenty pages on the merits of a chute and the financial aspects of it)