What’s the cost per hour to fly?

Dry generously 400-500/hr if ur not counting engine reserve which in this scenario by default u wouldn’t. Very limited calendar items such as gear overhaul every 5 years like kingair which at 100/ hrs per year is close to 300/hr in and of itself

Philip:

If the Cheyenne is $500 per hour, that is less than the King Air.

I recall that the Cheyenne is faster than a King air as well. What kind of speed and fuel burn do you see?

KJ

If you don’t count engine reserves the KA is same DOC pretty much.

238-265kts, 380-600pph depending on weight alt and temp. That’s at 705c ITT -28’s considered one of the best pt-6’s. That quote is at a marquee shop too. I actually just sold mine as I am stepping out of aviation all together. Getting into VR flying now.

That is fast. Sounds comparable to the -135, 90 series King Airs.

KJ

You can buy a great Duke for 200 or less. That is substantially less than you’ll pay for a comparable P Baron. The Duke is bigger and more comfortable with a 4.6 pressure differential. Cruise will be around 220 TAS at 40gph. Maintenance will be about the same, and properly run engines with carbide lifters can be reasonably expected to exceed TBO.

The Duke is a ridiculously good bargain in today’s market and is one hell of a solid airplane that you can actually fill with fuel and passengers and fly 1,000 miles or more ad land with an hour reserve.

I don't see that - King Air 90 is a great airplane but has all kinds of money in calendar driven phase inspections and the gear overhaul alone is $30 grand every 6 years. King Air is a terrific airplane but even without engine reserves plan on spending $50 grand per year on maintenance alone. Hard to beat a King Air if you have the checkbook, but the cost delta is real.

Philip is right on - at the prices you can get decent small body Cheyennes (I's and II's) these days I don't think you can buy and operate a pressurized piston twin for noticeably if any less. I am sure I will get some flame action for saying this, but the hassle, cost, and risk of running a pair of highly strung turbocharged pistons (any pressurized piston twin) that may have parts made of unobtanium (Duke) is far worse than you might think. PT-6's look more expensive to start with but they really are not - and are virtually guaranteed to last longer than your ownership of the airplane. Mine (bought at 3100 hours total, will do MORE program and run them to 8000) project out to cost literally half per hour what the TIO-540's would in my Aerostar (and the TIO-540's are the most robust engine in pressurized piston twins IMHO).

A buddy of mine just had one of his engines on his Duke drink a valve...repair cost about as much a BOTH of the hot section inspections put together on my PT6-28's.

My opinion used to be "yes the turbine experience is better, but it costs a lot more also".... now I believe that the costs of buying and operating pressurized piston twins and and entry level turboprops have converged. For now you can buy decent Cheyennes for such low numbers, and they cost similar dollars per MILE for maintenance and fuel that I can't see the case for buying a pressurized piston twin unless the price is very low and it's in top condition without any needs.

MU-2's dipped in price a few years back, then they kinda got re-discovered and have gone back up to numbers where the entry cost makes quite a difference - Cheyennes will probably go back up too, but for now it's a hard case to beat.

I never gave P-Barons much consideration, because from all the data points I had they cost about as much to run as other options but had less speed and cabin space. I think the Aerostar is pretty hard to beat if you're going to do a piston, but at the end of the day pretty much all pressurized piston twins are very similar economics from my experiences, and the Cheyenne is the only entry level turbine that legitimately can be bought and operated for similar dollars. If CapEx is no issue, an MU-2 will run per mile for less than a pressurized piston twin. So I know the OP's question was regarding the piston options - I think they all cost about the same so you might as well pick what you personally like, and if you are truly looking at bang for buck, grab a Cheyenne while the prices are low.

I don't see that - King Air 90 is a great airplane but has all kinds of money in calendar driven phase inspections and the gear overhaul alone is $30 grand every 6 years. King Air is a terrific airplane but even without engine reserves plan on spending $50 grand per year on maintenance alone. Hard to beat a King Air if you have the checkbook, but the cost delta is real.

Philip is right on - at the prices you can get decent small body Cheyennes (I's and II's) these days I don't think you can buy and operate a pressurized piston twin for noticeably if any less. I am sure I will get some flame action for saying this, but the hassle, cost, and risk of running a pair of highly strung turbocharged pistons (any pressurized piston twin) that may have parts made of unobtanium (Duke) is far worse than you might think. PT-6's look more expensive to start with but they really are not - and are virtually guaranteed to last longer than your ownership of the airplane. Mine (bought at 3100 hours total, will do MORE program and run them to 8000) project out to cost literally half per hour what the TIO-540's would in my Aerostar (and the TIO-540's are the most robust engine in pressurized piston twins IMHO).

A buddy of mine just had one of his engines on his Duke drink a valve...repair cost about as much a BOTH of the hot section inspections put together on my PT6-28's.

My opinion used to be "yes the turbine experience is better, but it costs a lot more also".... now I believe that the costs of buying and operating pressurized piston twins and and entry level turboprops have converged. For now you can buy decent Cheyennes for such low numbers, and they cost similar dollars per MILE for maintenance and fuel that I can't see the case for buying a pressurized piston twin unless the price is very low and it's in top condition without any needs.

MU-2's dipped in price a few years back, then they kinda got re-discovered and have gone back up to numbers where the entry cost makes quite a difference - Cheyennes will probably go back up too, but for now it's a hard case to beat.

I never gave P-Barons much consideration, because from all the data points I had they cost about as much to run as other options but had less speed and cabin space. I think the Aerostar is pretty hard to beat if you're going to do a piston, but at the end of the day pretty much all pressurized piston twins are very similar economics from my experiences, and the Cheyenne is the only entry level turbine that legitimately can be bought and operated for similar dollars. If CapEx is no issue, an MU-2 will run per mile for less than a pressurized piston twin. So I know the OP's question was regarding the piston options - I think they all cost about the same so you might as well pick what you personally like, and if you are truly looking at bang for buck, grab a Cheyenne while the prices are low.

The Mooney isn't FIKI......

The Mooney isn't FIKI......

I generally agree with Steve on the King Air 90 maintenance, except, that $30,000 figure for the six-year gear inspection would be if there's little or nothing wrong. We recently completed that inspection and if one is replacing gear legs for corrosion or other issues, you can put a 2X or 3X on that number.

Thanks, did not know that. So the Malibu is the FIKI, pressurized cost of operation winner.

KJ[/quote]

The Malibu may be a better "value" depending on your definition, but the P210 will be the least cost to own and operate. Burns 14.5gph LOP at 180KTAS, engines cost less to overhaul, complexity about the same, a little harder to work on, less cost to purchase in most cases, most parts cost the same or less, turbochargers and exhaust tend to be less troublesome, and less really expensive parts to need to replace, like heated windshields for example. Not to knock the Malibu, but you will tie up less money in a P210 per year and per ownership for comparable hours flown.

Jeff makes good points and knows them well having divorced the P210 for a twin then remarried her later

P210 is the nicest house in a nixon era middle-class neighborhood that ceased building in 1986.

Malibu is the smallest house in a Bush-era high end neighborhood that's still expanding.

A lot here rides on the definition of value. My take - the Malibu has a lot of advantages for not a lot more $$.

Pro's and cons to each. I'd still say that the PA46 has much more ownership commonality with the P210 than a 58P or 340.

You can not compare a Malibu cabin to a P210. You cannot put 6 real adults in a p210 and go somewhere. I did it all the time in the Malibu.

The Malibu comes darn close to personnel airliner territory. My fuel costs round trip were rarely more than airline tickets with even just me in the plane.

Also, the Malibu cabin diff is significantly better. This plays into value.

I also think for an involved owner the maint is not nearly as many in this thread speculate. The typical Malibu owner seemed to be a bit more hands off than an older TN Bo owner, for example. Any local mechanic can work on a Malibu. They are just not that complex. Pressurization just means the cabin is better built and the windshield costs more. That’s the only downside.